Why Were There No Tiny Dinosaurs? Mammals Might Have Played A Role
New research suggests that the absence of tiny dinosaurs was likely due to early mammals occupying small ecological niches. Mathematical models indicate that while physiology explains the size of other vertebrates, it does not account for the lack of mouse-sized dinosaurs.
Why it matters
This study provides new insights into evolutionary biology and the competitive dynamics that shaped the prehistoric ecosystem.
Everyone knows dinosaurs got really big. Some of the long-necked plant-eaters were the largest land animals ever on Earth, as shown by Argentinosaurus, perhaps 70 to 90 tons and upwards of 100 feet (30 metres) long. But how about tiny dinosaurs, like the size of a mouse? As far as we know, none ever existed.New research investigates this phenomenon. Scientists employed mathematical models to explore the evolution of body size across vertebrate groups. They determined that energetics and physiology can account for the sizes of mammals, birds that fly and turtles, but these factors fail to explain the absence of really small dinosaurs, aside from their avian descendants.The researchers see other dynamics at play.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in