[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: No Cretaceous placental mammals?
----- Original Message -----
From: "K and T Dykes" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
(Accordingly, I got two copies: one in HTML, and one in plain text without
line breaks. That means that many list members probably got the "message
truncated" error. So I reproduce the entire e-mail:)
Me: <<Going totally off-track, I've heard there should be a Lower
Cretaceous trity (-lodontid) cynodont appearing some time in the not too
DM: <<A third one?>>
Unless I've missed something, this'll be the second to make it into print,
with the first being a single tooth that received some kind of mention or
other in: Hammer, W.R. 1996. Evolutionary and biogeographic implications
of an Antarctic Jurassic dinosaur fauna. AAPG Bulletin 80: 1827.
The tip-off is from a very good source. Somewhat less reliably, I think
this is probably one dug up several years ago. In that way, despite being
one specimen, it could appear to be both a second and a third.
No, I meant the third Early Cretaceous trity, after *Xenocretosuchus* and
the over 100 unnamed teeth from Japan.