3 ms·
That's what the article is all about. It's temperature management. Smaller warm-blooded animals have less mass to generate heat and higher surface area to volum
by ufmace 9y ago
That's what the article is all about. It's temperature management. Smaller warm-blooded animals have less mass to generate heat and higher surface area to volume ratio to dissipate it faster. They need a much higher metabolic rate to maintain body temperature, especially when the environment is very cold. They would freeze if they had the same rate as the elephant.
Large warm-blooded animals have more mass generating more heat and less surface area to dissipate it. They need a much lower rate or they would overheat. Not to mention the objectively huge amount of food and air circulation that would be required to maintain that rate.
If either animal had the other's metabolic rate, it would be dead within hours, if not minutes.
- eridius 9y agoCouldn't smaller animals just evolve better insulation instead? Surely it would be easier to survive if they didn't have to eat so much.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- lawdog 9y agoEvolution doesn't pick the optimal solution, it just weeds out the solutions ones that aren't good enough.
- xenadu02 9y agoNature's insulation is fat and fur/feathers but there is a limit to how much that can help. It adds weight and bulk - hummingbirds have to hover their own weight so adding more fat is like making bigger rocket: you need more fuel to lift your fuel.
- vacri 9y agoMore insulation has other tradeoffs. Look at arctic animals - they're not very agile or dextrous. Penguins, whales, sealions, polar bears... they're all 'lumpy' and nowhere near as agile as other areas. Even the occasional agile animal like a snow fox is 'lumpier' than its temperate brethren, but they only have to be more agile than the tubes of fat that hunt them. Any time you think "why didn't this or that feature evolve a different way", have a think about tradeoffs in terms of survivability.