Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Why birds survived and dinosaurs went extinct after an asteroid hit earth (2020) (smithsonianmag.com)
103 points by hwayne 9 months ago | hide | past | favorite | 47 comments




After reading this, my main question changed from "why did birds survive" to "why did crocodiles survive".


Low metabolism and they live in fresh water, shielding them from the heating impulse after the impact. Fresh water ecosystems fed by detritus from dead plants could survive the post-impact period of darkness as well.


> they live in fresh water, shielding them from the heating impulse after the impact.

Does living in the ocean not provide the same benefit?


so this is why sharks also survived? but why not aquatic saurs?


Don't have an answer other than to say their lineage is sturdy enough to have pulled it off twice - crocodylomorpha were just about the only survivors of their giant and dominant clade in the end-Triassic extinction and, of course, they made it past the asteroid 135 million years later.


Didn't crocodiles evolved two time separately?


No? Alligators, ghalials, caimans, and crocs all share a common ancestor ~120MYA that was very similar to all of those species.


"Gee, I don't know. Maybe deep down I'm afraid of any apex predator that lived through the K-T extinction. Physically unchanged for a hundred million years, because it's the perfect killing machine. A half ton of cold-blooded fury, the bite force of 20,000 Newtons, and stomach acid so strong it can dissolve bones and hoofs."

(Archer)


Discussed a bit at the time (of the article):

Why Birds Survived, and Dinosaurs Went Extinct, After an Asteroid Hit Earth - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24488527 - Sept 2020 (3 comments)


Looks like no one answered this question from the last time around:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24492646


In addition to the more detailed quoted answer, I believe the surviving mammals mostly lived underground, shielding them from many of the worst effects happening on surface world. Many were blind anyway and did well in the darkness of the clouded surface. Their predators all died off. The biggest remaining threat would have been lack of food, but as the other answer states, they had more flexible diets than dinosaurs and mammals that did not survive.


They were underground long enough that we lost the genes to repair UV damage.


Q: Anyway, my problem with the argument is that some mammals obviously survived. Why? We had worse lungs, roughly the same amount of protection against the cold as many small dinosaurs... so what gives?

A possible answer from this article (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-mammals-conqu...)

The earliest Paleocene scene is dire. There is a fossil locality in Montana dated to approximately 25,000 years after the asteroid hit, called the Z-Line Quarry. It reeks of death. Almost all the mammals that flourished in the region in the Cretaceous are gone; only seven species remain. Several other fossil sites divulge what was happening over the next 100,000 to 200,000 years. If you pool together all mammals from this time, there are 23 species. Only one of these is a metatherian; these marsupial ancestors, once so abundant in the Cretaceous, were nearly extinguished. All told, if you consider the entire Montana fossil record, along with other data from across western North America, the statistics are grim. A paltry 7 percent of mammals survived the carnage. Imagine a game of asteroid roulette: a gun, with 10 chambers, nine of which hold a bullet. Even those odds of survival are slightly better than what our ancestors faced in the brave new world of the Paleocene.

This bleak state of affairs raises a question: What allowed some mammals to endure? The answer became apparent when Wilson Mantilla looked at the victims and survivors. The survivors were smaller than most of the Cretaceous mammals, and their teeth indicate they had generalist, omnivorous diets. The victims, on the other hand, were larger, with more specialized carnivorous or herbivorous diets. They were supremely adapted to the latest Cretaceous world, but when the asteroid unleashed disaster, their adaptations became hardships. The smaller generalists, in contrast, were better able to eat whatever was on offer in the postimpact chaos, and they could have more easily hunkered down to wait out the worst of the bedlam.

As ecosystems recovered in the earliest Paleocene, many of the mammals that started to multiply were eutherians, the placental antecedents that were once bit players in the Cretaceous. Their tiny bodies, flexible diets, and perhaps faster ways of growing and reproducing allowed them to commandeer open niches and start building new food webs. Around 100,000 years postasteroid a new eutherian appeared in Montana and swiftly became common. Purgatorius, with gentle molar cusps for eating fruits and highly mobile ankles for clinging and climbing in the trees, was an early member of the primate line. It, or perhaps another closely related eutherian, was our ancestor.


Neat


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps

This happened roughly contemporaneously to the asteroid strike.


Yea, possibly overlapping timing and at the opposite side of the earth, suggesting Deccan Traps could be a direct result of the Chicxulub impact.


I would have thought about fishing before eating seeds tbh.


In the aftermath of the extinction food webs collapsed as photosynthesis basically shut down for several years. Birds could find and eat seeds buried before the extinction, which along with their ability to fly long distances meant they could find enough calories to survive in environments that weren't producing any.


Birds are dinosaurs:

https://www.birdlife.org/news/2021/12/21/its-official-birds-...

A fact I'm reminded of when I spook a stork/heron/crane when I'm walking my dog along the river near me. They make a crazy dinosaur sound, and in flight even resemble somewhat the classic illustrations of Pterosaurs.

Bonus link, the common ancestor of both birds and crocodiles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosaur


> They make a crazy dinosaur sound

Do they? Or maybe we base out ideas of what dinosaurs might have sounded like on birds like these... ;)


I’m sure someone will figure out how to reverse engineer the sound recorded in various muds that were in turn fossilized. It’ll probably be something like a soil fungus that left traces of a piezo-materal that when exposed to dinosaur calls emitted energy that raised the probability of the surrounding mud to make some transition.

Once we have those calls synthesized we will find out that the so called asteroid impacts were high energy experiments on the part of the Silurians. Humans will attempt the same to a similar result: lather, rinse, repeat.


> They make a crazy dinosaur sound

Found the time traveler!!


In the year 252525,

the backwards time-machine still won't have arrived

In all the world there's only 1 technology,

a rusty sword for practicing proctology


I thought at some point they found dinosaurs might have had (colorful) feathers that might not have been represented by fossils.

hmmm, maybe I don't know anything

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-avian_dinosaur_spe...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds


> Birds are dinosaurs

But not all dinosaurs were birds, which is what the article is about.

> and in flight even resemble somewhat the classic illustrations of Pterosaurs

Pterosaurs weren't dinosaurs. Muphry's law? :)


Quite so. TIL that Pterosauromorpha and Dinosauromorpha are different clades underneath Ornithodira.

Next to dinosaurs on the tree of life, but not dinosaurs.


This is my first time hearing about Muphry's Law and I love it


I'm really sorry to be that guy, but just FYI, the pterosaurids weren't dinosaurs or dinosauroporphs, and were on a pretty independent evolutionary lineage. It's astonishing how many times vertebrates evolved flight independently. It's a sharp reminder of how long dozens or hundreds of millions of years are.

Having said that, the "long necked stabby stabby from elsewhere" was a theme with the dinosaurs proper. Some have theorized that this was the hunting mode of the giant Spinosaurus.

You're right on the money with the dinosaurs=birds though though. Paleo guys even have started saying "non-avian dinosaurs" to reference the kpg "classic" dinosauromorpha, because the lineages are so intertwined. Archaeopteryx, to take one example, might not have been a bird, exactly? Birds might be even more intertwined than that, with separate bird lineages branching out at different times. The takeaway from the big extinctions is that you need to be less than fifty kilos and preferably able to dive or burrow very very deep. And be lucky, of course. Everything standing around within a few thousand miles of Cancun 65mya was probably screwed no matter how cool it was.


> ...of how long dozens or hundreds of millions of years are.

"Hundreds of millions" is less than 30 bits of information. That's a miniscule, infinitesimal amount compared to what we're typically used to dealing with. (If you choose a random number every year, that's less that 1 gigabyte of numbers, not enough for a 30 minutes of an HD Marvel blockbuster.)


Yeah, mostly it's impressive in a biological or evolutionary context, not in a raw number context. You multiply everything by every genetic piece of data, multiplied by the environmental variables, and so on and so forth, until you arrive at something insanely complex, to an extent that's hard to overstate. There's not much that can't happen in 12-24my. Although I don't like to call anything incomputable, taken as a whole, it's pretty close to incomputable. Believing otherwise is often a trap.

To take one example, older paleo people would see fossils of creatures like nimravids, and they'd say to themselves, "oh, a long-lost ancestor of the sabretooth cats!" - but they're not getting how long ten million years is for living systems. Sabre teeth didn't evolve once, or twice, or even three times, but evolved separately at least six completely separate instances, across 200-300 million years. This is true for all sorts of morphology that might look incredibly distinctive to our human eyes, but which aren't actually distinctive in fact.


> I'm really sorry to be that guy

No worries! Someone already beat you to the punch anyways. ;)


I think that chickens look like dinosaurs.


Some mad scientist a while back wanted to devolve Chickens into (basically) velociraptors. This was decades back, but I could see what he's talking about. Apparently with CRISPR now some scientists are doing similar things at small scales.


We're trying to infer a query here: SELECT species FROM animals WHERE habitat IN [protected_from_burning_sky] AND diet IN [non_photosynthesis_dependant_foods]


the video commercials on that site make the news item unreadable


Good shout, drives me crazy- The Smithsonian cant run a site without ads???

"The Smithsonian's annual budget is around $1.25 billion, with two-thirds coming from annual federal appropriations."


I just Xed out the "Looks like youre blocking ads" dialogue and was able to read the article fine.


The birds had wings, so they could just fly away. /s


Imagine a T. Rex looking up at the sky at huge flocks of birds leaving! Good for them their peanut-sized brain had no awareness of what was going on!


[flagged]


The urge to a social-media-pedantry-dunk aside, did the title confuse you? Do you think your title or TFA's title gets the point of the article across clearly to a wider audience?


I'm reacting to what I view as poor science journalism.


The first sentence of the article is “Birds are the only dinosaurs left”.


The lede is what grabs eyeballs.


didnt you get the memo??? birds aren't real! and the last surviving dinosaurs who originally ventured into the hollow earth before the disasterous meteor strike, evolved over millions of years and became today's shape shifting lizard people that rule the world with reckless disregard for our mammalian well being


Is a dark but realistic thought that humanity is being more destructive for the planet ecosystem than the asteroid that killed dinosaurs.


But I find it genuinely uplifting that, despite such awful things, the Earth recovers and life goes on

It makes the horrors of today less dire. Maybe sucks for "us" but not life itself. Hopefully.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: