RE: Subterranean strategies

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

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Ken Kinman wrote:

> John,
>      But we weren't really discussing what caused the extinctions per se
> (the impact scenario is now pretty widely accepted as a given).

"Given" in the Popperian sense?

> So I do
> agree that answering that question is much simpler.
>      We were addressing the more difficult question of why some groups were
> able to avoid extinction in spite of the devastation caused by the impact.
> To that question there are no single, simple answers.

Unfortunately, the simplicity of extinctions _per se_ is the same thing,
is synonomous with, the complexity of why certain species became
extinct. So, one of those statements must be false.  I mean, if accounting
for why a particular species became extinct is difficult, how do you know
the agent you suspect is the criminal?

>      As for megapodes, they are the sister group to all other galliforms, so
> there's a pretty good chance ancestral galliforms were mound builders.

But mounds need constant attention, i.e., if parents are wiped out so is
clutch.