Talk:Carrier's constraint

Contrary Evidence
The section "Contrary Evidence" is an indication that something is amiss here. Either the section is correct, implying that the entire article must be re-evaluated; or it is not, implying that it should be removed or qualified. 188.100.204.101 (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are many "laws" in science which have partial validity or only apply to a limited range of phenomena (such as Bode's law etc. etc. etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The section is correct, but the problem is that there hasn't been a whole lot of research on this topic in the past 10 or so years. Maybe Carrier's constraint works on some lizards but not others, we don't really know.  Lizard locomotion has, sadly, been neglected of late. Mokele (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The link provided does not support the statement made under contrary evidence. It is agreement with the main article, saying that reptiles consume less oxygen during activity than mammals. From the study:

"Simultaneous measurement of oxygen consumption and lactic acid formation (Table I1 and Fig. 8) indicates that the latter accounts for 60-90% of the ATP formed during 2-min bouts of intense activity, aerobic metabolism playing a relatively minor energetic role (Bennett and Dawson, 1972; Bennett and Gleeson, 1976). This balance results from the combination of high anaerobic and low aerobic capacities in reptiles. In mammals, in contrast, 75-92% of the ATP equivalents formed during 2 min of burst activity are derived aerobically (Ruben and Battalia, 1979)."

Contrary evidence section should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.174.44 (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Read the paper before trying to argue based on it. Specifically read page 11 of the pdf (page 123 in the text), second paragraph.  Short version - lizards ventilate more than adequately all the way up to VO2max, so the limit must be elsewhere.  Mokele (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Adventurous text...
I noticed the phrase "... However, as they evolved from upright walkers with limited bipedality ". I suppose it refers to the Sphenosuchia, about which we know not nearly as much as we would like to. Or are we talking about the Ornithosuchidae, which are "only distantly related to crocodilians"? I think we should not say more than "might have had limited bipedality". Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)