Re: Cretaceous taeniodont

["Richard W. Travsky" <rtravsky@uwyo.edu>]

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, John Bois wrote:
> [...]
> The stock answer is that bigger is better in terms of energetics.  But I
> reject this since, if you look at a non-log graph of this function, there
> is basically no benefit above horse size.  A better hypothesis is nest
> defense.  Mammals can run away with their baby inside.  Dinosaurs had to
> stay (presumably) and protect a single location for up to 3 months.  This
> necessitates armed combat.

Multi month stays? How many species do we know that we can say this about? 
Would not large species, especially a large group, strip the area of food?
Would lay-and-forget be more perdominant?
 
> > [...]
> But dinosaurs were not operating as a _team_.  And one could say that
> dinos just above mammals size only possessed BBs, too.  Why didn't mammals
> move into that niche?  I think the answer is in the dinosaur vs. mammalian
> life history/body plan.

As a team no but as a herd perhaps.