Comments on: Why whales get no bigger

By: toto

toto — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:34:03 +0000

Obligatory link to the all-time classic on the subject. For the two or three people on Earth who might not have read it yet.

Also, I believe "scaling laws" is the general term. Of course, square-cube laws, which point out that volume and mass necessarily grow faster than area (with all kinds of biomechanical/evolutionary consequences), are by far the most common example.

By: gcochran

gcochran — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:51:46 +0000

Just another example of the square-cube law.

As for cancer, calculate the effect of adding a couple of extra tumor suppressor genes. Works in Down’s.

By: TGGP

TGGP — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:50:25 +0000

That reminds me of something I heard about relatively short falls being very dangerous for elephants. It’s an inverse of the jumping ability of fleas. Nature is not scale invariant.

I didn’t know there were giant lobster. They should use that for a horror movie.

By: Armillaria ostoyae

Armillaria ostoyae — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:09:29 +0000

I sneer at the tiny whales.

By: Eric Johnson

Eric Johnson — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:39:24 +0000

I find this argument difficult.

Anyway, there has also been question about why very large animals dont suffer more from cancer. Armand Leroi considers this a serious paradox and in commented in Nature News about someone's theoretic paper on the subject. I'm not sure I believe the theory. I wonder if whales dont just form fewer significant tumors in the first place, by just spending more energy day by day on antitumor defense. But its hard to see how you would find out; youre not going to MRI a blue whale.