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


        Again, I really dislike doing this...
Brian Franczak wrote:
        Ahhh... that takes me back... (or dates me, I'm not sure which...)

>Yet Chatterjee claims that the fossil is 225 million years old.
        Not to be picky or anything, but the age of Dockum is pretty well
accepted (unless you refuse to believe in the Triassic). I would suggest
that, out of respect for Dr. Chatterjee, an established and respected member
of the scientific community with decades of experience, and perhaps for all
the many stratigraphers in Texas and elsewhere who have studied the Dockum,
that you treat this assertion with a little more dignity. Just because Dr.
Chatterjee has come up with some rather alarming assertions in the past few
years does not mean that everything he says is subject to question.

>Anyone know anything more about this than I gleaned from that pinnacle of
>scientific texts RANGER RICK?
        Any volume on Triassic stratigraphy of the American southwest.
Spencer Lucas has published more than a few papers on the subject, Thomas
Lehman has too, as have Chatterjee and Colbert, just to get you started.


Brian (franczak@ntplx.net)
    Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
"Cladism is to evolution what agnosticism is to the existance of god"-Horner