[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Packs of Deinonychus
> Stan Friesen claims that the Yale Deinonychus site represents an assemblage
> bones that were transported by water. He states that the taphonomy of the
> shows this to be so; it's not an in situ assemblage.
Sigh, I wish I could remember where I read that!
I think it may have been in the "dinosaur" issue of Natural History,
which I am currently reading, but I am not quite sure.
> This is incorrect. The taphonomy of YPM 64-75 indicates that there was no
> transportation of the bones. The sediments are overbank deposits, not channel
> sands or anything else that would indicate water flow. The assemblage (one
> Tenontosaurus and at least four Deinonychus) was buried in situ; there is no
> evidence for transportation of any element. Many very delicate bones, such as
> palatal elements, are preserved unbroken and could not possibly represent a
> transported assemblage.
The sort of transport I was thinking of was whole carcass transport
prior to substantial decay. I think that is consistant with intact
small bones - and even with articulated skeletons.
Still, if it was overbank deposit, this is not at all likely.
The peace of God be with you.