Regarding the discovery of
Gargantuavis philoinos Jeff Hecht wrote:
>It's worth noting that southern France and Iberia at that point were
an
island, probably somewhat larger than Madagascar. However, it
is very hard to draw a map of Europe in Cretaceous (any part of it). Only one
thing is for certain: it was a very dynamic shallow sea area with constantly
emerging and submerging parts of dry land. Rather than thinking of Europe at the
time as scattered islands ( I think it was never like that - too many giant
animals!) it was a combination of very big and smaller islands frequently
connected with land bridges. In the Lower Cretaceous bridges obviously connected
European area with North Africa on one side and Eastern North America on the
other. Argument: similarity of dinosaur faunas (i.e. Baryonyx in Europe and
Africa; Brachiosaurs in N. America, Europe and Africa). Recently, the rich bone
bed has been discovered in the Barremian of Istria, Croatia. This area has often
been drawn in most of the maps featuring the Cretaceous times as a small island.
However, the finds of Brachiosaur bones (the animal must have reached 20 - 25
meters) suggested a much, much bigger land area to support such an animal. (Has
anybody calculated the size of the land sufficient to support with food and
living space a giant sauropod? I have read Farlow's calculations for big
theropods). Tracks of big dinosaurs can be found in Istria throughout the
Cretaceous. Therefore I would go easy with defining any area in the Cretaceous
of Europe as an island (maybe only Romania).
Berislav Krzic
veselinka.stanisavac@siol.net Beri's Dinosaur World http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1638/index.html http://www2.siol.net/ext/zza/index.html |