RE: Ornithoms, Parrots, and others

[Adam Yates <A.Yates@zoo.latrobe.edu.au>]

Thanks for the info, Adam!

>Hmmm!  So at least we now know exactly why Tom was so confident.
>However,
>the mention of coal mines reminds me of the Iguanodons in Belgium.
>Hadn't
>they all fallen down into an earlier strata?  Does the paper mention
>this
>possibilty?

It doesn't mention it but since the site is a famous one that has been
worked for decades I assume that the geology had been done properly and that
it wasn't a fissure fill. BTW I don't think that the Bernisart Iguanodons
were in a fissure fill either, just a deeply buried stratum that is not
exposed at the surface but I don't know that, can someone on the list
confirm this? .

>  Is the paper in English? 

Yes it is.

>This is the point at which I
>should
>really call a raise, since I find it odd that this complex site should
>hold
>the first trace of so many types.  The frequency difference between the
>well
>known Solnhoffen types and the others may be a clue here.  Also the fact
>that is was only micro stuff makes it even more doubtful.  A carnivore
>tooth
>*in* the skeleton of a good victim would have been pretty convincing.

>Of course, I could stoop to the old BAMM trick and say "the
>ancestors/descendants time reversal doesn't matter" but I don't think
>Archae
>lasted long.  A supernvoa species.

>I think teeth can sometimes be almost as reliable as reasonable
>skeletons,
>but they can wander, can't they.  I'll need multiple bones with at least
>some kind of connection.

Given the concerns raised by Chris Brochu I think that yes some bones, or at
least some really comprehensive work on teeth variability within species and
individuals of Cretaceous maniraptoriforms will be needed before these
fossils can be regarded as true representatives of those lineages. Still I
can't help feeling that the situation in maniraptoriform teeth is not as bad
as in the Crocodyliformes but hey! what do I know, I don't work with the
material.

cheers
Adam Yates