Re: late night thoughts: misunderstand what?4

[don ohmes <d_ohmes@yahoo.com>]

Another good question.

"if the small saurpods co-existed with mega-theropods, how is that a refugia?"

It is reasonable to assume the large bipeds had to be careful about their 
footing. Eg, how steep a grade can a 2m human climb without using the hands? 
Not very. Also, soft ground must have been a huge problem. If you don't believe 
it, go for a hike in a swamp, without using your hands. There may have been 
large areas of refugia that were available to quads in many environments. In 
other words, a basic quadruped vs biped advantage. Other possible refugia 
(albeit temporary perhaps) include, as previously mentioned, prolificity, low 
predator density, or even they just tasted bad.

Don

----- Original Message ----
From: Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu; andreasj@gmail.com; d_ohmes@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:47:48 AM
Subject: Re: late night thoughts: misunderstand what?4


>On 6/20/07, don ohmes <d_ohmes@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You seem to be saying that for every large sauropod in the fossil
> > record, I must produce a large theropod of exactly the "predicted" size
> > and exactly the "predicted" age, or the concept of size race is invalid. 
>The level of specific proof you require is not
> > now and never will be available from the fossil record, in my opinion.
>
>That's not what I'm saying at all. I asking you to provide an example
>of co-occuring sauro and thero lineages increasing in size in tandem
>
>.............. which requires evidence from the fossil record, of the type 
>I described.

so, you admit you have no evidence.


>Now you're not making any sense at all - *Tyrannosaurus rex*, the best
>known giant theropod bar none, is from that time and place. What's not
>known from that time and place is a seriously big *sauropod*.
>
>............pick a big sauropod, any big sauropod. Gosh, good one.

Seismeosaurus?  Brachiosaurus?  Diplodocus?

come on, even I (not wise in the names of dinosaurs) can name big sauropods.


>A continuous size race, by definition, means a continuous size
>increase. A continuous size increase did not occur. Ergo, there was no
>continuous size race.
>
>This is elementary logic. Why is it so hard for you to understand?
>
>..........I am just really, really dumb. And simplistic. Why else would I 
>do this? What you describe below, after the words "fallacy of..." is what I 
>call a continuous size race. I also never said that ALL theros drove all 
>sauros, or vice versa. Not quite that simplistic.

okay.....WHAT theropods drove WHAT sauropods?


>If the little guys where restricted to refugia, the smallish
>camarasaurs wouldn't be the most common sauropod fossils in the
>mega-thero'-infested Morrison formation, nor would saltasaurines be so
>common in the Late Cretaceous. The only reasonable conclusion is that
>the "little guys" were able to coexist with mega-thero's.
>
>........ why not? Refugia can have excellent preservation, or none at all.

if the small saurpods co-existed with mega-theropods, how is that a refugia?


> > Which reminds me; how many of the smaller species have a long enough 
>presence in the record to prove that they weren't also increasing in size?
>
>Some no doubt did increase in size, but clearly some didn't, because
>we find small sauropods all the way from the Triassic to the end
>Cretaceous.
>
>.......... a single species, shown to maintain small size over a reasonable 
>time span?

1.  how do you define "a reasonable time span"?

2.  how do you define "a single species"?

_________________________________________________________________
PC Magazine’s 2007 editors’ choice for best Web mail—award-winning Windows 
Live Hotmail. 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507