[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Tsagayan/Udurchukan age-Campanian?
--- David Marjanovic <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I've repeatedly argued against the putative late
> > Maastrichtian age of the Tsagayan or Udurchukan
> > formation. Logically, a unit with abundant
> > 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_?
The Nemegt is certainly similar to the Hell Creek
in yielding very few lambeosaurs, and there is no
evidence for any lambeosaur other than
Hypacrosaurus(may=Barsboldia, see THE DINOSAURIA)in
either. Lambeosaurs seem more abundant in the
apparently Djadokhtan beds at Laiyang. The
parasaurolophine Tsintaosaurus suggests the unit is
coeval with Jiayin.
> > Yesterday, while
> > going over recent JVP issues, I noted information
> > which suggests the Tsagayan actually IS of
> > age.
> > [...]
> This is a lot more convincing.
Then don't worry about the above. :)
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.