Re: Diatryma and mammals!

[John Bois <jbois@umd5.umd.edu>]

On Sat, 1 Aug 1998, Ronald Orenstein wrote:

> It's hard to judge without seeing the full paper, but this sounds like
> speculation to me.  Andors states that diatrymids are "eurytropic" (meaning
> capable of tolerating a wide range of conditions, as opposed to
> "stenotropic"),
> then goes on to say that they MAY HAVE BEEN primarily paludal (which means, I
> believe, associated with flooded areas).  Her only evidence cited here is the
> current habitat of screamers, which may be related but are certainly very
> different birds.  If this is the basis for her conclusion about marshes, I
> would describe it as flimsy at best.

Also the coincident disappearance of diatryma and the vast marshy habitats
of the time.

> I'm not saying diatrymids did not prefer swamp forests or swamps - only that I
> haven't heard any DIRECT evidence yet that they did.

Right.

> PS - if diatrymids were indeed eurytropic, that argues against their being
> restricted by mammalian competition - eurytropy is hardly a symptom of
> competitive restriction!

Yes.  I would rather they were paludal.  And thanks for clearing up the
vocab.
John Bois.