|
Antarctica Pictures | Antarctica Cruise | Facts | History | Cold Weather Boots | Store | Clothes | Whales | Books | Video | Schools | Site Map | FIDS / OAE's |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Here's a question that I've never seen any answer to. Whales are bigger than any animal that has ever lived. The largest dinosaurs were maybe 50 tons, whales can fairly easily (if they're allowed) reach 100 tons and the heaviest estimated whale was over 200 tons. No whale ancestor in the dinosaur days was ever any where near the size of modern whales.
So in our period in history, we have the largest creatures ever - by far. Why do the whales grow so large? There are plenty of examples in the fossil record that in a particular animal line - take dinosaurs as the best known example - there is a tendency to gigantism. In other words if all other things remain equal, then through evolutionary time, the largest animals will prevail as they are the most efficient at obtaining food, breeding etc. The danger is when change occurs, large animals can't adapt as well or as quickly as smaller animals and tend to be the first to die out. The change as far as the whales was concerned was the advent of man the super-predator. Now some 30 years after most commercial whaling has stopped, the larger species are still no where near recovered, whereas the smaller minke whales for instance have increased enormously in number to the point where pressure for a sustainable fishery is increasing. Why are whales so big? Why are they so big now? - more so than any other creatures ever have been when the advantages of large size have always been there and the possibility of growing large always existed. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
beats me!
my best estimation is that when conditions are perferct whales will achieve there full maturity. a time line is unsatisfactory due to global change and conditions. maybe the time and place is just right for whales to prosper or maybe they have more to say about our earth. i think they are a creature that requires a broader study. it seems to me the only thing that has hurt this mammal is human intent such as military testing of sonar or other such radars. it's of interest to me how an aquatic creature such as a whale and a land deweling animal like an elephant are the biggest receptors of sound in water and on land, which i might add are or have been hunted for human prosperity, both of which creatures hear more of the earths activities then no other. the farming of cattle is a bit easier then the farming of whales but the practices of being a vegetarian are proven to be the best. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
An interesting question. I haven?t given it any thought before. Here are my thoughts which come to mind now but I don?t claim them to be authoritative.
Organisms have the potential to grow larger in water than on land because of the support given by the water. There is no need for such bulky strong bones as would be needed on land. By the way, I think many of the large dinosaurs lived in swamps or shallow water where they benefited from buoyant support. Large organisms have long gestation periods and few young so population numbers are more susceptible to increased predation. In an environment where there is a moderate level of predation, reproductive rates must be high enough to stand this loss. Potentially, a very large organism would be immune to normal predation simply because of size. In order to select for greater size at the expense of lower birth rates the organism would either have to have a strong defence against predators or there would have to be a temporary removal of predators from their habitat. Maybe some environmental conditions gave such a window of opportunity during the development of mammals that didn?t arise during the evolution of fishes. An afterthought. Maybe there is an upper limit to the potential size of a cold blooded organism such as fish, that is smaller than the potential upper limit of a warm blooded organism? Warm blooded organisms have arisen relatively recently on a geological timescale so maybe this is the first chance organisms have had to get this big. Maybe there will be more and larger organisms in 50 or 100 million years time.
__________________
Keith Avery - former met-man at South Georgia(72/73) and Adelaide Island (73/74) |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
They are efficient eaters because they are herbivores and eat nothing!!1
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
I apologise for my other post, my sister had a go on the computer. Apologies to everyone. Whales are big because apart form the Japs, no animal can eat them, so they have no predators. THe closest thing to a predator is the Whale Shark, but that is also a herbivore.
|
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
ummmmm ever heard of the US navy's sonar?? probably kills more whales then the Japanese do.
werd i'm smart! |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
i reakon it is bcause of them needing fat to survive the winters :!:
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
![]() Its a beautiful mystery. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well Deep, I guess the answer is "WHY NOT??"
psr ![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| What say you now Greenpeace? | Trevor | General Environmental Issues | 12 | 17th March 2006 03:59 AM |
| Greenpeace to Abandon Whales in Antartica | Trevor | Lounge | 21 | 14th March 2006 07:20 PM |