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

Re: Tarbosaurus?

Dinogeorge wrote...
>The second alternative has
>the virtue of making the fossil distribution of the two putative Nemegt
>species match that of the Hell Creek tyrannosaurids; the weird difference
>between the two regions vanishes.

    Try applying this solution to different localities within the SAME
formation, such as for example, Cleavland-Lloyd vs. Como Bluff.  Playing
around with taxonomic status isn't going to make Allosaurus stop making up
75% of the population of Cleavland Lloyd, although both are supposedly
floodplain deposits.  Variation in population sampling is the norm; nothing
"wierd" or unusual about it.
    You made a case before for "population sampling between two populations
being near identical" being the null hypothesis.  A better one would be
"complicating factors such as paleobiology, sedimentology, and chance affect
population sampling, so even similar depositional environments with similar
faunas should show variance in the types and relative proportions of animals
sampled."  With a subject as complicated as taphonomy, variation due to
complexity is a more reasonable starting assumption.  Sorry if it isn't as
tidy as yours, but it is more honest.

>And that's all I have to say on this subject. Period.

    Too bad.  A lot more could be said about taphonomy.  Its a complicated
subject with far reaching implications.

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
(806) 747-7910