[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
But if we OVERsimplify the problem, we have to ask ourselves if the
exercise really provides anything of merit. We can use as many assumptions
as we want (e.g., water velocity was equal at both sites, preservational
conditions were the same, etc), but at some point we have to check those
assumptions are see if they are realistic. Stating that "sedimnetation is
sedimentation" is, to me, ignoring way too many factors. Just because we
cannot quantify some factors does not mean we can outright dismiss them.
More juvenile remains could be preserved due to lower water
velocities (=smaller elements not destroyed via transport), less activity
of larger scavengers, different population dynamics (already suggested),
niche partitioning between juvenile and adult individuals with juveniles
in more favorable habitats (preservation-wise), or myriad other reasons.
I won't pretend to have the answer to this question. However, I
think it is better to leave the querry open-ended, and have a list of
relevant factors compiled, rather than settle on a "quick 'n easy"
conclusion that is based on such a plethora of simplifying assumptions
that we are guaranteed to have erred.