"Srinivas S"  wrote in message
news:arok9b$1haj$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> 1)Why didn't all animals develop omnivorous capability?
> 2)Does it not give an advantage to the animal over carnivores or
> herbivores?
> 3) Is there a trade-off  in becoming omnivores, that they are neither
> good carnivores nor good herbivores? If yes,why?
>
> [moderator's suggestion: You may wish to research the large body
> of thought related to generalised versus specialised strategies;
> what my prof (Pianka) referred to as the conflict between specialists
> and "Jack" (as in "jack of all trades"). - JAH]

I don't think one should need to refer to any particular professor's
thoughts to comment on this question. [Saw your comment, Josh.]

Anyhow, a major characteristic of this is its fundamental inhomogenity,
variability, and imperfection;

E.g., a hypothetical super-omnivore phenotype (unless capable of devouring
and metabolizing planets!) would soon deplete its environmental resources
and become weak and vulnerable to attack from within - in the form of
militant mutant molecules, viral agents, and cells sprouting new lineages.

Hence, also for such fundamental reasons, even the most optimized
"generalist strategy" of reproductive survival, will automatically be kept
under control by inbuilt compromises and drawbacks?!

[My two cents worth - if that.]

Peter
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/25/02 7:23:18 PM