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

Re: Tsagayan/Udurchukan age-Campanian?

 I've repeatedly argued against the putative late
Maastrichtian age of the Tsagayan or Udurchukan
formation. Logically, a unit with abundant lambeosaurs
of Campanian aspect should be older.

"Logically" and "judging from the Hell Creek Fm" is not the same. How do you know they are "of Campanian aspect" when you only know that lambeosaurs of that "aspect" are restricted to the Campanian _in North America_?

Yesterday, while
going over recent JVP issues, I noted information
which suggests the Tsagayan actually IS of Campanian


This is a lot more convincing.