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

Re: Taphonomy (was Re: Tarbosaurus?)





Dinogeorge wrote...
>I claim that whatever sedimentological factors operated in the Nemegt and
the
>Hell Creek would sample the two populations the same way. Show me how they
>would not. Show me how the speed or depth of the water, the soil acidity,
>rainfall, size of particulate matter deposited, etc. would affect the
>ratio
>of fossilized subadults to adults< in a tyrannosaurid population. GET REAL,
>MAN!


    Tell me how the speed or depth of the water, the soil acidity, rainfall,
size of particulate matter deposited, etc.. would affect the number of
theropods relative to other dinosaurs in general so that Cleavland Lloyd is
could really 75% Allosaurus when most Morrison quarries have a much lower
allosaur sampling. GET REAL, MAN!  Are those subadult allosaurs in Cleavland
Lloyd different species just because they are so rare in the rest of the
Morrison?   If population sampling WITHIN a formation is extremely variable,
so how can you possibly assuming that it is constant BETWEEN formations?
Dinosaur National Monument was brought up for a reason, but so could any
nearly monospecific bone bed, like Cleavland Lloyd or Currie's tyrannosaur
bone bed.
    You made Dr. Holtze's posting sound like he was coming down firmly on
your side, but one of his points was that Nemegt taphonomy is poorly known,
so basing your argument on assumptions about it is weak; and that includes
the assumption that Hell Creek and Nemegt are sampling identically.

LN Jeff

Genius without education is like silver in the mine.
-Benjamin Franklin

Be sure to keep busy, so the devil may always find you occupied.
-Flavius Vegetius Renatus

Jeffrey W. Martz
3002 4th St. # C26
Lubbock, TX
79415
http://illustrations.homestead.com/Illustration.html
(806) 747-7910