[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Fastovsky vs Archibald
Do we have enough good quality depositional environment data associated
with enough articulated Trike and Edmontie occurrences to be making
hypotheses about their preferred paleohabitats? Nearly all of the
earliest excavations (early 1900s) ignored contextual data altogether,
and even recent excavations have been hit-and-miss at recording the dep.
env. of the site (the presence or absence of such data seems to be
strongly correlated with who is doing the excavating).
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:48:49 -0700 (PDT) Tim Donovan <email@example.com>
> > --- GUY LEAHY <firstname.lastname@example.org wrote;
> > > In any event, if Hypacrosaurus and Edmontosaurus
> > did
> > > not prefer the same habitats, the presence of
> > > Edmontosaurus in the Scollard Formation might
> > > suggest that the Scollard paleoenvironment was not
> > > to the liking of Hypacrosaurus.
> It is true that the presence of Triceratops and
> Edmontosaurus suggests a paleoenvironment which
> excluded lambeosaurs. But the Scollard seems to be the
> kind of relatively dry inland environment which
> favored Hypacrosaurus and Saurolophus in the late
> Horseshoe Canyon period. Based on environmental and
> faunal differences, Lehman considered the Scollard
> part of a Leptoceratops biozone distinct from the
> Triceratops zone of MT etc. I suspect that by Scollard
> times Edmontosaurus and other taxa moved into more
> upland habitats left vacant by the waning of
> lambeosaurs and others.
> Yahoo! Sports
> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football