Re: elephants (was Re: Tropical fish and Triceratops, a question of intellect.)

[Betty Cunningham <bettyc@flyinggoat.com>]

Matin is quite correct.  
I'd like to point out that the elephant lives WITHIN an anvironment
where the destruction the elephant caused was PART of a growth cycle.  
Elephants support a HUGE ecosystem as the top of a pyramid-they may
destroy a baobab for water in the pulp but they also distribute it's
seeds to locations the baobab fears to tread.

Similar 'destruction required' are the North American forests and
prairie plants that are fire-dependant to trigger new growth.

It's very likely that you get better redwood forests with sauropods
clearing out the root-unstable trees.  And there's always sauropood
poo...

-Betty

> Martin Barnett wrote:
> > Elephants have a reputation for damaging their environment only because
> > their environment is coveted by man.
> 
> Only?  Not quite.  Humans interfere with elephant migration patterns and
> that constricts elephant ranges such that the effects of their behavior
> become much more pronounced, but even under ideal circumstances they
> have a heavy impact on their environment.  Generally, an area visited by
> elephants needs years, if not decades, to fully recover.

> > Before man, the elephant was not too big for it's environment,
> > therefore I fail to see how a Triceratops (I love the name too) herd
> > would be.
> 
> I agree here.  If they have huge amounts of room to move around and
> establish migratory patterns which take years to complete they'd do
> fine.  Same with sauropods.


-- 
Flying Goat Graphics
http://www.flyinggoat.com
(Society of Vertebrate Paleontology member)
-------------------------------------------<,D,><