Re: attack on dinosaur--horrific video

[john bois <jbois@verizon.net>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: "DML" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: attack on dinosaur--horrific video


> I repeat: By your logic the two species of *Repenomamus*, not to mention
> *Gobiconodon*, triggered a mass extinction among egg-layers. How is it
> possible that they didn't?

I am not arguing against the overwhelming evidence for environmental effects
at the boundary.  However, though predation on nests and hatchlings has
always been present, the intensity of that predation has varied over time.
I am strongly arguing that traits of predatory species affect this
intensity; that placental mammals since their appearance have had a large
influence on the structure of communities through predation on unprotected
or unconcealed nests!  And, finally, the co-occurence of placentals with the
extinction of large egg layers, the relaxation of size contraints on
placentals at that time, and their tyrannical ecological influence since
then--all these things keep the window open for suggestion of an additional
influence at the boundary.  Yet, despite the controversial nature of that
claim, I am far more interested in the ecological inferences that may be
approached when comparing today's ecosystems with those of the Mesozoic.

> If the answer lies somewhere in "very different creatures", then please
> elaborate.

I hate to use such fait accomli arguments such as: placentals are the 
dominant form of mammal; their characteristics may have had something to do 
with this.  Ask any mother how she would feel about having to choose between 
leaving baby home alone or never leaving home--then you have the choices 
available to egg laying mammals (presumably *Repenomamus*); then ask another 
mother how she would feel if her baby were to be denied the extra time in 
utero for brain development and that the brief time spent inside her body 
had to be spent developing not sensory or info-processing ability, but 
rather arm strength and sucking power so that the little tyke could crawl 
out as an embryo and attach itself to her nipple for 9 months.  Indeed, 
placentalism has its advantages: two that may relate to current discussion: 
mothers and fathers can both forage (because neither has to stay at the 
nest)--this means twice the number of predators on your nest; greater brain 
size/processing power (see above for how this is possible) gives greater 
flexibility in decision making.

> Crocodiles nest on unprotected riverbanks, with themselves as the only
> protection.

Tres formidable, non?
Like saying a tiger is no threat except for its teeth and claws.

> And indeed, their nests often are raided in the middle of the
> day.

Yes...when the parent is away.

> How is it possible that they are still with us?

They are the exception...because they are exceptional: semi-aquatic niche 
gives home-field advantage; they see at night (are practically nocturnal!!); 
many would-be predators don't like getting wet or eaten (e.g., bird species 
use tree above alligator nesting sites for protection against racoons); silt 
river banks make poor burrows for predators; predatory threat can only come 
from 180 degrees not 360; each of many hatchlings represent less 
reproductive effort than dinosaur hatchlings (and are therefore more 
expendable).  I view archosaur success as dependent on parental investment, 
and that an interesting hypothesis is that this PI increased from crocs to 
dinosaurs with its zenith in birds--but that relative to most birds, croc 
babies are low maintenance.  This allows excess production of offspring to 
offset intense predation.

But today is Thanksgiving in the US...and I am an invested parent...I must 
attend to my reproductive output.  One thing I will give thanks for as I sit 
down to dine on a dinosaur today, is my placental life style.