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

Re: Discovery Channel's "Beasts in Your Back Yard"

Dear All,
In all fairness, they are apparently not addressing the question of whether fossil material of dinosaurs can be found in a given area, but rather what well known genera might have "lived" in that geographic area. Glaciers or erosion in general may have swept a given area completely clean of Mesozoic deposits, but that obviously doesn't mean such areas were lifeless in the Mesozoic. Unfortunately the phrase "in your backyard" could be taken literally to mean that such fossils might be found in the area, but I don't think that's what they really meant.
But there are definitely some inaccuracies (no big surprise). And I had to laugh when I read what they had as the "Paleoenvironment" for Tyrannosaurus: "Where there were lots of prey." WOW!! In that case, I guess they should be found worldwide. <snicker> :-)
----Cheers, Ken
From: christopher robert noto <crnoto@midway.uchicago.edu>
Reply-To: crnoto@midway.uchicago.edu
To: Ray Stanford <dinotracker@earthlink.net>
CC: Dinosaur Mailing List <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: Discovery Channel's "Beasts in Your Back Yard"
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:01:40 -0500 (CDT)

I think that because we know that relevant dinosaur fossils are not found
everywhere in the US, the Discovery Channel took some liberties in
generalizing the dinosaur distribution database in order to make it
relevant to  everyone.  I doubt many people would be impressed if a "no
significant material" message popped up instead of a name.  I live in
Chicago and they said Hadrosaurus lived around here, though I know very
few (if any) Cretaceous terrestrial rocks outcrop in Chicago.  We're a
Paleozoic town.

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com