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

Re: [dinosaur] Paleocene tyrannosaurs in Montana



The probability of tyrannosaurs having existed in the Paleocene is about the 
same as the chance of an asteroid hitting Philadelphia tonight. So, if Philly 
is still here tomorrow, you'll have your answer. Check the news.

    Paul P.


On Sunday, October 25, 2020, 02:23:20 PM UTC, Thomas Richard Holtz 
<tholtz@umd.edu> wrote:

What we have is essentially hearsay. We don't have the measured stratigraphic 
sections to demonstrate it was in the Fort Union. (And I can tell you from 
directÂexperience, the Hell Creek and the Fort Union are not always distinct 
from each other! There is a reason there was a serious debate in the technical 
literature in the early 20th Century where the Lancian dinosaurs were in the 
Maastrichtian or the Danian.)

It is "said to be" 1.3 m over the boundary; it is "said to have" almost no 
wear; but we need independent confirmation of the facts.

(Additionally, a buried tooth or bone can be weathered out of a bank and buried 
right there: it need not be transported far.)

On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 10:14 AM Poekilopleuron <dinosaurtom2015@seznam.cz> 
wrote:
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

--