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

Re: Cretaceous vegetation

Here's something I'm curious about:

 >(David Brez Carlisle)
 from what I have been able to make out of the vegetation in the
topmost cretceous layer in Alberta (the top 2 meters of strata)
angiosperms were confined to stream-sides.  The general flora
was savannah-like (but no grasses) with low-lying sward of
small ferns and occasional scattered trees.  No dense forest.
That c ame in only i mmediately after the K-T boundary, when
a coal layer, immediately overlying the boundary gives signs
of a dense forest.  Perhaps with no large h erbivores to
graze it all down the trees had a chance to survive?<

>From my exposure to the upper Hell Creek Formation, last summer, I'd have to
say there were places where there had to have been fairly dense forest. We
found many different seed types, and a dig a few miles away from our site was
recovering cones from apparent sequoya(?sp). The hadrosaur material we
recovered was resting on thin beds of coal, indicating abundant plant
material. Amber nuggets, most no larger than a pea and most smaller, were
scattered throughout the matrix. This was not a redeposition as the hadrosaur
skeletal remains were mostly articulated.

To assume the landscape of the cretaceous was short on forests, based on one
location, is a mistake. In my opinion.

Roger A. Stephenson