Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > Unanswered Question about Cretaceous–Tertiary Extinction Event: 2

Unanswered Question about Cretaceous–Tertiary Extinction Event: 2

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about how our current understanding of K-T extinction event and its immediate aftermath is rather incomplete. For starters, the most popular theory about what caused it is highly inadequate. We also do not understand why certain vertebrates such as “modern” birds aka Neornithes survived, but other sibling groups such as Hesperornithes, Ichthyornithes and Enantiornithes became extinct. This pattern of disappearance is especially odd since Enantiornithes were significantly more successful prior to the K-T event. Moreover, they were almost identical in general appearance, size range, flight characteristics and likely even possessed similar patterns of coloration and markings to birds that are still around.

Yes.. some had teeth within their beaks and many possessed vestigial claws within their wings. But otherwise, they were functionally identical to modern birds and their global distribution in the late-cretaceous strongly suggests that some could fly across oceans. They also occupied a far more diverse range of habitats than the ancestors of modern birds. So how did a group which was significantly more numerous, occupied a larger range of habitats and likely better at flying (at least then) become extinct while the less numerous group occupying a narrower range of habitats and not better at flying survive? This becomes even more relevant once you understand that the most popular “explanation” for who survived the K-T extinction revolves around adult body size, with those below 10-20 kg being more likely to survive than larger ones (YT video).

Since Neornithes and Enantiornithes had a very similar range of body sizes, something else was at work. And it gets better. Consider groups such as Ichthyornithes and Hesperornithes whose members were basically the late-cretaceous versions of seagulls and diving birds. How do pretty successful aquatic bird-like creatures become extinct when that extinction was more devastating to species living on land? Members of these two groups had access to a better, if still diminished, supply of food than their land-dwelling cousins. And as the discovery of the Qinornis fossil in early Paleocene shows, some non-Neornithes birds did survive. Are you starting to appreciate the inadequacy of currently explanations for why certain groups survived, while other didn’t?

Let us move on to the oceans, or more precisely who survived and who didn’t. While Mosasaurs disappeared after K-T extinction, others such as crocodiles, turtles and sharks survived. While some of you might believe that every Mosasaur species in the late Cretaceous was a 40-60 feet long beast, they came in a range of sizes and some such as Carinodens were about the size of alligators. Moreover, they occupied a range of ecological niches, had global distribution and some displayed specialized dentition. To out it another way, they were more numerous and diverse than crocodilians and were successful in many more environments ranging from the deep-water to shallow coastal areas and estuaries.And yet, it is the crocodilians (well.. some of them) who survived while all Mosasaur species went extinct.

And why did marine Turtles and some shark species make it through the K-T extinction? Why were bony fish the least affected by that extinction? Why did nautiloids, octopodes, squids and cuttlefish survive while the equally numerous belemnoids and ammonoids became extinct? Why did Choristodera (e.g Champsosaurus) survive the K-T extinction only to become extinct in the middle-to-late Eocene? If the direct and indirect effects of that comet/asteroid impact caused so much immediate worldwide damage to terrestrial plants (including flowering plants) how did bees survive? Things don’t look so straightforward and easy to explain now, do they? My point is that there are patterns in what survived and didn’t, but let us stop pretending they coalesce into a coherent theory to explain whatever happened at the time.

And why did most mammalian lineages survive the K-T event, but weren’t able to quickly occupy the niches left behind by all those extinct large animals? Why did it take almost 10-15 million years for mammals to finally reach the size we today associate with deer and pigs. And why were the large flightless birds such as Phorusrhacidae and Bathornithidae among the largest terrestrial carnivores in aftermath of that extinction. What accounts for the absence of large terrestrial mammalian predators in the first 15 million years after the K-T event? And ya.. I have a partial explanation for that, which I might write up in a future post. This become more unusual once you realize that the Earth was densely forested, very green and climatically pleasant place to live for about 15 million years after quickly recovering (within a million years) from the K-T extinction.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. ‘Reality’ Doug
    June 29, 2019 at 3:52 pm

    It’s hard to comment without an ego or facts, but it is an interesting read. I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that not understanding the cause of the die off pattern proves that the space impact theory is wrong, but I will buy it supposing: (1) Some large percentage of extinctions do not line up with the impact time, but what is close enough? (2) The costs to life on the planet from a nuclear winter scenario is too generic to specialize in the deaths of the species that went extinct. I get that one, and it makes sense to me.

    But, I have lived long enough to know that things can work in unexpected ways. Maybe the meteor had a certain chemical composition that was poisonous to some species and not others? Of course, a very statistically precise analysis of what species are ‘in the zone’ of the impact time and what are not could demonstrate the meteor was not the whole story or maybe even just an interesting nuance. Maybe someone has done it, and if not, it would take way too long to do except for a Ph.D. dissertation or funding from NSF.

    If we presume the cold killed of species, then there is being warm-blooded, though I am not sure how that actually helps, and being better at hibernation. I don’t know how you would prove the extinct species could or could not handle cold in terms of metabolism.

    You’ve convinced me that the impact theory is weak to the point of insufficiency. The bird-dinosaurs are intriguing and give me more confidence that evolution is an essentially correct theory, though we don’t know lots of details there too. Good thing that science permits partial credit, or we would never step forward. It’s amazing we know as much as we do, that evidence can be found to the point it can be debated. It all just blows my mind. If it weren’t for human knowledge, I think I would be completely bored in my life, to make a long story short. Nice writing.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: