Re: Gallery and Commentary for Copenhagen Mamenchisaurus

[Amtoine Grant <ajgrant@eastlink.ca>]

> . . . But they fail to mention that the energetics of locomotion, 
> fricition from an elongated respiratory tract, and increased calories 
> needed just to support that much extra mass far outways the advantage 
> of being able to "stand still" during feeding.

Of course, that would depend on how plentiful your food source is 
where/while your are standing still. We can't realistically imagine it 
because a lot of the Earth's vegetation has been gone from where we are 
since before we got here - cities everywhere and growing deserts that 
used to be 'rainforests'. And don't most living plants, at least where 
the season's change, as in America, have plants that go through seasons 
with explicit times when they do NOT grow and have to start all over 
next year? Back if them dinosaur days, it's very widely agreed that the 
weather was QUITE more warm and humid, which would have naturally 
spawned more plant life/vegetation/food/cover than today. AND, so much 
land is covered by grass now - it seems to not take long too establish 
itself.
I hope I'm not rambling. But given all this - off the top of my head, 
doesn't this actually give more credence to the extinction theory/ies, 
with widespread vegetation certainly not used to, or expecting a few 
thousand year cold/dark age have a very unrealistic chance of surviving 
as well? As a result, I couldn't imagine ANY sauropod surviving such a 
devastation in their 'used to be' plentiful food supply, unless some 
parts of the world were left relatively untouched since, like that The 
Day After Tomorrow movie.
Maybe I'm ranting, but in a nutshell - no living animal bears a direct 
'lifestyle/structural' resemblance to  sauropods, so why can't this be 
same for their food which may not have any surviving family members, as 
least on such a scale OR spectrum.