Re: Feathers for S excretion...and tennis balls

[TomHopp@aol.com]

Steve Brusatte writes:

<Kidneys seem to suffice in modern mammals, even insectivorous ones. Do 
insectivorous mammals have more hair than carnivorous or herbivorous ones?  
Is the hair of insectivorous, and therefore sulfur-ingesting, mammals more 
laden with sulfur than the hair of carnivorous or herbivorous mammals?>

I'm starting to feel we have whipped this dead horsefly as far as we can. 
Reason? Because the questions above are great ones -- given that insects are 
a high source of sulfur. But somewhere about a million posts back, I hope I 
mentioned the REAL reason I am so skeptical of this hypothesis.
   In the ten-thousand or so articles I have read (and written) in 
biochemistry, I have NEVER seen it mentioned that insects are anything other 
than a NORMAL source of dietary sulfur. Where did Reichholf come up with his 
basic datum anyway? I think it is wrong. Insects are NOT high sulfur 
creatures. And if that assessment is correct, then this whole thread is based 
on . . . . . . . . . what?


Thomas P. Hopp
Author of DINOSAUR WARS, a science fiction novel published by iUniverse
Now Humans are the Endangered Species!  http://members.aol.com/dinosaurwars