Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site bcsaic.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp From: pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: numerous responses Message-ID: <342@bcsaic.UUCP> Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 13:05:10 EDT Article-I.D.: bcsaic.342 Posted: Thu Oct 24 13:05:10 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 03:52:57 EDT References: <438@imsvax.UUCP> Reply-To: pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle Lines: 88 Summary: In article <438@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > > ELEPHANTS > >From Chris Lewis's recent flame: > >>No large animals in Siberia Ted? Ever heard of a Polar bear? Siberian >>Tiger? Caribou? Arctic wolves? Reindeer? Bears? Has it ever >>occurred to you that a Woolly Mammoth was woolly precisely because it >>was COLD? In fact, they probably couldn't survive long in warmer >>climates because they would overheat (remember the volume/surface area >>calculations you were so fond of?) > > My understanding of the basic food chain in the far north is that plankton >live with no need for warmth, little fish eat plankton, big fish eat little >fish, penguins, seals, and eskimos eat big fish, polar bears and killer whales >eat all of above except plankton. Elephants don't figure into any of this; >the finding of mammoth bodies, perfectly preserved, in places which have never >thawed from the day they died to this day (and hence which could not possibly >support mammoths) indicates the occurrence of something very strange. If >mammoths were so well adapted to cold weather, they should still be found in >the arctic; the way to get there from Novo Sibirsk is there, in winter. >Finally, it should be obvious to anybody that caribou and deer migrate somewhat >FASTER than elephants. A herd of mammoths might could survive by migrating >back and forth between Georgia and Maryland, say, but a herd of mammoths trying >to get to Novo Sibirsk from anyplace where they could hope to survive the >winter would not even get there in time to turn back. > At this point I think it would be good for this author to do some basic research on arctic ecology -- permafrost areas in particular. Note: These areas do support vegetation during the breif summer months (at least in the Arctic -- which is what we are discussing for the mega fauna mentioned didn't live in the Antartic...). To begin with, permafrost does not stay frozen to the surface year round. The upper layer melts to various depths during the summer (turning the area into a marshy mess -- navigatable but wet). This upper layer in many portions of the arctic will support plant life -- plant life that grows quiclky and abundantly. Hence the reason for caribou and musk oxen staying in the area. In tundra areas (a major portion of the arctic area) the vegatation is even more lush -- and just the sort that the mammoths liked (it was just such vegetation that was found in their tummys -- not anything remotely tropical...). I don't find the scarce food argument viable. (For those unfamilar with the Arctic ecology try checking into the Britannica Encyclopedia - it has an adequate section on the Arctic, Mammoths and permafrost areas.) Now as for the New Siberian Islands (Novo Sibirsk), I can only speculate since I do not know the age of the fossil finds there. If they are of an age around 15000 to 12000, then winter is the only way they could have gotten there. These islands are on a part of the continental margin that may have been emergent at that time and they could have walked. (North America and Russia were connected by a land bridge during and just after the ice ages for the water level was lowered when the ice sheets tied a good portion of the world's water. Note: the rise and fall of the oceans in response to these conditions are well documented and play a big part in the oil companies search for oil. The evidence works remarkably well.(Look under the reference of Seismic Stratigraphy for more information -- Peter Vail's works are a good place to start.)) Somehow I still feel that Ted's assumptions are still too uneducated and lack a certian reliable base. I wish that there were more evidence for at least going to an ecology text to see what is up in the Arctic to live off of before relying on memory (I'd also like to see the references referred to on these.) > > MORE ON GLIDING AGAINST THE WIND ETC. > >Note to Pam Pincha-Wagoner on gliding: > >You seem to have missed the entire section on pterosaurs in my long "ultrasaur" >article. Check out Adrian Desmond's "Hot Blooded Dinosaurs", page 182 and >thereabouts, for more on the limits of size for flying creatures. > I didn't miss it. I didn't agree with it in your context. There were such creatures. They were not all the huge size. Most were of a quite reasonable size that could quite easily fly the way we described. I'm personally tired of the "I can't believe it could.... therefore let's totally change nature and the universe to make it fit" argument. Especially built on the assumption that all previous scientific evidence is wrong... :-( The comments I've read so far don't even scratch the surface of the evidence to the contrary. All I've read is pseudoscience with little grip on reality. It's a shame. (Small flame.... Sorry) P.M.Pincha-Wagener