# Dinosaur extinction and proliferation of mammals



## j d worthington (Apr 4, 2007)

There may be much less of a connection than they'd thought...

Study: Dinosaur demise didn't spur species - Yahoo! News

Title: "Study: Dinosaur demise didn't spur species", from AP, by Malcolm Ritter, datelined Wed., Mar. 28, 2007:



> Scientists who constructed a massive evolutionary family tree for mammals found no sign of such a burst of new species at that time among the ancestors of present-day animals.
> 
> Only mammals with no modern-day descendants showed that effect.
> 
> ...


----------



## gigantes (Apr 4, 2007)

interesting.

perhaps the harsh conditions that caused the dinosaur extinction also limited the expansion of new mammalian species?


----------



## Chupacobra (Apr 10, 2007)

gigantes said:


> perhaps the harsh conditions that caused the dinosaur extinction also limited the expansion of new mammalian species?


 
I don't know...surely any such 'harsh' conditions would just lead to the evolution of mammals able to exploit the prevailing conditions?


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 21, 2007)

Well, the question certainly remains open:

Mammals burst on the scene after dinosaurs' exit - Yahoo! News

Title: "Mammals burst on the scene after dinosaurs' exit", from Reuters, by Julie Steenhuysen, datelined Wed., June 20, 2007.


----------



## The Ace (Jun 21, 2007)

The effect wasn't immediate, remember.  The extinction of c70% of all life created a bit of a scramble where the mammals eventually came out on top, but the crocodiles and the birds both took a crack at dominance.  It was very much a race with the sprinters falling by the wayside as the eventual winners made slow but steady progress.


----------



## Rawled Demha (Jun 21, 2007)

Chupacobra said:


> I don't know...surely any such 'harsh' conditions would just lead to the evolution of mammals able to exploit the prevailing conditions?


 
which would be larger mammals, warm blooded, that could store energy from food rather than the cold-blooded giant reptiles that were dinosaurs. 

there probably were mammals about before the disaster, but i think i remember something about shrews being the largest. and with the "niche in the market" as it were, that came with the fall of the dinosaurs, mammals were allowed to evolve to greater prominence....or in other words mammals able to exploit harsh conditions evolved...


----------



## HardScienceFan (Jun 21, 2007)

oo you automatically assume dinosaurs were coldblooded,then?


----------



## Rawled Demha (Jun 21, 2007)

im not sure if that's a tongue in cheek or not....

if it isnt - yes i do (although i may be makin an ass of myself) but i thought dinosaurs=reptiles=coldblooded....

if it is - lol, and i still do - they would kill indiscriminately merely for food, the barbaric, bloodthirsty _cold-blooded_ animals...


----------



## HardScienceFan (Jun 21, 2007)

I am never tongue in cheek
Dinosaur ecology is far from simple.
Robert T Bakker:The Dinosaur Heresies
and he's not the only one


----------



## Rawled Demha (Jun 21, 2007)

so what, did we have warm blooded dinosaurs then?

yow! thats amazin - jus looked it up on wikipedia - i never knew that!

Robert T. Bakker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------

