Welcome to part – oh my god – seven in this seemingly eternal series.
Like me, I’m sure you want it to end so I can get back to writing about the innumerable other things on the list. Yes, we’re here, once again, for another instalment in the Too Many Damn Dinosaurs (TMDD) series. If you’re new to the whole thing, go back to Part 1 and see what this is all about; if you want to see all previous parts in the series go to the bottom of the article for the links (or use the sidebar). In the most recent articles, we looked at two assumptions inherent to the TMDD contention: that sauropod populations were similar in structure to modern megamammal populations, and that sauropods and other big dinosaurs were similar to Holocene megamammals in ecology and distribution. Here, we look at a third assumption, and it’s one that just won’t die.
Ok, this article is the shortest one in the series. Here we go…
Assumption 3: Mesozoic plants were low in energy, and no way could all these sauropods derive sufficient nutrition to thrive at such diversity. Inherent to the TMDD contention is the idea that cycads, conifers and the other plants consumed by sauropods are and were so rubbish as sources of food that they couldn’t possibly be consistent with high megaherbivore diversity. This view has been mooted in particular by Prothero (2019, p. 111), who wrote “these many different huge herbivores had to subsist on slow-growing conifers, which are very low in nutrition and don’t recover quickly from heavy browsing, and possibly ferns and cycads on the ground”.
It’s true that some of the plants consumed by sauropods likely were relatively low in nutritional value. But quite what this has to do with megaherbivore diversity isn’t really clear, given that megaherbivores derive the energy they need from slow digestion of low-quality material: it’s a game of quantity over quality, and so long as quantity is sufficient (which it evidently was in the environments these animals inhabited), things are fine (Carpenter (2006) also pointed this out). In any case, the old ‘Mesozoic plants were low in quality’ adage is wrong, as anyone who’s been following Carole Gee’s research – and that of her colleagues – will know. Hummel et al. (2008) and Gee (2011) showed, following a series of experiments, that various conifers, ginkgos, ferns and horsetails of the Mesozoic were extremely nutritious, with Equisetum, monkey-puzzles and certain ferns being of similar nutritional value to grass (the most nutritious of modern plant foods), all being ‘five star superfoods’ according to Gee’s ranking. This research has been widely reported at conferences and is also discussed in Mark Hallett and Matt Wedel’s 2016 The Sauropod Dinosaurs (Hallett & Wedel 2016).
So much for that idea, then. Sauropods didn’t live in a world where available vegetation was of a quality similar to cardboard and bark. In fact, they were surrounded by highly nutritious foodstuffs of the sort that fuel animals like artiodactyls and geese, and there aren’t energetic reasons that are ‘against’ their high species- and genus-level diversity, nor against the sorts of population number we might predict given the logic outlined in previous articles in this series (Farlow et al. 2010).
Ok, we’re nearly at the end now – just one article in this series left to go. In the next section, we look at the issue of ‘appropriate expertise’ and then come up with a summarised list of key points in this debate.
For the previous article in this series, see…
Stop Saying That There Are Too Many Sauropod Dinosaurs, Part 1, April 2020
Stop Saying That There Are Too Many Sauropod Dinosaurs, Part 2, April 2020
Stop Saying That There Are Too Many Sauropod Dinosaurs, Part 3, April 2020
Stop Saying That There Are Too Many Sauropod Dinosaurs, Part 4, April 2020
Stop Saying That There Are Too Many Sauropod Dinosaurs, Part 5, May 2020
Stop Saying That There Are Too Many Sauropod Dinosaurs, Part 6, May 2020
For previous TetZoo articles on sauropods, brontotheres, giraffes and related issues (linking where possible to wayback machine versions), see…
Giraffes: set for change, January 2006
Biggest…. sauropod…. ever (part…. I), January 2007
Biggest sauropod ever (part…. II), January 2007
The hands of sauropods: horseshoes, spiky columns, stumps and banana shapes, October 2008
Thunder beasts in pictures, March 2009
Thunder beasts of New York, March 2009
Sauropod dinosaurs held their necks in high, raised postures, May 2009
Inside Nature’s Giants part IV: the incredible anatomy of the giraffe, July 2009
Testing the flotation dynamics and swimming abilities of giraffes by way of computational analysis, June 2010
Paul Brinkman’s The Second Jurassic Dinosaur Rush, March 2011
The sauropod viviparity meme, May 2011
Necks for sex? No thank you, we’re sauropod dinosaurs, May 2011
The Second International Workshop on the Biology of Sauropod Dinosaurs (part I), December 2011
The Second International Workshop on the Biology of Sauropod Dinosaurs (part II), January 2012
Greg Paul’s Dinosaurs: A Field Guide, February 2012
Junk in the trunk: why sauropod dinosaurs did not possess trunks (redux, 2012), November 2012
That Brontosaurus Thing, April 2015
Unusual Giraffe Deaths, November 2015
Burning Question for World Giraffe Day: Can They Swim?, June 2016
10 Long, Happy Years of Xenoposeidon, November 2017
The Life Appearance of Sauropod Dinosaurs, January 2019
Refs - -
Carpenter, K. 2006. Biggest of the big: a critical re-evaluation of the mega-sauropod Amphicoelias fragillimus Cope, 1878. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Bulletin 36, 131-137.
Farlow, J. O, Coroian, I. D. & Foster, J. R. 2010. Giants on the landscape: modelling the abundance of megaherbivorous dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation (Late Jurassic, western USA). Historical Biology 22, 403-429.
Gee, C. T. 2011. Dietary options for the sauropod dinosaurs from an integrated botanical and paleobotanical perspective. In Klein, N., Remes, K., Gee, C. T. & Sander, P. M. (eds) Biology of the Sauropod Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press (Bloomington and Indianapolis), pp. 34-56.
Hummel, J., Gee, C. T., Südekum, K.-H., Sander, P. M., Nogge, G. & Clauss, M. 2008. In vitro digestibility of fern and gymnosperm foliage: implications for sauropod feeding ecology and diet selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275, 1015-1021.