This message is from: Steven A White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You're right. The bigger animal does have less surface area by weight. Very astute of you.
There is a law in biology (I've forgotten the name) that states: Mammals of the same species will grow larger in the north compared to the south (i.e. white tail deer grow larger in Minnesota than white tail deer in Florida). The opposite is true for reptiles and amphibians (garter snakes smaller in Minn., larger in Florida). This has to do with energy conservation. You would think then, Fjords in Norway would be larger than here in the US. Therefore, there must be a little artificial selection going on. We seem to like them a little bigger here. Just compare an old world Belgian horse to a new world Belgian. Big difference. Also, I have always felt the Scandinavians to be a fairly progressive group. So I wouldn't think their animals to be nutritionally stunted (these days, anyway). Steve White Waterloo, Nebraska USA >>A bigger animal has more surface area per unit mass than a >smaller animal does, and loses heat easier when it's cold. > >It's the other way around. The bigger animal has less surface area >proportionally. >
