Why arthropod has not evolved to be huge?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tyto alba
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Evolution
AI Thread Summary
Arthropods have not evolved to be large primarily due to limitations in their organ systems, which cannot support increased size, and the inefficiency of their respiratory systems. The brittleness of chitin requires it to be thick to support larger muscle mass, posing a challenge for growth. Additionally, larger arthropods would face increased predation risks during molting, necessitating frequent hiding. The scaling laws for physiological functions indicate that their tubular appendages cannot adequately support a significant increase in body volume. Overall, these factors collectively hinder the evolution of larger sizes in arthropods.
Tyto alba
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Q: Why arthropods have not evolved to be huge? 1. Homework Statement
Arthropods have not been able to achieve great size because
(1) the type of organ systems they possesses could not support·such a development
(2) they would be unable to successfully reproduce
(3) chitin is brittle and must be thick to bear the pull of muscles
(4) their vision is not good enough to hunt larger prey

2. The attempt at a solution

I went through berkeley.edu and figured out three points:

1.A large organism molting will have the huge risk of predation. It would need to hide rather frequently as the skeleton hardens.
2. The appendages which are mostly tubular chitinous structures won't support the shear increase in body volume which increase 8 folds with ever 2 fold increase in length.
3. The present respiratory system won't be efficient.

So,

(1) the type of organ systems they possesses could not support·such a development - Not all systems' a problem
(2) they would be unable to successfully reproduce -ruled out looks not an issue, early maturation, high number of offsprings
(3) chitin is brittle and must be thick to bear the pull of muscles-yeah, if the volume increases and the exoskeleton doesn't become thick enough it won't be able to support the muscles
(4) their vision is not good enough to hunt larger prey-looks not an issueSo answer 3 ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Tyto alba said:
3. The present respiratory system won't be efficient.
Tyto alba said:
(1) the type of organ systems they possesses could not support·such a development - Not all systems' a problem
You just need one system to be not up to the task.
 
Tyto alba said:
Q: Why arthropods have not evolved to be huge?

I went through berkeley.edu and figured out three points:

1.A large organism molting will have the huge risk of predation. It would need to hide rather frequently as the skeleton hardens.
2. The appendages which are mostly tubular chitinous structures won't support the shear increase in body volume which increase 8 folds with ever 2 fold increase in length.
3. The present respiratory system won't be efficient.
maybe there is no "right answer" to this question. Yours appear to be me reasonable conjectures. How can you sharpen them to something more scientific? For 3 can you make a comparison with other organism types? Aquatic and terrestrial. Can you beef up 2 with some more known scaling laws for physiological functions?
 
Bandersnatch said:
You just need one system to be not up to the task.

Though you have a point thinking about how the MCQs are solved I don't think one should go with this. Sometime when one is unsure one has to weigh the different options and having a plural form also knocks down one of them.

epenguin said:
maybe there is no "right answer" to this question.

I think you are right.

epenguin said:
How can you sharpen them to something more scientific? For 3 can you make a comparison with other organism types? Aquatic and terrestrial. Can you beef up 2 with some more known scaling laws for physiological functions?

To be honest I avoided doing that as it will take some good amount of time, going through the arthropods resp. sys and other related stuffs. I wanted to know that if my conjectures are right, I think they are now.
I'll return to this question once my impending Exams are over. Thank you :)
 
FWIW, the answer that came to my mind first after reading the thread title and before seeing any of the options, would be that the respiratory system would not work.
 
Maybe they were bigger in e.g. The cretaceous when everything was, different temperature and oxygen levels.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top