|
Randy Irmis wrote:
<<The final argument given in favor of the
hadrosaur being gut contents is
that the caudals found are acidically etched. This certainly is a compelling argument. There are however occurrences of bone beds deposited in acidic environments. Especially notable is the Maiasaur bone bed in the Willow Creek Anticline, where major parts of bone have been dissolved by the acidic depositional environment.>> I haven't read the paper yet, so forgive me if an
adeguate answer to my following question and doubt may be found in the paper
itself...
further, my geological bases are non-existent
, so my question may sound incomprehensibly banal;
anyway..
are there, among the various hadrosaurian remains
,unetched bones?
what about the predator's ones?
if the tyrannosaurid bones are unetched( the
contrary would have been noted istantly i think), than it's unlikely (seems so
to me at least) that only the hadrosaurian remains got etched while laying in
the same site(exactly the same), by means of "enviromental" acidity( soil
acidity or what?)....
however i find your arguments against the inferred
nature (gut contents) of the hadrosaurian remains very reasonable..
thanks
FC
|