To: Teflonic
Wasn’t there supposed to be a limit on the size of creatures with exoskeletons? I saw a documentary that was supposedly showing the biggest insect possible because of weight limitations or something similar.
7 posted on
11/21/2007 2:37:36 PM PST by
blueheron2
(Third party votes = votes for Clinton)
To: blueheron2
The limit was on arthropods on land, do to the insufficiency of their respiratory systems. In this case they were water breathing, and the atmosphere had far more oxygen then it does now!
9 posted on
11/21/2007 2:39:47 PM PST by
Lucius Cornelius Sulla
(Ron Paul Criminality: http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/10/paul_bot)
To: blueheron2
Wasn’t there supposed to be a limit on the size of creatures with exoskeletons? I saw a documentary that was supposedly showing the biggest insect possible because of weight limitations or something similar. Living in the water would allow greater size.
11 posted on
11/21/2007 2:50:54 PM PST by
SampleMan
(We are a free and industrious people. Socialist nannies do not become us.)
To: blueheron2
Wasn’t there supposed to be a limit on the size of creatures with exoskeletons?
Insects [6 legs], like common houseflies, cannot moult their exoskeletons. Their muscles can't expand within their rigid body armor, and so they die within a month.
Some arthropods [8 legs], like crabs, can continue to grow, because they can moult.
Nature is weird.
17 posted on
11/22/2007 8:18:48 AM PST by
melt
(Someday, they'll wish their Jihad... Jihadn't.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson