bsheaff at epix.net
Tue Jan 17 18:59:46 EST 1995
In article <D2K68x.8L1 at ssbunews.ih.att.com>, ian at happy.milkyway wrote:
...photosynthesis as my sole DIRECT means of fixing energy becomes
limiting and I'm better off using
...a food chainthe advantages of staying out of the light to avoid being eaten.
The first is a strong argument for moving up the chain. The second is
good for dropping the photosynthetic aspect. Let me try a pin in both and
see what happens from there.
The advantages of being eaten, not being eaten by being in the light
however would have been later after the advent of amphibians. The earlier
animals relegated to the oceans couldn't have successfully hidden under a
I understand the volume problem-it's similar to the heat loss/surface
area problem with the addition of a 'sunnyside of the street' dimension.
Once you achieve a certain X^2 vs X^3 ratio, you are forced into moving up
the food chain. But although you are forced to rise up the chain, do you
need to move off of the first step?
Pitcher plants and Venus Flytraps both needed to move up the rung due to
poor soil nutrients. I'm sure there is at least one other similar plant
but I don't know its name.
How about another possibility-that photosynthesis really stinks as far as
making energy. If you are going to become an animal and 'specialize in
transportation' photosynthesis of your own produces so little energy that
abandoning it is of little or no consequence?
I don't know the answer, that's why I posed the question.
| | | Bill Sheaffer <Braxton> | | |
| "Wasting time creatively is my life's ambition" |
| Temple U. |
| Millersburg H.S. |
| Millersburg Ferryboat |
| Harrisburg Astronomical Soc. |
| ________________________ |
| | | |
| |     | \ / |
| | |----+--- |
More information about the Mol-evol