[HN Gopher] Fossil hints that Jurassic mammals lived slow and di...
___________________________________________________________________
Fossil hints that Jurassic mammals lived slow and died old
Author : Petiver
Score : 93 points
Date : 2024-07-24 23:27 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| tamimio wrote:
| https://archive.is/ZKg4B
| BWStearns wrote:
| I wonder if the harsh post impact environment selected for small,
| short lived creatures due to the lower caloric energy
| requirements, and faster genetic iteration speed respectively. If
| your environment is particularly hostile with low resources then
| taking many small bets quickly might be the favored play.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| It would be interesting to know what the climate was too. If
| these animals hibernated or slowed their metabolism during cold
| periods it would help explain their longevity.
| CoolGuySteve wrote:
| Scotland was around 35 degrees latitude and the Jurassic
| period was fairly warm compared to now (tropical plants are
| found up to 60 degrees latitude) so it's unlikely there was a
| winter to hibernate through.
|
| However there was significantly more oxygen in the atmosphere
| back then. There could be a metabolic component related to
| that since absorbing O2 was probably easier.
| fhars wrote:
| We have no idea when that transition happened, though, and if
| it is related to the impact. The time from when these animals
| lived in the Jurassic to the impact at the end of the
| Cretaceous is considerably longer than the time from the impact
| until today, much could have happened inbewteen.
| cworsley4 wrote:
| "Fossils"
| layer8 wrote:
| Yeah, I was reading it as the VCS for a moment there.
| plutomeetsyou wrote:
| Is it possible due to the more oxygen rich environment during the
| jurassic era?
| K0balt wrote:
| It seems logical that a faster Metabolism, quicker to reach
| reproductive viability organism would frequently outcompete
| slower variants In the same biome niche.
| vanderZwan wrote:
| Not really, since a faster metabolism requires more energy
| upkeep, and food scarcity has always been one of the biggest
| selection criteria in nature.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| Metabolically slow ambush predators (some snakes, spiders, etc)
| can also do extremely well in a given niche, and some of these
| strategies are ancient.
| Saturdays wrote:
| the predominant theory is that the length of an organism's
| lifespan is inverse to the rate of it's metabolism. Look into
| Kleiber's law. Also worth reading the book Scale by Geoffrey
| West.
| jerf wrote:
| There are also advantages to being slower. Check out
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%2FK_selection_theory , which I
| reference historically and encompasses also the discussion on
| Wikipedia about subsequent refinements of the theory.
| cvaidya1986 wrote:
| Mammals were the startups of the Jurassic era ( just survive and
| you might end up being huge later )
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-25 23:12 UTC)