Re: See! It's all because they changed Brontosaurus's name! ;-)

["Steve Brusatte" <dinoland@lycos.com>]

On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 13:42:00  
 Nicholas Gardner wrote:
>>The article declares the fossils there are 300 million
>>years old, yet it says:
>>
>>"They could have been upset by the students' behaviour. Some might have 
>>taken dinosaur remains home,'' he said.
>>
>>If there are any 300 million-year-old DINOSAUR remains
>>there, I'D FAINT TOO!!!
>
>"A 300 million-year-old dinosaur site is a very significant discovery.  I 
>hope it is not abandoned."
>
>-B. McFeeters
>
>Are they really 300 million-years old?

Well, I don't know, but I would suppose no.  Terrestrial vertebrate fossils are 
very rare in the Carboniferous sediments of China (I take it this happened in 
China?).  Even non-tetrapod vertebrate fossils from the Carboniferous of China 
are quite rare, and I doubt anyone would confuse "fish" fossils with those of 
dinosaurs, but who knows?

Steve

---
***************************************************************
Steve Brusatte-DINO LAND PALEONTOLOGY
SITE: http://www.geocities.com/stegob
ONLINE CLUB: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/thedinolanddinosaurdigsite
WEBRING: http://www.geocities.com/stegob/dlwr.html
INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE SITE: http://www.geocities.com/stegob/international.html
****************************************************************


_____________________________________________________
Supercharge your e-mail with a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads
and NoTaglines --> LYCOS MAIL PLUS.
http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus