Re: The Killers of Oz

[Mark Hallett <marksabercat@yahoo.com>]

--- Phil Hore <comicsandheroes@hotmail.com> wrote:

<<The soil theroy probably has more to do with poor
fossilisation then anything else...something Australia
does have a problem with!>>

 >From: Dann Pigdon <dannj@alphalink.com.au>
>Reply-To: dannj@alphalink.com.au >To: DML
<dinosaur@usc.edu> >Subject: Re: The Killers of Oz
>Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 06:49:49 +1000 > > > >Mark
Hallett wrote: > > > > I believe that the "poor soil"
hypothesis also is > > questionable in light of
palnological evidence showing > > that until mid to
late Miocene times, Australia > > apparently had lush
forests on a continental scale. > > (Vickers-Rich et
al, AUSTRALIA'S LOST WORLD: The > > Prehistoric
Animals of Australia) > >Actually, rainforests often
have the poorest of soils. Yet they still >manage to
support a huge ecological diversity. So soil condition
in >itself is not always a good indicator of
biodiversity. > >-- >

True. We should probably come up with a definition of
what we mean by "poor soils", which in the tropics
never have a chance to accumulate to any appreciable
depth due to microbial/ bacterial action, and yet
support a much greater plant/animal biodiversity than
the deeper, supposedly "richer" soils of most
temperate regions.

--Mark Hallett  



        
                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover