Skip to main content

Ecological crisis or why Dinosaur don't wear helmets.

I did my thesis on Dinosaurs around the K/T boundary (Cretaceous-Tertiary) around the time when they went extinct. I looked a dinosaur eggs and looked for a correlation to see if their diet changed. Unsurprisingly it did. Right before their extinctions these dinosaurs I studied from Ancient France had their diet completely changed, and that I think is the key to understanding their extinction.

People like to blame the asteroid that hit the Yucatan Peninsula, but the asteroid alone doesn't explain the extinction. (Here is where the helmets come in.) Dinosaurs weren't killed off or rather go extinct (which is a genetic death rather than a physical one) because a huge rock impacted the Earth. It's the effects of that impact that likely killed off the Dinosaurs.

The media likes the asteroid story because it's flashy but the reality is that aside for the Dinosaurs in its path, the real trouble is the effect the asteroid had. And that's where we get into murky territory because nobody knows exactly. Most asteroid proponents for a time pushed the "nuclear-winter" option where the dust of the asteroid killed off sunlight to many areas. I dislike this because while dinosaurs went extinct amphibian which are way more sensitive than dinosaurs didn't suffer an extinction event.

What I suspect, and my thesis supports, is that after the asteroid hit (or before actually we don't know) the composition of plants that made up the dinosaurs changed drastically. Before the K/T times plant eating dinosaurs (and obviously those dinosaurs that ate the plant eaters) had diet base mainly of gymnosperms or trees or plants that reproduce via spores, like pine do today. This type of plant grows quickly (at least pines today do) and can grow massively big like the trees I saw in King's Canyon. You can imagine dinosaurs roaming the land when looking at those massive trees. The gymnosperms dominated the plant life of the planet (land) almost completely. But after the K/T that was no longer the case.

The rise of the fruit trees.

This I think is key: the dinosaurs went extinct right around the time the angiosperms (fruit and flower plants) came to rise. I think this caused an ecological crisis for the dinosaurs. The angiosperms were likely closely tied to the insects that pollinated them. Suddenly all that food that was going into the dinosaurs directly from plant mass was now diverted to small insects. Insects were now where the good food was, at a much smaller scale than before. I don't think it's coincidental that the two groups that came to rise after the dinosaurs are the mammals which are small, and many eat fruits and insects, and the birds (descendant from the dinosaurs) which eat sort of the same things.

Whatever actually happened to the environment suddenly flowering plants gained a huge advantage. Maybe it was something as simple as clearing long established forest, or disrupting the wind pollination of gymnosperms, whatever it was, the ecology of the world was forever changed with flowering trees (and grasses) dominating the plant landscape today.

This is something we should pay attention to closely. Forget the asteroid. Look at ecological change spelling disaster for the dinosaurs. Yet today when we wrestle with the ecological change being brought about by our own species, many discount the long lasting impact this may have. Just changing the composition of plant life on the planet doomed the dinosaurs to fossil-doom and gave rise to the mammals and birds. I wonder what changes a quickly warming planet will bring? All I know is that I wont wear a helmet just in case an asteroid falls from the sky.

Oh and just so you know amphibians, those guys that went through the Dinosaur extinction without a hitch, aren't doing to well with the rapid warming we're causing.


  1. Very interesting. Do you have a copy of your thesis so that I can read more?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to configure Ubuntu's keyboard to work like a Mac's

Typing accents on a PC is a complicated Alt + three numbered code affair. One feels like a sorcerer casting a spell. "I summon thee accented é! I press the weird magical key Alt, and with 0191 get the flipped question mark!" For a bilingual person this meant that writing on the computer was a start-and-stop process. With Mac's it a whole lot easier, just Alt + e and the letter you wanted for accents and alt + ? for the question mark. No need to leave the keyboard for the number pad and no need to remember arcane number combinations or have a paper cheat sheet next to the keyboard, as I've seen in virtually every secretaries computer in Puerto Rico.

Linux has a interesting approach to foreign language characters: using a compose key. You hit this key which I typically map to Caps Lock and ' and the letter you want and voilá you get the accent. Kinda makes sense: single quotation mark is an accent, double gets you the ümalaut, works pretty well. Except for the ñ, wh…

Fixing Autocomplete in Github's Atom Text Editor for Ruby

I really like Github's Atom Text Editor. I really like that it's multi-platform allowing me to master one set of skills that is transferable to all platforms and all machines. 

On thing that just burns me of the default set-up in Atom is the Autocomplete feature that seems to change my words as a type them. Because Ruby uses the end of line as a terminus for a statement you usually finish a word with pressing the return button and you get really annoying changes to your finished typed word a la MS Word. I find myself yelling "No that's not what I wrote!" at the screen in busy coffee shops.

I disabled autocomplete for a while but it is a very useful function. Then I found out they changed the package that gave the autocomplete to a new one called "Autocomplete Plus" that gives you more options. All that I needed to change to make autocomplete sane again:

1. Open Atom's Preferences
2. Search the bundled packages for "Autocomplete Plus"

3. Go to t…

Contrasting Styles of Writing: English vs. Spanish

There is interestingly enough a big difference between what's considered good writing in Spanish and English. V.S. Naipul winner of the 2001 Nobel prize for literature publish an article on writing. In it he emphasizes the use of short clear sentences and encourages the lack of adjectives and adverbs. Essentially he pushes the writer to abandon florid language and master spartan communication. This is a desired feature of English prose, where short clipped sentences are the norm and seamlessly flow into a paragraph. In English prose the paragraph is the unit the writer cares about the most.

This is not the case in Spanish where whole short stories (I'm thinking this was Gabriel Garcia Marquez but maybe it was Cortázar) are written in one sentence. Something so difficult to do in English that the expert translator could best manage to encapsulate the tale in two sentences. The florid language is what is considered good writing in Spanish but unfortunately this has lead to what …