Re: Paleocene dinosaurs (Ref.s)

["Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>]

    I obviously have my doubts about early Paleocene "non-avian" dinosaurs, 
but would certainly welcome any unambiguous evidence that some of them 
survived for a time past K-T.
    In the absence of articulated material, I wonder if anyone has used a 
"Trueman and Benton" REE (rare earth element) analysis on the eggshells (or 
hadrosaur bone in America) compared with that of the matrix in which they 
were found.  Isn't "REE" analysis becoming one of the state-of-the-art 
standards for determining whether fossil material is reworked or not?  I 
would think it would at least be superior to a more subjective 
interpretation of relative "pristine"-ness, especially since there was 
probably a wide continuum from pristine to badly worn among reworked 
material.
    A Paleocene "dinosaur" (non-avian) would be really cool, but I'm still 
not getting my hopes up.  My skepticism warns me that this could easily be 
just wishful thinking and just-so stories.  But who knows.  I was surprised 
when I learned tritylodonts made it into the Early Cretaceous (however, the 
Jurassic-Cretaceous was not near the extinction hurdle that K-T was).
                  -----Ken
******************************************
Dan wrote:
>       It is important to "read the paper", of course. But in this 
> instance,
> the absence (I assume) of reasonably well-preserved >articulated< skeletal
> material in an unambiguous Paleocene context or an indisputable non-avian
> dinosaur ichnite in same renders such research on David's part superfluous. 
> I
> really do think that's the standard that must be met here. Anything short 
> of
> that simply clouds the issue, resulting in endless tit-for-tats here on the
> list. If I had a nickel... DV


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp