[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
On Tues, April 4, Chad Laibly wrote:
> The claystones of the Morrison are not really aquatic deposits. They may
> have been deposited on river flood plains, but the setting was
I couldn't quite tell from your posting, and I don't know your background,
> but it makes me wonder. If you are inclined to think that those stones were
> deposited by Noah's Flood, you've been hoodwinked by uncritical and
> unscrupulous people. I would be glad if I'm wrong about your motivation,
> and you have my apologies if I am.
Noah's Ark? I was interested in knowing how the
stones could end up in that particular environment. Umm, I guess I don't
see the connection...? Happy to continue that off-list, out of
> What is "TIA"?
T I A Thanks In Advance :)
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: C. Laibly [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Monday, April 05, 1999 7:03 PM
> > To: dinosaurs
> > Subject: Gastroliths
> > Can anyone tell me what the accepted theory is about sauropods and
> > their possible use of stones to digest? Today in Evolution of the
> > Vertebrates, we learned in lecture that many of these stones are found in
> > the Morrison Fm in clay or limey deposits. There was some controversy on
> > how they could come to rest in a low turbulence depositional environment.
> > The one theory mentioned was vomiting from the sauropods as they swam. Is
> > this for real?
> > I really can't see a group of sauropods swimming along and
> > vomiting all day! Somebody, please tell me a more plausible explanation
> > for the stones. Oh, also mentioned was the fact that only 2 sauropods to
> > date had been found with stones inside their body cavities as they were
> > discovered. TIA!
> > Chad Laibly
> > University of Iowa
> > Geology/Museum Studies