[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Fwd: Re: Remember the Alamosaurus (was RE: taxonomy is not stratigraphy)
--- "Jonathan R. Wagner"
> At 06:59 AM 8/3/2005, Tim Donovan wrote:
> > That makes sense. IIRC TMM 41436-1 was found low
> >the Javelina, and therefore at least 69 Ma old,
> >before the Lancian.
> Actually, Lawson writes that the maxilla was found
> in the "lower third of
> the Tornillo Group." Confusion on this matter is
> certainly warranted, as
> Scheibout et al. suggested that the Tornillo Group
> should be lowered to
> Formation. However, the lower third of the Tornillo
> Group IS the Javelina
> Formation. The precise stratigraphic level of the
> specimen will be revised
> based on a new section measured right up through the
> locality by Tom
> Lehman. I cannot recall exactly how high the
> specimen is, but I seem to
> recall it is close to the K/T boundary, i.e., NOT
> > > 3) There is no evidence from the Javelina
> > > that tyrannosaurids
> > > fed on sauropods.
> > Considering the small size of the specimen
> >to T. rex, that isn't surprising. Alamosaurus was
> >big to overcome, except for juveniles. Maybe that
> >why Alamosaurus was so common in the Javelina but
> >in the units where T. rex apparently is known, the
> >McRae and North Horn.
> Were you assuming a T. rex could take out an
> Alamosaurus? ;)
> I kind-of doubt tyrannosaurs were the major control
> on sauropod abundance,
> but I suppose stranger things have happened. One
> alternative to consider:
> the abundance of sauropods may be facies-dependent
> (at least, where it
> occurs). There is some evidence to support this.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around