| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Why did mammals take over? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 19 2012, 12:04 PM (5,722 Views) | |
| Nergigante | Dec 16 2016, 11:28 AM Post #61 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What wrong with what I said? there is nothing wrong with that question, but his question sounds as if mammals should had not had a chance to be the dominant terrestrial animals, its not the question that bothers me, its the way he expressed, its too vague to me. Comments like these sound as if they are agreeing with him.
I have problems identifying the way people write things, like being sarcastic or angry. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Dec 16 2016, 11:34 AM Post #62 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's not a vague question at all....
....no it doesn't. and there is no additional meaning to the question; these replies are three to four years ago, hardly anything to try and reply to. |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Dec 16 2016, 11:41 AM Post #63 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But it doesn't sound like it. Let's look at what I said again: "Of all animals, why did the mammals become the most dominant land animals after the extinction of the dinosaurs? Why not crocodiles, lizards, birds, snakes, etc.?" I basically asked "why did the mammals become the dominant land animals and not other animals?". You could easily take this to mean "what is it that allowed the mammals to become dominant?". Don't overthink it; it's not any deeper than this. |
![]() |
|
| Nergigante | Dec 16 2016, 11:44 AM Post #64 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is to me as I have a reading problem...
How was I supposed to now?
These comments were made by the same guys who kept repeating something similiar for one or two years, they might not be as active as before, but their comments represent of what they were thinking before, I have no reason to believe that they changed their opinion over time.
I read it wrong then, sorry about that, the question is very interesting so its hard to not overthink it. Edited by Nergigante, Dec 16 2016, 11:49 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Dec 16 2016, 11:50 AM Post #65 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I guess it is hard to not overthink it but still; there's no reason in replying if they're inactive because well...........they won't reply.
Edited by Ceratodromeus, Dec 16 2016, 11:51 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Nergigante | Dec 16 2016, 12:03 PM Post #66 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
true, but that does not make the comment any less irritating when its continuously repeated throughout different threads, but I have to cope with these comments every time I try to read something that I am interested in this forum as they are not gonna reply back. Edited by Nergigante, Dec 16 2016, 12:04 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| zergthe | Dec 16 2016, 12:19 PM Post #67 |
![]()
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This is an interesting subject...I'm leaning towards a combination of possible factors. For example, perhaps their relatively/comparatively smaller size came in handy, or their comparatively fast growth rates, or them being warm-blooded and dependent on only their own energy production, etcetera etcetera. It could also just be simple as right place, right time. IMO, a paper on this would make a very interesting read. Off topic, but did anyone else notice how many replies there were before I posted? 65. Coincidence? I think not
Edited by zergthe, Dec 16 2016, 12:20 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ceph | Dec 16 2016, 02:11 PM Post #68 |
![]()
Piscivore
![]()
|
Right place at the right time is the right answer. It's simple evolution. A nitch exist, it is filled by a large dominant species. A change occurs, the large dominant species can no longer thrive. Species better equipped to survive the change thrive. Eventually they develop, diversify, and fill the empty nitch. Perhaps a bit over simplified but it is still pretty clear. It is not by "virtue of being mammals", but by thriving in conditions that other groups could not. Similar events have placed other animals on the throne through the ages and mammals will likely be replaced as well.
Edited by Ceph, Dec 16 2016, 02:15 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Finderskeepers | Dec 16 2016, 04:09 PM Post #69 |
![]()
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Two possibly three reasons. 1:Viviparity 2:Endothermy 3:Adaptability Honestly I don't see why its so complicated. |
![]() |
|
| Nergigante | Dec 16 2016, 04:13 PM Post #70 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I like the bird's chances if a mass extinction happens, they outnumber mammals so chances of bird species surviving is higher, I do not even know if bird size is affected by its enviroment or its body limits, they can survive in both hot and cold climates, feathers can work for cooling and feathers trap air to provide warmth. if large terrestrial large birds existed, then there is the pontential of similiar birds existing again to fill the niches. ![]() ![]() Penguins in my opinion, could become filter feeders like Ichthyosaurs and baleen whales. ![]() Edited by Nergigante, Dec 16 2016, 04:14 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Grazier | Dec 16 2016, 07:13 PM Post #71 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think it comes down to versatility and adaptability, after hundreds of millions of years of changing conditions on earth eventually animals that could best adapt to that change would flourish, all the while shooting off short-lived specialists as well. |
![]() |
|
| Nergigante | Dec 16 2016, 11:21 PM Post #72 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Rodents also have a chance, rodents reproduce very quickly and are small enought to maintain themselves if food is scarce. |
![]() |
|
| M4A2E4 | Dec 17 2016, 12:55 AM Post #73 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
After the dinosaurs went extinct the birds, crocodiles and mammals all submitted competing designs for what would eventually take over as the "dominant" terrestrial life forms. The birds were handicapped by their ancestry as strictly flying creatures; the adaptations for flight translated rather poorly into a terrestrial lifestyle where they had to directly compete against other terrestrial life forms. The birds couldn't "unevolve" this baggage either, such as lacking actual teeth, which is probably very important for a dominant apex predator. The only exceptions are the ratites, which generally benefited from the birds' lightweight body features and allowed them to accelerate very quickly on land and avoid other predators; but yet are still handicapped by a digestive system that is meant to be lightweight and process food quickly, but is ultimately very inefficient compared to a ruminant stomach that many mammals have.... and they can't chew their food. Also being forced to lay eggs on the ground kinda sucks. The crocodiles tried with several terrestrial forms which I've seen referred to as "hoofed crocodiles". I'm actually not sure why they didn't succeed; in tropical and semitropical areas of the world a design like that must surely still be formidable even by today's standards. Presumably the terrestrial crocodiles would still have similar drawbacks of poor stamina that would render them extremely vulnerable and easy to exploit if exhausted or if at an unoptimal temperature. Also crocodiles don't have a really effective way to thermoregulate outside of water, so on land they would tire easily and overheat easily when in competitive squabbles with mammals, and then if they'd cool down in the water they'd get into competitive squabbles with modern, semiaquatic crocodiles. Perhaps the land crocodiles found themselves in a bad place of trying to compete against land mammals and semiaquatic crocodiles at the same time, while not being as good at either niche as either one of them. I guess the other reptiles tried too. Snakes only really became a very diverse group of animals after the mammals also diversified, and they probably only became diverse and successful because of mammals and how their soft, fatty, nutritious and delicious offspring are nurtured underground were a pretty good springboard for a primitive grub-eating snake like a blindsnake to transition to eating small mammals like a rubber boa. As it stands there were some semi-successful proposals for this group, like gigantophis and whatever that giant 15-foot viper was called. There are some narrow circumstances where reptiles actually are arguably dominant over mammals: there's a tossup between the dumeril's boa and fossa on Madagascar, there was a tossup between the marsupial lion and megalania, there would be a tossup between the tasmanian tiger and large monitor lizards if dingoes were not introduced, there are narrow sections of South America where the Argentine boa is dominant [principally where there are no pumas], in parts of the Congo where there are no lions the African rock python is the largest land predator [supposedly larger than the leopards and other carnivores there]. |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Dec 17 2016, 03:09 AM Post #74 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The phorusrhacids (which incidentally competed with toothed mammalian and crocodylomorph predators) suggest that this is not true. |
![]() |
|
| SquamataOrthoptera | Dec 17 2016, 03:11 AM Post #75 |
![]()
15 year old keyboard warrior!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I belive its becaues of lack of large herbavourous Reptiles alive today. The carnivores of Reptiles are certainly on par woth the Mammalian predators. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Zoological Debate & Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://b2.ifrm.com/28122/87/0/p701956/pipright.png)












2:09 AM Jul 14