|
|
|
|
|
by JCraig
4894 days ago
|
|
Tortoises were the first to come to mind for me. Later in the article, it does state that it's not just size but metabolism that figures into this correlation. That being said. The article states that this relationship governs "all life" but only gives data for plants. Even there, "some variation, but not a lot" is an extremely generous representation. For the same mass, a difference in mortality rate could be 10^3 or more if I'm reading the graph correctly. While the relationship might roughly follow a trend, I wouldn't call that "not a lot" of variation. It's interesting, but I think the authors are overselling the relationship. |
|