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

Re: Quo vadis, T. rex? [long]



At 02:22 AM 2/8/96 -0500, Tompaleo@aol.com wrote:
>True. But this is a result of the _lack_of_ preserved upland sediments. In
>fact, by their very definition, uplands deposit very little sediment (not
>counting lakes or streams within them).  I am facing this problem right now
>in the Arundel Formation. It seems that there is a nodosaur called Priconodon
>crassus that is known in this unit ONLY by teeth. (Some)  Nodosaurs are
>believed to be upland dwellers yet the Arundel is a _lowland_ fluvial
>sedimentary  complex. The logical conclusion is that these teeth were washed
>downdtream along with the detritus from the Appalachian and Piedmont
>provinces. But why only teeth? An alternative explanation is that these are
>local fossils of some other critter which may be in our posession but is so
>fragmented that no one has pieced together yet. 

   Time to branch this discussion's cladogram.  Aren't teeth considered
particularly tough?  Maybe the reason only teeth make it down stream is
because the rest of the skeleton is destroyed by aquatic critters and the
pounding of being washed downstream.  Aren't pachycephalosaurs also
considered upland critters?  ...and the main reason why we know about them
is because their bony heads have so much bony material that they survive
being washed downstream?

** Jeff's Dinosaur Page. Home of THE DINOSTORE ** "Those who trade a        **
** (for all your Dinosaur product needs),      ** little freedom for a      **
** Jeff's Journal of Dinosaur Paleontology,    ** little security will soon **
** and The Dinosaur Mailing List Encyclopedia. ** find they have none of    **
** http://www.infinet.com/~jpoling/            ** either." -- Jeff Poling   **