Timeline for How can a creature have an efficient bird like respiratory system without hollow bones?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 19, 2022 at 22:02 | comment | added | addaon | Right... but one nostril can support our breathing. We have two, perhaps due to symmetry constraints of formation or perhaps for redundancy; but there's clearly been no major pressure to reduce that number to one. And that one nostril can support our breathing at a 50% intake / 50% exhaust duty cycle. So having two similarly sized nostrils, one dedicated to intake and one to exhaust, would not introduce a "too many holes" issue. | |
| May 19, 2022 at 21:43 | comment | added | John | @addaon actually we do, animals have large sinuses just to minimize water loss, many organisms us included breath primarily through one nostril at a time to minimize losses as well. there just is no good way for us to reduce the number of holes entirely. separating the respiratory and digestive system however could be well worth the extra holes. | |
| May 18, 2022 at 22:20 | comment | added | addaon | Even in our own respiratory system we don't make any effort to minimize holes (nostrils, mouth), so I don't know how much of a concern this is in practice, but it definitely would be a non-conventional layout that may be awkward for other reasons. | |
| May 18, 2022 at 22:09 | comment | added | Chickenpeep | This thing is genetically altered, so evolutionary history is irrelevant. Also I think an issue with more holes is that there are more access points for pathogens and other contaminants, and I'd assume they'd be damp and mucusy so more places to lose moisture. So not necessarily the most advantageous. | |
| May 18, 2022 at 20:58 | history | answered | addaon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |