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

US overeating problem extends to wildlife



hey,

<apologises for cross posting>

For those taphonomists who (like me) collect pictures
of dead animals, the BBC has a nice largeish (600x400)
of the dead burmese python (FL, USA) which apparently
burst its gut eating an alligator:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4313978.stm

Sorry, I'll let you get back to your clades now.

Cheers,

Denver.

PS. oh, also yesterday's London Times ran an article
about the UK Catholic bishop's new document that
states certain sections of the bible are not literally
true, including parts of the creation story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html

available for 6 more days I think.




--- "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com> wrote:

>   Now that I have some time, old mail:
> 
> Tim Donovan (uwrk2@yahoo.com) wrote:
> 
> <Mesolanistes. Shuvalov et al mentioned a variety of
> evidence.>
> 
>   Donovan loves going back to the oldies but
> goldies. New data enters the fray
> and it must be applied as someone else applied it
> and in no other way. Because
> they got it right? Shoehorning and strawmen. Indeed,
> we are still down to using
> a single taxon as the primary reason for doubting
> the age of Iren Dabasu, not
> attempting to assess the remainder of the data.
> 
> <Yes but "Djadoktha" was never used AFAIK.>
> 
>   It seems anal to me to quibble about a
> misspelling.
> 
> <As I pointed out repeatedly, radiometric dating of
> a Djadokhtan locality
> indicates a late Campanian age. Recent work suggests
> the Baynshirenian ended by
> the Campanian.>
> 
>   Which is fine since they are doubting referring
> the Iren Dabasu to an age
> equivalent to Bayan Shiree and instead to an age
> equivalent to the Nemegt. The
> locality dated, btw, Borzongiin Govi, was previously
> mentioned, and the ref
> used (Shuvalov, 2000) does nto back up this
> statement, unless this is another
> case of not providing a citation for claims. Let's
> review with a blast from the
> past, over 2 years ago --
> http://dml.cmnh.org/2003Sep/msg00171.html -- which
> states (in part):
> 
>   "In addition K-Ar dates from basalts in the middle
> and upper parts of the
>    Svita (in the gorge Borzongiin Gobi and others)
> are 78-80 MYR (Campanian). 
>    Hence, we date the Baruungoyot Svita as
> Santonian-Campanian (Shuvalov and
>    Nikolaeva, 1985)."
> 
>   This is hardly a "late Campanian" age, if this
> locality in fact derives from
> the mainline Djadokhta as claimed, or from the
> Baruun Goyot, or from a similar
> level.
> 
> <Basically I'm just repeating the conclusions of
> Shuvalov, Martinson, Osmolska,
> Russell, Jerzykiewicz etc, concening the early-mid
> Maastrichtian age estimate
> for the Nemegt. And this is NOT based on just taxa.
> The Nemegt couldn't be as
> old as Campanian because far underlying beds are
> late Campanian. Again see
> Shuvalov.>
> 
>   Which was cited above and apparently makes some of
> these formations even
> younger. Since none of the hypotheses I've stated
> have required the formations
> to be even Maastrichtian but allowed them to be
> Campanian, I have no problem
> with the dates, as long as the data is accurate.
> This is always the problem
> with dating non-clastic terrestrial formations, they
> must be compared with MUCH
> less concise means, largely assumptions on taxonomic
> integrity and impressions
> of speciation rates, which were estimates of a grand
> order that are being
> slowly shown to be utter crap by actual molecular
> dating and detailed
> osteological data of "species" and "genera" (which
> are similarly utterly crap
> as they are arbitrary and subjective constructs).
> 
> <I replied by mentioning the discovery of
> Bactrosaurus from Bayshin Tsav; it is
> also known from Iren Dabasu.>
> 
>   And *Bactrosaurus* can't be a genus that spanned a
> stage or two? Or maybe the
> fossils they called *Bactrosaurus* at Bayshiin Tsab
> aren't really *B.
> johnstoni* but a younger, more derived, more
> hadro-esque taxon? A different
> species? Or maybe it's a new genus? Or maybe it's
> bad fossils that only LOOK
> like they aren't *Gilmoreosaurus* because obviously,
> they must be either since
> the formation IS the same age. See what I mean about
> strawmen?
> 
>   Cheers,
> 
> Jaime A. Headden
> 
> "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B.
> Medawar (1969)
> 
> 
>               
> __________________________________ 
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> 



        
        
                
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com