[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Remember the Alamosaurus (was RE: taxonomy is not stratigraphy)
Forwarded for Jonathan....
Denver, please forward this reply to the List...
At 05:17 PM 8/2/2005, you wrote:
>My point was that the age of the single ash date for
>the <middle of the> Javelina falls outside that of
>fossiliferous portion of the Lance. If the Javelina
>contemporaneous, in <its uppermost> part, with the
>Lance, then it is no problem to my interpretation.
>But, should we really refer to the entire Javelina as
>'Lancian'? Is it not inappropriate and misleading to
>have the seemingly exclusive 'Lancian' age defining,
>in fact, an inclusive period of time that stretches
>beyond the limits of the Lance fauna itself?
Don't get me started on NALMAs. I think the whole idea
thinking and robs biostratigraphy and biogeography of
than tritely considering the Javelina "Lancian" or
address faunal continuity within the Javelina, and
compare the Javelina
fauna to roughly contemporaneous faunas (determined,
other than biostratigraphy), independent of
preconceived notions of
biostratigraphy and biogeography. The suggestion that
the Javelina is
"Lancian" was an early take, an approximation that
Lawson and Lehman
others used before proper data could be collected.
Obviously, that data
now being collected. So, yeah, I very much agree with
>But in all fairness, everybody has made some mistakes
>regarding the strat of this section. [...] It was not
>intention to seem disrespectful in my posting, and if
>this was the case then I apologise.
Actually, it was probably ME who went off on YOU. I
think it is pretty
obvious you weren't trying to be disrespectful. Rather
than fight other
people's battles, I probably should have let the whole
>I have spent the summers of 2002, 2003, and 2004
>collecting and following the section in the
>Naashoibito and Kirtland with Bob <Sullivan> et al,
That's all I need to hear. My understanding of the
second-hand, so I cannot address your criticisms
directly. However, it
certainly sounds like you are in a position to
stratigraphy, so I must retract my previous "advice"
(with a big slice
humble pie, to boot!). :)
>My points in previous
>emails were not to pick fights, but to draw attention
>to the actual poor support for the various
>interpretations of southern strat, based for the most
>part on Lawson, 1976, THAT maxilla, and a whole host
>of indeterminate ceratopsian.
As you can probably tell, I very much agree with you.
Hence why you
are combing the San Juan Basin, and we are coming Big
Bend. Also why
and I are working on "THAT" maxilla... I got sick and
tired of its
(unsubstantiated) central role in Maastrichtian
you didn't know, Lawson originally intended to name it
as a new
>Wouldn't it be nice if
>someone found a good ceratopsian site in amongst the
To quote somebody, "wait for the paper." :)
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com