[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Packs of Deinonychus



>From: anatomy@acl.nyit.edu
 > 
 > Stan Friesen claims that the Yale Deinonychus site represents an assemblage 
 > of
 > bones that were transported by water. He states that the taphonomy of the 
 > site
 > 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.

swf@elsegundoca.attgis.com              sarima@netcom.com

The peace of God be with you.