I found it interesting that the article mentioned there is a lower limit for vertebrate size - aside from the Square-Cube Law, I very rarely see realistic discussion of scale and how it affects biology/chemistry/physics anywhere.
Different things work better at different scales. I wouldn't bet against nature when it comes to ingenious solutions, but science can map out the easiest ways to do things. Below a certain size, the bone and organ structure of invertebrates does become a challenge. But the nano-chameleons are nowhere near it; the smallest frogs are much tinier.
I was intrigued by the idea that on this scale, vertebrates aren't competing against other vertebrates, they're competing against insects and other invertebrates. This seems plausible.
It also makes me wonder if a shrinking vertebrate might dispense with part or all of the skeleton, or adapt to use something different. Those bones eventually become more of a hassle than they're worth on the way down. A plausible pattern exists in the relationship between bone and cartilage. The weight and rigidity of bone may not justify its use below a certain size, hence a creature might switch down from bone to cartilage, and then gradually lose the cartilage, in the same way that unused limbs or organs can become vestigial and disappear.
>>Different things work better at different scales.<<
I get that, it's just that I usually see folks assuming that larger/smaller sizes are the same. Very rarely do we see the giant complaining that his feet keep going numb, or the Lilliputian who has to eat 2x their weight in food per day.
And more than biology: how would intelligent shrews cook food without burning themselves, even if they could avoid starving to death while cooking?
>>I was intrigued by the idea that on this scale, vertebrates aren't competing against other vertebrates, they're competing against insects and other invertebrates. <<
I suspect that something similar might have happened in the primordial swamps filled with man-sized bugs and gator-sized salamanders...
>>It also makes me wonder if a shrinking vertebrate might dispense with part or all of the skeleton, or adapt to use something different. <<
Probably, but it would take a long time. And I'd wonder how a 'jellybrate' would rearrange the muscles/muscle attachments; and how it would protect its spinal cord. I'd also wonder what (if anything) they'd use for a skeletal system - keratin fibres? Hydroskeleton?
I doubt it would work in real life, but imagine in a fantasy setting, the teensiest tiniest of frogs, that uses a hydroskeleton, and can freeze-unfreeze parts of its skeleton at will. Instant spines! Can squeeze through small spaces! I bet they'd be fascinating tank pets - but probably not without some very good insulation...
>> I get that, it's just that I usually see folks assuming that larger/smaller sizes are the same. Very rarely do we see the giant complaining that his feet keep going numb, or the Lilliputian who has to eat 2x their weight in food per day. <<
That's because most people aren't into the science underpinning the fiction. Me, I was sketching out centaur digestive systems in junior high.
>> And more than biology: how would intelligent shrews cook food without burning themselves, even if they could avoid starving to death while cooking? <<
My first thought was along the lines of slow-cooking with coals rather than flame, but then I remembered there's a much easier method: solar cooking. You can do it with lenses or mirrors. \o/
A more serious limitation would be brain size. Sapient shrews might need to be communal rather than individual creatures for purposes of generating enough mindmass.
>> Probably, but it would take a long time.<<
So? The biosphere has billions of years to play around.
>> And I'd wonder how a 'jellybrate' would rearrange the muscles/muscle attachments; and how it would protect its spinal cord. I'd also wonder what (if anything) they'd use for a skeletal system - keratin fibres? Hydroskeleton? <<
I suspect that the skull and spine might stay. However, there are soft-bodied creatures, some fairly complex, that get alone fine without bones. Some of them are quite muscular, too. Check out velvet worms:
>> I doubt it would work in real life, but imagine in a fantasy setting, the teensiest tiniest of frogs, that uses a hydroskeleton, and can freeze-unfreeze parts of its skeleton at will. Instant spines! Can squeeze through small spaces! I bet they'd be fascinating tank pets - but probably not without some very good insulation... <<
It's not that farfetched. Mammals learned how to generate and control heat. Some amphibians already have antifreeze that keeps them from freezing, or other chemicals that allow them to freeze and then revive. Freezing could work -- although it would probably work better at small frog than nano-frog sizes.
Whatever tech was being used would need to account for convection. Pizza paddle thingamajigs, anyone?
The food would also need to be in sufficient quantity, or have a sufficient calorie count to be worth the effort expended in processing. (And it would need to cook quickly too, but the smaller portions would help with that.)
I imagine if they had candles [probably more like primitive disaster-tuna-can candles than tapers], they could easily toast food-onna-stick.
>>A more serious limitation would be brain size. Sapient shrews might need to be communal rather than individual creatures for purposes of generating enough mindmass.<<
Total # of neurons affecting maximum computing power?
I know parrots are pretty smart, but maybe parrot/rat size is as small as it can go...
Communal living does have advantages; mostly various buffers against a harsh world, but also a greater pooling of resources.
Wouldn't it be hilarious if the most successful intelligences are the social weakling species-es, because the apes badasses never got past the Stone Age? :D
>>However, there are soft-bodied creatures,...<<
Or elephant's trunks. It's not impossible, but the switchover for an entire organ system would be complicated.
>>Freezing could work -- although it would probably work better at small frog than nano-frog sizes.<<
I was thinking tiny-but-still visible to human eyes. I couldn't think if how to do hydrokinetis / hielokinetics (?) with science...maybe different concentrations of antifreeze in the biofluids? Or a 'bone sack' organ that uses either antifreeze concentrations or pressure to form an individual bone as needed? (In that case, the skeletal system would be a series of bags, variously filled with fluid or filled with ice...)
And a rupture of a bone-sack could be very dangerous, if it mixed different chemical concentrations and made bones ossify in the wrong place...(sounds like a case for Sector General!)
Metabolism might be another challenge. Chemistry (at least standard biochemistry) is a lot less active at colder temps.
I know jellies have a hydroskeleton, and spiders actually use hydraulics* to extend their legs**. Both of those would use liquid water. *think pressurizing a garden hose **the legs contract with another mechanism (and that's why the legs curl when they dry out)
I think pufferfish would puff up with water as well. Plants are kind of hydroskeletal - they go limp when they dry out.
I guess hydroskeletons and musculoskeletons (?) are good for flexibiliy (and storing extra water), but the osseous/hard skeletons make better armor/weapons.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowhive - (no subject)
(no subject)
Date: 2021-02-09 10:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2021-02-10 02:51 am (UTC)I found it interesting that the article mentioned there is a lower limit for vertebrate size - aside from the Square-Cube Law, I very rarely see realistic discussion of scale and how it affects biology/chemistry/physics anywhere.
Yes ...
Date: 2021-02-10 02:57 am (UTC)I was intrigued by the idea that on this scale, vertebrates aren't competing against other vertebrates, they're competing against insects and other invertebrates. This seems plausible.
It also makes me wonder if a shrinking vertebrate might dispense with part or all of the skeleton, or adapt to use something different. Those bones eventually become more of a hassle than they're worth on the way down. A plausible pattern exists in the relationship between bone and cartilage. The weight and rigidity of bone may not justify its use below a certain size, hence a creature might switch down from bone to cartilage, and then gradually lose the cartilage, in the same way that unused limbs or organs can become vestigial and disappear.
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2021-02-10 05:11 am (UTC)I get that, it's just that I usually see folks assuming that larger/smaller sizes are the same. Very rarely do we see the giant complaining that his feet keep going numb, or the Lilliputian who has to eat 2x their weight in food per day.
And more than biology: how would intelligent shrews cook food without burning themselves, even if they could avoid starving to death while cooking?
>>I was intrigued by the idea that on this scale, vertebrates aren't competing against other vertebrates, they're competing against insects and other invertebrates. <<
I suspect that something similar might have happened in the primordial swamps filled with man-sized bugs and gator-sized salamanders...
>>It also makes me wonder if a shrinking vertebrate might dispense with part or all of the skeleton, or adapt to use something different. <<
Probably, but it would take a long time. And I'd wonder how a 'jellybrate' would rearrange the muscles/muscle attachments; and how it would protect its spinal cord. I'd also wonder what (if anything) they'd use for a skeletal system - keratin fibres? Hydroskeleton?
I doubt it would work in real life, but imagine in a fantasy setting, the teensiest tiniest of frogs, that uses a hydroskeleton, and can freeze-unfreeze parts of its skeleton at will. Instant spines! Can squeeze through small spaces! I bet they'd be fascinating tank pets - but probably not without some very good insulation...
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2021-02-10 06:03 am (UTC)That's because most people aren't into the science underpinning the fiction. Me, I was sketching out centaur digestive systems in junior high.
>> And more than biology: how would intelligent shrews cook food without burning themselves, even if they could avoid starving to death while cooking? <<
My first thought was along the lines of slow-cooking with coals rather than flame, but then I remembered there's a much easier method: solar cooking. You can do it with lenses or mirrors. \o/
A more serious limitation would be brain size. Sapient shrews might need to be communal rather than individual creatures for purposes of generating enough mindmass.
>> Probably, but it would take a long time.<<
So? The biosphere has billions of years to play around.
>> And I'd wonder how a 'jellybrate' would rearrange the muscles/muscle attachments; and how it would protect its spinal cord. I'd also wonder what (if anything) they'd use for a skeletal system - keratin fibres? Hydroskeleton? <<
I suspect that the skull and spine might stay. However, there are soft-bodied creatures, some fairly complex, that get alone fine without bones. Some of them are quite muscular, too. Check out velvet worms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onychophora
https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/native-animals/invertebrates/peripatus-ngaokeoke/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do9YivjrAFk
>> I doubt it would work in real life, but imagine in a fantasy setting, the teensiest tiniest of frogs, that uses a hydroskeleton, and can freeze-unfreeze parts of its skeleton at will. Instant spines! Can squeeze through small spaces! I bet they'd be fascinating tank pets - but probably not without some very good insulation... <<
It's not that farfetched. Mammals learned how to generate and control heat. Some amphibians already have antifreeze that keeps them from freezing, or other chemicals that allow them to freeze and then revive. Freezing could work -- although it would probably work better at small frog than nano-frog sizes.
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2021-02-10 02:29 pm (UTC)Whatever tech was being used would need to account for convection. Pizza paddle thingamajigs, anyone?
The food would also need to be in sufficient quantity, or have a sufficient calorie count to be worth the effort expended in processing. (And it would need to cook quickly too, but the smaller portions would help with that.)
I imagine if they had candles [probably more like primitive disaster-tuna-can candles than tapers], they could easily toast food-onna-stick.
>>A more serious limitation would be brain size. Sapient shrews might need to be communal rather than individual creatures for purposes of generating enough mindmass.<<
Total # of neurons affecting maximum computing power?
I know parrots are pretty smart, but maybe parrot/rat size is as small as it can go...
Communal living does have advantages; mostly various buffers against a harsh world, but also a greater pooling of resources.
Wouldn't it be hilarious if the most successful intelligences are the social weakling species-es, because the apes badasses never got past the Stone Age? :D
>>However, there are soft-bodied creatures,...<<
Or elephant's trunks. It's not impossible, but the switchover for an entire organ system would be complicated.
>>Freezing could work -- although it would probably work better at small frog than nano-frog sizes.<<
I was thinking tiny-but-still visible to human eyes. I couldn't think if how to do hydrokinetis / hielokinetics (?) with science...maybe different concentrations of antifreeze in the biofluids? Or a 'bone sack' organ that uses either antifreeze concentrations or pressure to form an individual bone as needed? (In that case, the skeletal system would be a series of bags, variously filled with fluid or filled with ice...)
And a rupture of a bone-sack could be very dangerous, if it mixed different chemical concentrations and made bones ossify in the wrong place...(sounds like a case for Sector General!)
Metabolism might be another challenge. Chemistry (at least standard biochemistry) is a lot less active at colder temps.
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2021-02-10 03:26 pm (UTC)Re: Yes ...
Date: 2021-02-10 06:16 pm (UTC)Re: Yes ...
Date: 2021-02-10 08:50 pm (UTC)*think pressurizing a garden hose
**the legs contract with another mechanism (and that's why the legs curl when they dry out)
I think pufferfish would puff up with water as well. Plants are kind of hydroskeletal - they go limp when they dry out.
I guess hydroskeletons and musculoskeletons (?) are good for flexibiliy (and storing extra water), but the osseous/hard skeletons make better armor/weapons.
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2021-02-12 03:35 am (UTC)