[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: The Final Days
> (1) High location might have protected from any tsunami.
Oops. Convincing. :-] My memory failure. Should likewise apply to anywhere
far inland, such as large parts of Africa and probably central east Asia...
and probably much of Antarctica.
> (2) Mountain-valley framework may have shielded from worst of forest fires
> and angular flying debris,
Sounds good. But in a magnitude 13 earthquake mountains will produce lots of
almost vertically flying debris, landslides and so on.
> possibly even allowing a lower proportion of acid rain.
This should rather apply to dry regions behind a mountain range... but wait,
I'm basing my thinking on the Alps (pretty wet on both sides, most weather
coming from the west) rather than the Rocky Mountains... but then the latter
were close to the Western Interior Seaway... hm.
> (3) Water supply, from even higher altitudes, may have been less affected
> by outside forces.
On the contrary, I'd say, because rainfall reaches the sources and rivers
faster there than elsewhere. Calcareous mountains should offer good
protection against acid rain, however.
> I am under the impression that flowering plants had evolved at the start of
> the Cretaceous.
The most common recent literature date for their first fossils -- some
central Asian pollen and *Archaefructus* -- is 124 Ma... "start of the
Cretaceous" can't be far off.
> Would such a habitat still be considered forest or is there
> another reason for excluding such areas?
Er -- all living broad-leaved trees except the ginkgo are angiosperms (as
opposed to conifers, which like the ginkgo are gymnosperms [paraphyletic]),
so angiosperm forests are nothing special... that wasn't your question, was
it? (Or should I feel like saying bad things about the US school system...?)