Good day to all listmembers!I would like to ask, what is your opinion on this controversial topic: Given that RigbyÂs 1980Âs research about supposedly early Paleocene T. rex teeth in Montana was rejected (and the fossils in question are now considered to be reworked), how was it explained, that they have very little surficial damage of the enamel? If it was really carried by the river stream, then it would bear a visible signs of mechanical damage from impacting stones in the riverbed, right? Yet these fossil teeth, found 1.3 meters above the K-Pg boundary, are said to be almost intact on its surface. Thank you for your thoughts, in advance! Tom
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Email:Âtholtz@umd.eduÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Phone: 301-405-4084
Principal Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Office: Geology 4106, 8000 Regents Dr., College Park MD 20742
Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/
Phone: 301-405-6965
Fax: 301-314-9661ÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ
Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars
Office: Centreville 1216, 4243 Valley Dr., College Park MD 20742
http://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc
Fax: 301-314-9843
Mailing Address:ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Department of Geology
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Building 237, Room 1117
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 8000 Regents Drive
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ University of Maryland
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ College Park, MD 20742-4211 USA