|
|
Small Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh My!
While the basic assertion that predators are always smaller than prey because they can't be bigger than what they eat seems pretty obvious on the face of it, the creation of a formula for predicting just how big a predator can get seems quite novel. Still, the evidence seems to back up the assertion that, due to the risks and energy expenditure involved, mammalian predators simply can't get bigger than about 2200 lbs. The dinosaurs may have had a similar limitation, perhaps providing insight into how their metabolisms worked.
While the basic assertion that predators are always smaller than prey because they can't be bigger than what they eat seems pretty obvious on the face of it…
Actually it seems pretty retarded. Many, most?, predators are bigger than what they eat. Rattlesnakes don't eat dogs. Foxes don't eat dear. Bobcats don't eat sheep. Hawks don't eat cows. Body size isn't the issue. Biomass is. I believe ants outweigh humans, for example, so there is probably more raw nutrition in ants no matter how much smaller the individuals are. Maybe why we have 10 different kinds of ant-eaters and no currently successful (making a living at it) man-eaters. The largest animal of all time, including dinosaur-era animals, is a flesh eater that eats krill not much bigger than ants: the blue whale.
The rest of the article is more interesting. I think it's just a clumsy introduction.
Ok, so perhaps it should've been "large predators are always smaller than large prey". Then again, if it got you to read the article (your assertion about the whale makes me think perhaps you didn't reach the end of it), then the intro served its purpose. In more ways than one :).
Posted by: Scott on January 16, 2007 12:26 PMIndeed. It sure did. :-)
Posted by: Lane on January 16, 2007 06:17 PMAhhh - the joy of science. Common sense just doesn't cut it and needs to be tested. Frequently.
I love it!!!!
Posted by: ron on January 17, 2007 11:08 AM