[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: youngest dino-remains
This controversy has been argued at length since the Alvarez papers.
1. The K-T boundary is not defined at a resolution of 1000 years.
2. Disarticulated bones are more likely to be the result of secondary
deposition than articulated sets. I.e. animal dies, is buried,
million years pass, river cuts through stratum containing fossils,
redepositing them in a stratum with a later date.
Since the DEFINITIVE proofs that birds are dinosaurs
offered by the recent finds in China, the question of what
caused the extinction of the dinosaurs has been rendered
silly and questions about whether large non-avian dinosaur species
may have survived for short times has lost its punch.
> From: THammann@t-online.de[SMTP:THammann@t-online.de]
> Reply To: THammann@t-online.de
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 3:19 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: youngest dino-remains
> Message from Thomas Hammann (Germany)
> Hi all,
> I'm still interested in the question which dino-remains (teeth? bones?)
> found in the early Tertiary layers. Which are the youngest remains of
> and where were they found? Is it principally right to say that some
> dinosaur-species survived the Cretacious-period (even if only for a few
> Thanks for the informations.