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

Re: Paleocene dinosaurs of ojo alamo sandstone



There are many problems with this paper, but I will draw attention to one 
interesting point.

Notice in the final discussion section, that Fassett refers to papers 
coauthored by "Sullivan, Boere, & Lucas", and: "Sullivan, Lucas, & Braman" as 
exactly that: he does not abbreviate them to Sullivan et al. 

Typo? I don't think so.

Alamosaurus probably wasn't KT in age. I am not going into the details here: it 
will be demonstrated in time. SW latest K stratigraphy is clouded by some poor 
strat papers. This paper is another of those.

 
D.

----------------------------------
Denver Fowler
df9465@yahoo.co.uk
http://www.denverfowler.com
-----------------------------------



----- Original Message ----
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, 23 April, 2009 18:37:20
Subject: Re: Paleocene dinosaurs of ojo alamo sandstone

How probable is it that the plants that produced those pollen types already 
existed in the end-K in that region? Maybe they haven't been found elsewhere 
because the Ojo Alamo Sandstone counts as an "upland" deposit or something...?