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

Colville River, North Slope Alaska, Dinosaur Fossils Questions

I. Is there any published information about the
how the Liscomb Bone Bed on the Colville River,
North Slope Alaska, was originally discovered
by Robert Liscomb and work done on it bewteen
when it was noted by Mr. Liscomb and when
Dr. Brouwers (USGS) published the 1987
"Science" article about it?

I am wondering why was there such a long period 
of time between when it was discovered in 1961
and when the first reports about it were
published by Dr. Brouwers in:

Brouwers, E. M., W. A. Clemens, P. A. Spicer, T. A.
Ager, L. D. Carter, and W. V.  Sliter (1987). 
Dinosaurs on the North Slope, Alaska: high latitude, 
latest Cretaceous environments. Science. vol. 237,
pp. 1608-1610 ?

II. I have seen the bones recovered from  the Liscomb
Bone Bed being described as being "fresh" and "unaltered."
However, other web pages, i. e. "DINOSAURS on Alaska's 
North Slope" and "Diagenetic alteration of dinosaur 
bone" either describe or conclude that these bones
have been significantly diagenetically altered.  Which 
one of these descriptions is correct?

For example:

"DINOSAURS on Alaska's North Slope"


  While we might presume that remains more than 65 
  million years old would have turned to "solid rock" 
    long ago, that's not true for all dinosaur bones 
   found in northern Alaska. So far, all recovered 
   bones are highly mineralized and discolored by 
   iron oxide, but they still have differences. Some 
   are relatively light and porous while others are 
    heavy and dense. The differences relate to the 
   amounts of minerals, notably silica, which have 
  replaced what was once living cell matter while 
  additionally filling in bone pores. In some 
    specimens, bone cells and pores have been 
    mostly replaced or filled in by minerals. In 
   others, just cell walls and little else have
  been mineralized leaving many open pores. 
    Thus, bones with less mineral replacement are 
    light and more porous than bones with lots of 
    mineral replacement."


    So far, no DNA has been found in dinosaur bones of the 
    North Slope. When they were first discovered in the 
    1980s, and before they were studied, the relatively light 
    weight of several bones caused speculation that they 
    might contain a lot of the original bone tissue from the 
    once-living dinosaur. Since then, the result of studies 
    have not supported this idea. Instead, they have shown 
    that the bones are highly mineralized with none yet 
    proven to contain recoverable dinosaur DNA or 
    anything else from the living dinosaur. So is that the 
    end of the story? Not quite ...."

and "Diagenetic alteration of dinosaur bone"

Refering to fossil bones from the Liscomb Bone Bed, it

  "Concentrations of many of these elements are at 
    least an order of magnitude higher than those in 
    modern reptilian and mammalian bones. Such data 
    indicate that significant diagentic alteration 
    may have occurred in the dinosaur bones."

Is there any published articles that describe the preservation of
these bones in detail?


Keith Littleton
New Orleans, LA