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

Re: Sauropod extinction

    Actually Sherry wrote that particular question.  I attempted to answer
the premise.  I assumed that sauropods, especially the really gigantic
diplodocids and brachiosaurids disappeared fairly rapidly at the end of the
Jurassic.  Sherry's question seemed to me to reflect that sudden reduction
in numbers and kinds.  (Perhaps because I know Sherry, I knew exactly what
she meant when she said the N.A. sauropods got "hammered" -  that is,
drastically reduced in population and species - not into extinction as it
seems others have interpreted).

    Additionally, it seems to me that the continued existance of the smaller
sauropods into the early Cretaceous only bolsters some of my contentions  -
i.e. that it got too WET for the sauropods and the type of food and
evironment that they needed.  It got progressively wetter, and wetter as the
Cretaceous developed.

    Hope this clears up any misunderstandings.

        Allan Edels

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Kirkland <dis@gj.net>
To: Dinosaur Listserver <dinosaur@usc.edu>; edels@email.msn.com
Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: Sauropod extinction

>Allan Edels wrote:
>> What do you think happened to the sauropods at the end of the Jurassic? I
>> think it is very intriguing that N.A. species got hammered, but many
>> sauropods thrived until the late Cretaceous in other places (such as
>> America).
>THe extinction did not happen till the end of the Early Cretaceous. We
>have camarasaurids, brachiosaurids, and full blown titanosaurs in the
>Barrimian of Utah (125-120 mya) and brachiosaurids at the base of the
>Cenomanian (98.4 = or - 0.7 mya) in Utah. See
>for more information.
>We may have a sauropod in the Late Campanian of Mexico as well (and not
>a titanosaurid).
>Jim Kirkland