Miscellaneous desk
< August 23	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 24

Prehistoric Animals - Size

Why did so many species of prehistoric animals grow to such enormous physical size?64.223.97.19 (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though none are as large as the largest modern animal, the blue whale, it should be noted, which is the largest animal to have ever lived. The Wikipedia article titled Megafauna does have some information on factors believed to lead to large animals. --Jayron32 01:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ward hypothesizes that Dinosaurs had more efficient breathing apparatuses. His Out of Thin Air is interesting, if extremely speculative. μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's some stuff at the article for Meganeura, the largest dragonfly known. Some of the links may also be useful. Matt Deres (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There also is a significant sampling bias. The bigger an animal, the more robust its bones, and hence the more likely they are to survive (and the easier they are to find). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but there's no denying Meganeura ain't flitting about any swamps these days and no recent land animals have come close to the largest dinosaurs, but I agree we can fall into the trap of thinking everything back then was larger. I'm trying to recall the name of the hypothesis that certain body plans simply have particular limits as to how far they'll scale upwards (i.e. why some canids are large, but could never reach the size of the largest felids, for example). If the OP is interested in the megafaunal mammals we no longer have around, Holocene extinction might be of interest. Matt Deres (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J B S Haldane's essay On Being the Right Size is a famous discussion of the problem, but I don't know if goes into details such as size of canids vs felids. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My assumption is that was being used as an hypothetical example. Bears are canids, and the largest extant carnivores. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small clarification, bears are Caniformia (and thus Carnivorans), but they are not Canids. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) What?!? No! Bears aren't either canids or the largest carnivores! Great white sharks and Killer whales are both much larger - and are most certainly carnivorous (as any seal will be only too happy to explain!). Not all carnivores are canids! Blue whales almost exclusively eat krill - so they too are extant carnivores and beyond all doubt the largest carnivores, extant or otherwise. Even if you want to restrict yourself to animals of the order carnivora, the elephant seal is easily five times larger than either polar or grizzly bears. Bears aren't even canids - they are Caniformia and Ursoidea. Canids are wolves, dogs and foxes. SteveBaker (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Easy on the exclamation points there :) I think Medeis knows most of what you wrote, s/he probably just meant that bears are the larges extant terrestrial Carnivorans (which I think is true...). SemanticMantis (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and SemanticMantis's terminological correction was also right. The entirety of the Carnivora are divided into the Canoidea and the Feloidea, with bears in the dog-like suborder. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But members of the sub-order "Caniformia" (aka Canoidea) are not "Canids" - that term refers to members of the family Caniformia/Canidae - which doesn't include the bears who are Caniformia/Ursidae. Caniformia/Canidea are dogs, wolves and foxes. Bears are not, therefore "the largest canids" because they aren't canids...they aren't even the largest Caniformia (that honor belongs to the elephant seal)...which means that they also aren't the largest Carnivora - nor yet the largest "carnivore" (which is the blue whale). Bears aren't the largest anything, really! So, it's not just a semantic mistake - your entire post was flat out wildly incorrect in at least three ways! SteveBaker (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bears are the largest land carnivores, and you need a sedative, friend. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that (by definitions of "land carnivore" that carefully exclude elephant seals) your latest statement may be true - but that's not remotely close to what you told our OP. And beware WP:NPA...unless that was medical advice. A simple "Sorry, I was wrong" would work better. :-P SteveBaker (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your question includes the massive insects we used to have, this explains that their respiratory systems work on diffusion, and the lower oxygen concentration in today's air just isn't enough to support a dog-sized dragonfly. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Higher oxygen content of air?