Animals 'Shrink More Quickly' During Evolutionary Process, Study Finds

Elephant

First Posted: 31/01/2012 07:19 Updated: 31/01/2012 07:19   PA

It took 24 million generations for mammals to evolve from the size of a mouse to that of an elephant, a study has shown.

Shrinking is a much faster process, however. Large-scale reductions in size leading to dwarfism only take around 100,000 generations.

Scientists writing in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences looked at 28 groups of mammals, including elephants, primates and whales.

Size change since the age of the dinosaurs 70 million years ago was tracked by generations rather than years to account for varying life spans between species.

"We can show that it took at least 24 million generations to make the proverbial mouse-to-elephant size change - a massive change, but also a very long time," said study leader Dr Alistair Evans, from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.

Changes in whale size occurred at twice the rate of land mammals, the scientists found.

"This is probably because it's easier to be big in water," said co-author Dr Erich Fitzgerald, from Australia's Museum Victoria.
Decreases in body size happened more than 10 times faster than increases.

Living on small islands with limited resources is known to promote evolutionary dwarfism.

"When you do get smaller, you need less food and can reproduce faster, which are real advantages on small islands," said Dr Evans.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

It took 24 million generations for mammals to evolve from the size of a mouse to that of an elephant, a study has shown. Shrinking is a much faster process, however. Large-scale reductions in size ...
It took 24 million generations for mammals to evolve from the size of a mouse to that of an elephant, a study has shown. Shrinking is a much faster process, however. Large-scale reductions in size ...
Filed by Felicity A Morse  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
19:50 on 05/02/2012
That makes good intuitive sense, as adapting to require fewer resources to live would be vitally more important than getting larger.  There really aren't that many physically large life forms.
16:58 on 31/01/2012
................silly me! I thought it was because they eat so much - just like the rest of us.
15:41 on 31/01/2012
Theres me thinking they got that big so they could reach the chain!
15:40 on 31/01/2012
Still doesn't explain WHY animals get bigger. If animals could get elephant-sized, why are there still mouse-sized animals in the same areas?
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
16:00 on 06/02/2012
Rodents and elephants may live in the same region but don't fit into that region's environmental niche in exactly the same way.   They also carry different genes and therefore different variants arise via natural selection.
15:20 on 31/01/2012
so thats what happened to vanesa phelps!!
14:56 on 31/01/2012
At this rate then Sarkozy will be an ant soon. Lol
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Norman Mitchison
13:09 on 31/01/2012
This scientific survey will be of great interest to somebody, somewhere ,but who really cares when there is so much tribulation in the world that boffins should be trying to understand and eliminate. Earthquakes,sunamis,volcanic eruptions,floods,famines, deserve predictions before something theoretical millions of years ago.
13:34 on 31/01/2012
Norman, All knowledge is to be applauded who knows where this knowledge will lead as for tsunamis and volcanoes I am sure research is still being carried on. Jerry
13:40 on 31/01/2012
You never really know where study will get you.

You might say that studying evolutionary biology has absolutely no bearing on floods, famines etc. But then., who could possibly have predicted at the time that Michael Faraday's experiments in magnetism woul lead to the instruments that can measure vulcanism and earthquakes, and can predict those things?

You never know where research is going to lead. That's why people shouldn't try to control and direct it solely on to "useful" fields.