Re: [Re: The Cretaceous Middle-East]

[dbensen <dbensen@gotnet.net>]

>>The real difference would be potential.  Suppose, for example, these animals
were removed to a place where it was possible to grow much larger and start
the elaborate behaviors mentioned in another post.  Just as a goldfish can
turn into a carp, imagine that these transplanted beasts start to get larger
and toothier and can re-express behaviors and physical attributes that had
atrophied.<<
Careful.  That's getting a little beyond belief.  I think gold fish have been
bred for their ability to adapt to tiny bowls.  To take a small, adult dinosaur
and put it on a plain and have it quadruple (or more) in mass stretches
credibily.  However,  I can imagine, perhaps, a two-teird life cycle, with the
baby carnivores living like little pigions on the streets of a Yemen village and
then scurrying back to the velts where they undergo puberty and grow into big
adults.  Tyrannosaurs had babies that were very gracile and coelurosaur-like,
perhaps such a metamorphosis was taken to extremes in the present-day
dinosaurs.  Yes, that would make sence.  The babies fill the niche of a small
ground-predator.  If food is scarce, those babies don't grow very much as they
mature.  However, if food is plentiful, the babies gorge and grow tremendous.

Dan