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

RE: Burpee Conference



In addition, there are other dinosaur taxa found in
the Hell Creek Fm. of Carter County which are not
typical of Hell Creek dinosaur faunas around the Ft.
Peck area (WFTP on these.)  ;-)  This would be
consistent with the idea that the Carter County area
represents a different paleoenvironment and/or a
slightly different age than the Hell Creek in
Garfield/McCone Counties.

Guy Leahy


--- Ken.Carpenter@dmns.org wrote:

> Indeed the Hell Creek has been picked over for over
> a hundred years, but
> it has only been in the last decade that T rex has
> been found in
> abundance, almost becoming "oreodonts of the
> Cretaceous" ;-)  Most work
> has been done in the upper-most Hell Creek around
> the Ft Peck Reservoir.
> The middle and lower parts have many secrets that
> are only now being
> revealed: The first Leptoceratops skull (now in
> press), and two partial
> skeletons of a giant oviraptorid (new genus). It may
> be significant that
> the type Nanotyrannus and the Burpee specimen come
> from the southern
> portions of the Hell Creek (Carter County), which
> has a very different
> lithofacies than up around Ft. Peck Reservoir.
> Carter County samples
> more of the lower and middle Hell Creek.
> 
> Ken
> 
> Kenneth Carpenter, Ph.D.
> Curator of Lower Vertebrate Paleontology/Chief
> Preparator
> Department of Earth Sciences
> Denver Museum of Nature & Science
> 2001 Colorado Blvd.
> Denver, CO 80205
>  
> Phone: 303-370-6392
> Fax: 303-331-6492
>
************************************************************
> for PDFs of some of my publications, as well as
> information of the Cedar
> Mountain Project: 
>
https://scientists.dmns.org/sites/kencarpenter/default.aspx
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu
> [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu] On Behalf
> Of Phil Bigelow
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 9:12 AM
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Burpee Conference
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:14:20 -0700 (PDT) Guy Leahy
> <xrciseguy@prodigy.net> writes:
> > Before the conference, I was leaning
> > towards the "Nanotyrannus is a T. rex" hypothesis,
> but
> > after the conference I have lept back on the fence
> as
> > to whether Nanotyrannus is a juvenile T. rex or a
> > juvenile of something else.
> 
> The big question is, if "Nanotyrannus" is a juvenile
> of some other
> taxon,
> then why haven't we discovered any of its adults in
> the Hell Creek
> Formation?  The H.C. Fm is one of the most
> "combed-over" formations in
> the U.S. (as well as the world).  It has been picked
> over for over a
> hundred years.
> 
> In their 1988 _Hunteria_ paper on "Nanotyrannus",
> Currie, Williams and
> Bakker discussed whether "Nano"'s cranial sutures
> were, or were not,
> fused.  IIRC, they claimed that the sutures were
> fused.  Since then, I
> have read comments that suggest that there is still
> some question about
> the degree of element fusion on the holotype's
> skull.  Any update
> regarding this question?
> 
> The null hypothesis is that "Nano" parents occupied
> the same geographic
> range as did their kids.  Migration or separation of
> the kids from the
> adults are also viable ideas, but those scenarios
> involve more
> complexity
> and therefore they are not as parsimonious ideas as
> are mingled adult
> and
> juvenile populations.
> 
> Except for their shed teeth, which are more common
> that thought, the
> skeletons of "Nanos" are rarer than pachycephalosaur
> skeletons (and
> pachys are quite rare).
> 
> Nano nano,
> 
> <pb>
> --
> 
> 
> 
>