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

Re: Djadokhtan environments and Udurchukan age



--- David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:

> >>
> http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/fossil/sandslide.html
> >> [...]
> >
> > The environment represented by Ukhaa Tolgod was
> > relatively wet for the Djadokhtan period.
> 
> Do you say this because of Fastovsky et al.?


 His research made it clear that dinosaur remains at
Tugrik were preserved in fine/medium grained, layered
sandstone, indicating wind action, whereas the Ukhaa
Tolgod fossiliferous beds were formed of heavier
stones and lacked layering, indicating water caused
them.

> 
> >  I just came across a paper by Fastovsky et al and
> > would like to quote from it:
> 
> How old is that paper? Judging from the text, it's
> older than the webpage I 
> cited. 

  1997.


 Btw, getting back to Tsintaosaurus, the putative
parasaurolophine may not have been dominant at
Laiyang. If the Udurchukan localities are really
synchronous, no one hadrosaur genus was dominant there
either. I only wanted to make the point that the
Udurchukan fauna has much more in common with
Campanian faunas than with those of the late
Maastrichtian, its supposed age. Given the extreme
rarity of lambeosaurs in the Nemegt and Hell
Creek/Lance, it is hard to believe a unit with such an
abundance and variety of lambeosaurs is really late
Maastrichtian, unless it represented an isolated ("how
no one knows")environment as Godefroit said. But I
don't believe that.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com