[C.S.] Testament Background III

mythusmage

Banned
Banned
Placental Mammals Debut

With the exception of rodents, whales, seals, and sea lions every major group of placental mammals first appeared during the age of dinosaurs. A number very early in the history of the order. Where once it was thought that diversification didn't really start until after the dinosaurs had gone extinct, it is now understood that the placental mammals (hereafter, just 'mammals) began to diversify soon after their appearance in the early Jurassic, and began the great radiation in the Middle Cretaceous.

For most of this time mammals were mostly small insectivores. But there were a few that had other diets, and some did get to a (for a primitive mammal) substantial size. In the Middle Cretaceous larger mammals began to appear, omnivores for the most part, but with some herbivores and carnivores in the mix. It is around this time that the dinosaurs began to die off. In the period between the Middle Cretaceous and the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary entire genera and families of dinosaurs became extinct. Mammals began to diversify, taking advantage of the new environments opening up for them.

[sidebar]
The Troodon

This animal first appeared in the Late Cretaceous. Not the first nocturnal dinosaur to evolve, it was the first one to evolve outside either of the polar regions. It was nocturnal because it hunted mammals, a nocturnal bunch at the time. It became possible for the troodon to exist because by the Late Cretaceous because mammals were now plentiful and active in the open, whereas before they had rare and tended to remain hidden. As you can see, where dinosaurs were going extinct in general, there were new species evolving to take advantage of the changing conditions.[/sidebar]

Conditions were changing. Pangea -the super continent who's formation had been instrumental in the Permian Extinction- was now breaking up. It had started in the Late Jurassic with the split between Laurasia and Gondwana. Now Australia/Antarctica, Madagascar, and what are now the Seychelles were starting to go their own way. Up north the nascent Atlantic Ocean was starting to appear between North America and Eurasia. The dinosaurs had evolved under much different conditions. Back when they first arose Earth's climate was hot and humid, with a substantially higher percentage of oxygen than today. But the start of the Cretaceous the climate was cooler and drier, with a lower oxygen concentration. Evolved for more 'salubrious' conditions a number of dinosaur groups went extinct, to be replaced by new dinosaurs better able to survive the changes. It is only in South America/Africa that the sauropods and stegosaurs manage to survive, along with the (comparatively) primitive theropods. In the north they were replaced by the hadrosaurs, ceratopsians, and tyrannosaurids, with dromaesaurids taking the place of earlier small predatory dinosaurs. It is at this time that the largely reptilian dinosaurs (but more advanced reptiles than any around today) became more avian in biology and behavior. Indeed, had such as the microraptors survived to modern times, we'd likely know them as birds.

For mammals things were starting to look up. More environments to occupy, more territories. Some became diurnal, a number larger in size. More took up eating foods other than bugs. But, inheriting the Earth was not guaranteed. From all the evidence the large northern dinosaurs were likely doomed. But not the southern, who lived in a more agreeable clime. The more advanced small dinosaurs had the best chance to adapt to the new conditions, and may have survived to our time. But events put a stop to that.

[sidebar]
The Deccan Traps

Some 70 million years ago in what is now the Deccan region of India there began what is the largest and most extensive series of volcanic eruptions since the Siberian Traps instrumental in the end of the Permian age. It is around this time that the dinosaurs, already in decline, started a precipitious collapse. Even the small, avian-like dinosaurs began to disappear in great numbers. It is also around this time many species of shellfish started to go extinct. By the K/T boundary the coastal seas and estuaries had seen entire orders go extinct, and the great shell fish beds of the Cretaceous were wastelands. By 65 million years ago dinosaurs were rare indeed, and the mammals began to 'take off'.[/sidebar]

By the time of the impact the dinosaurs were pretty much on the way out. Without the meteor strike maybe some small, predatory dinosaurs may have survived, but not the larger dinosaurs. In ironic contrast it's more likely the (relatively) primitive sauropods of South America could've made it through, thanks to the local climate. But the meteor did strike, and entire orders of life that had once paraded across a trembling land died out.

In the immediate aftermath such as the crocodiles and birds diversified in amazing ways, but their 'domination' would be short lived. Soon enough it would be the day of the mammal, but that is a story for a later time.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Only one problem -- a lot of speculation and opinion.

OK, that's not really a problem, unless people think this is all good science and accept it as gospel truth. Also, some of it is factually wrong; North America had the more abberant Cretaceous fauna, not South America (in many ways at least.) Africa had the same type of fauna as South America, for instance, and India appears to have also had a similar fauna, as near as we've been able to tell.

Also, whether dinosaurs were in decline or not is a matter of considerable debate amongst dinosaur professionals -- it may be true that the number of common genera was much smaller than before, indicating a problem of some (undefined) kind. But certainly dinosaurs weren't rare at the end of the Cretaceous.
 
Last edited:

The word you were thinking of is 'archaic'. South America and Africa were the places with the archaic fauna, the other land masses tended to have more 'modern' faunal assemblages.

Now, more recently evidence has shown up supporting the decline of the dinosaurs hypothesis. Namely, as you 'pick through' younger strata before the K/T boundary dinosaur remains drop off. Not only in terms of individual animals, but in terms of species and genera as well. In addition, mammals (both placental and marsupial) increase in both absolute numbers and in variety.

And let me point out that just because a subject is controversial does not mean it is wrong.
 

mythusmage said:
The word you were thinking of is 'archaic'. South America and Africa were the places with the archaic fauna, the other land masses tended to have more 'modern' faunal assemblages.
I'd hardly call the presence of T. rexes hadrosaurs and ceratopsians a "modern" faunal assemblage. No, I used precisely the word I was looking for, thankyouverymuch. Even in the Southern US, that same type of fauna still held forth to the end of the Cretaceous in the forms of titanosaurids like Alamosaurus sanjuanensis and allosauroids like Acrocanthosaurus atokensis. Hadrosaurs were descended from iguanodontians that were present worldwide from the later Jurassic. Nodosaurs and ankylosaurs are descended from stegosaurian dinosaurs that also lived worldwide during the middle and late Jurassic. Ceratopsians and tyrannosaurs were aberrant fauna that developed in eastern Asia and only ever migrated across Beringia into the northern part of North America and haven't been found anywhere else. Everywhere else, the "archaic" fauna, as you call it, was still the norm.
Now, more recently evidence has shown up supporting the decline of the dinosaurs hypothesis. Namely, as you 'pick through' younger strata before the K/T boundary dinosaur remains drop off. Not only in terms of individual animals, but in terms of species and genera as well. In addition, mammals (both placental and marsupial) increase in both absolute numbers and in variety.
What evidence? I'm usually pretty on top of developments in dinosaur science, and I haven't heard of anything radically new in this regard in the last ten years.
And let me point out that just because a subject is controversial does not mean it is wrong.
No, but the fact that you present it as solid fact without even referencing that there is controversy surrounding it is kinda deceiving. The fact of the matter is, most dinosaur professionals don't hold to that theory, as unsupported by convincing evidence.
 
Last edited:

Wippit Guud said:
Well, a quick google pulled up 4 current hypothoses:

1. Asteriod. The one that most kids know, and big rock slams into the earth, nuclear-type winter, dinosaurs die our.

2. Replace asteriod above with volcanos, keep the rest

3. Mammal competition. Primarily due to mammals that eat dinosaur eggs.

4. Continental drift. Sea level fell, temps cooled, and not enough food was produced by ecosystems to support dionsaurs.

Knowing the story of Krakatoa, if 3 or 4 of those went off within a few a years of each other, that would change the climate enought to kill off quite a bit, I think.
Not sure wher you're going with this, but it doesn't have anything at all to do with the question I asked, which you quoted. I'm looking for new evidence that the dinosaurs were already on the wane before those theories you quote killed them off executioner style.
 

Moderator note:

I split off some rude stuff and some OT posts responding to it in order to keep this thread on track. (I also deleted a triple-post.)
No more rudeness, please.
If you don't like a thread, just don't read it. And if you think a thread's inappropriate, use the 'report post' function.
Thanks.


(edit - Slight correction... Judging from the quote in Joshua's post just above my own, it seems that the two posts I deleted weren't edited out by Wippit because they were triple-posts but rather for some other reason. In any case, they were empty of content when I came across them.)
 
Last edited:

Darkness said:
Moderator note:
(edit - Slight correction... Judging from the quote in Joshua's post just above my own, it seems that the two posts I deleted weren't edited out by Wippit because they were triple-posts but rather for some other reason. In any case, they were empty of content when I first came across them.)

I tend to be hard on myself when I post something that has no bearing whatsoever.... I guess that's a character flaw I have...
 
Last edited:

Well, it wasn't a innapropriate post; I think you just misunderstood the question I was asking. I wouldn't think it needs deleting, unless you just want to take it out.
 
Last edited:

Joshua Dyal said:
I'd hardly call the presence of T. rexes hadrosaurs and ceratopsians a "modern" faunal assemblage. No, I used precisely the word I was looking for, thankyouverymuch. Even in the Southern US, that same type of fauna still held forth to the end of the Cretaceous in the forms of titanosaurids like Alamosaurus sanjuanensis and allosauroids like Acrocanthosaurus atokensis. Hadrosaurs were descended from iguanodontians that were present worldwide from the later Jurassic. Nodosaurs and ankylosaurs are descended from stegosaurian dinosaurs that also lived worldwide during the middle and late Jurassic. Ceratopsians and tyrannosaurs were aberrant fauna that developed in eastern Asia and only ever migrated across Beringia into the northern part of North America and haven't been found anywhere else. Everywhere else, the "archaic" fauna, as you call it, was still the norm.

For dinosaurs, Josh, dinosaurs. BTW, those titanosaurids you reference were found in South America, not the southern U.S.

Now, nodosaurs may have been descended from stegosaurs, but I doubt anyone would call them stegosaurs. Though one is descended from the other they are different types of critters.

As to ceratopsians and T Rexes etc. They were normal for their time. You're about the only person I've run across who calls them 'aberrant'. May as well refer to horses as aberrant since they evolved in North America and later migrated to the Old World

What evidence? I'm usually pretty on top of developments in dinosaur science, and I haven't heard of anything radically new in this regard in the last ten years.

When's the last time you checked out Discover and Scientific American? Or looked into Cretaceous faunas other than the dinosaurs? From all I've seen, most everything was undergoing stress before the asteroid hit.

No, but the fact that you present it as solid fact without even referencing that there is controversy surrounding it is kinda deceiving. The fact of the matter is, most dinosaur professionals don't hold to that theory, as unsupported by convincing evidence.

In a pop piece I'm supposed to get all academic on people? Sorry, I don't work that way. There's tons of data available that people can go look up if they feel the urge. What I present is based on tons of reading over the years. Filtered through this mass of neurons and glial cells that forms my brain. Besides, it's better for you to go and look yourself, for only that way can you be convinced.

What you get in this series is my take on things. All you're doing is a version of, "No it aint.". Giving me no evidence to support your take. How do you know that North American ceratopsians were aberrant? Or that titanosaurids were found in the southern U.S.?

One more thing, please calm down. My essay at the top of this thread aint going to drive wombats extinct or make naked mole rats any balder than they already are. It's intellectual fluff for crying out loud. Light reading that may (I do hope) lead folks into researching the subject for themselves.

Only so far as it 'inspires' someone to make a study of the subject will it have any meaning what-so-ever. Beyond that it means nothing and is certainly not worth the effort you're putting into your replies. Let it go.
 

Remove ads

Top