Re: [China feathered dinosaur & flora re-dated]

["Allan Edels" <Edels@email.msn.com>]

Caleb, and the rest ("here on Gilligan's Isle"...  :-):

    As Josh Smith pointed out last week, he's not available at this time to
comment on this publication (and won't be for several weeks).  BUT, when he
gave his talk about the dating of these (and other fossils) last year at
DinoFest - his figures were for 121.9 mya NOT the 140 mya that the Chinese
were quoting.  [Dead smack in the middle of the Barremian!] (He later
confirmed that on this list [4/29/1998 and 4/30/1998]).

    I imagine that the simple wish to be the first - or the best - led to
some sloppy initial work and the dating of 140 mya.  Some political
machinations may have been in place that led the Chinese scientists to
continue to insist on the mistaken data.

    To be completely fair and truthful, the site (Liaoning province) is not
the easiest one to get good dates from.  I understand that there is a lot of
intrusive deposits, and mixing of layers that could lead to confusion.  In
addition, the diggers [non-scientists] were very reluctant to show EXACTLY
where they found the various specimens to the non-Chinese working on the
site (and maybe some of the Chinese scientists as well).  Josh, Phil Currie,
and Dong Zhiming were each shown 3 different holes in the quarry, and were
each told that all the _Sinosauropteryx_ specimens came from the hole they
were looking at.

    Hope this helps shed  some light on the situation.

            Allan Edels


-----Original Message-----
From: Caleb Lewis <terminator2029@usa.net>
To: Dino List <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [China feathered dinosaur & flora re-dated]


How could this "misdating" happen (just out of curiousity)?



                                     Caleb


____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1