0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
From what I read, their feet would not have been good for distributing weight or moving around on the muddy bottoms of lakes etc.
The hydration requirement could be solved by proximity to but not submersal in water.
I think land based giants are feasible for several reasons. The atmosphere in the late Jurassic was both richer in oxygen and much higher in carbon dioxide. so lush, abundant, fast growing plant life on land would abound, making giant plant eaters both possible and ecologically beneficial. Also. the sheer bulk of giant cold-blooded dinosaurs would allow them to stay warmer for a longer time and let them feed during the night. To support such size they would have had to eat a lot, even if they were cold blooded.
Perhaps they got most of the water they need from the moisture in the leaves
"It looks to me like sauropods liked dry land and didn't spend a lot of time in water. We do find their footprints along shorelines, so they must have gone there to drink and so on."But we also find them inland at fossil sites like the Morrison Formation, which millions of years ago would have been semi-arid and without much water," Professor Lockley told BBC News Online.
This theory took a blow in the late 1940s when a US researcher proposed that if a sauropod were submerged under several metres of water, the pressure would have collapsed its lungs and airways, killing it.
The fact that tracks have also been found in arid and semi-arid areas, might even suggest that there were two distinct species of Braciosaurus and other such sauropods, identical in all but their habitat.
.... If the "desert" forms did not need to, why not the "submerged" ones?