Randy Irmis wrote:
<<The final argument given in favor of the hadrosaur being gut contents is
that the caudals found are acidically etched. This certainly is a
compelling argument. There are however occurrences of bone beds deposited
in acidic environments. Especially notable is the Maiasaur bone bed in the
Willow Creek Anticline, where major parts of bone have been dissolved by the
acidic depositional environment.>>
I haven't read the paper yet, so forgive me if an adeguate answer to my following question and doubt may be found in the paper itself...
further, my geological bases are non-existent , so my question may sound incomprehensibly banal;
are there, among the various hadrosaurian remains ,unetched bones?
what about the predator's ones?
if the tyrannosaurid bones are unetched( the contrary would have been noted istantly i think), than it's unlikely (seems so to me at least) that only the hadrosaurian remains got etched while laying in the same site(exactly the same), by means of "enviromental" acidity( soil acidity or what?)....
however i find your arguments against the inferred nature (gut contents) of the hadrosaurian remains very reasonable..