Re: Remember the Alamosaurus (was RE: taxonomy is not stratigraphy)

[Denver Fowler <df9465@yahoo.co.uk>]

> 4) One abstract with one date from the MIDDLE of a
> unit must NOT be 
> used to date an entire formation. The Javelina
> grades into the 
> overlying Black Peaks Formation, and the K/T
> boundary "wobbles" between 
> these two units. There is no evidence that I know of
> for a hiatus 
> between the two units, nor a hiatus at the boundary.
> In fact, the K/T 
> boundary IS preserved in some sections. I have eaten
> lunch on it. 
> Additional radiometric data have not yet been
> released. Without 
> spoiling the "surprise," I'll just say that I have
> every confidence 
> that the Javelina is, at least in part,
> contemporaneous with the Lance, 
> given what is currently known.

My point was that the age of the single ash date for
the <middle of the> Javelina falls outside that of the
fossiliferous portion of the Lance. If the Javelina is
contemporaneous, in <its uppermost> part, with the
Lance, then it is no problem to my interpretation.
But, should we really refer to the entire Javelina as
'Lancian'? Is it not inappropriate and misleading to
have the seemingly exclusive 'Lancian' age defining,
in fact, an inclusive period of time that stretches
beyond the limits of the Lance fauna itself? 




> 
> 5) To respond to something Denver Fowler wrote:
> >Lehman got his stratigraphy
> >confused (see various works by Sullivan et al);
> 
> Denver, with all due respect, I think you ought to
> pick your 
> stratigraphers a little more carefully. If you get
> out in the field and 
> try to reproduce results, I believe you will find
> that you are backing 
> the wrong horse. Recall that "Sullivan et al."
> includes the folks who 
> named Naashoibitosaurus, which isn't even from the
> Naashoibito.

Yep you're right, Naashoibitosaurus turns out to be a
poor choice of a name for an animal from the Kirtland;
Spencer <Lucas> and Adrian <Hunt> admit to having made
a mistake in describing it as such. The complications
of this stratigraphy are not easily overcome. 

But in all fairness, everybody has made some mistakes
regarding the strat of this section. In many places
(particularly the eastern parts of Alamo Wash, where
the lower conglomerate is thin or not present)
stratigraphy can be difficult to follow. So mistakes
get made, but that's part of science. It was not my
intention to seem disrespectful in my posting, and if
this was the case then I apologise.


I have spent the summers of 2002, 2003, and 2004
collecting and following the section in the
Naashoibito and Kirtland with Bob <Sullivan> et al,
including some of the most extensive collecting of the
Naashoibito yet attempted; so I do actually know a
little something about the various localities. While I
certainly don't agree with Bob on everything, he has
put forward what is probably the most truly
representative interpretation of San Juan Basin
stratigraphy to date (and was, incidentally, not an
author on the Naashoibtosaurus description).

Every paper containing an error requires a corrective
paper doubly meticulous, SJB strat was part of what I
was attempting to resolve for my PhD (or at least
state what it is possible to reasonably deduce from
the material so fra recovered). My points in previous
emails were not to pick fights, but to draw attention
to the actual poor support for the various
interpretations of southern strat, based for the most
part on Lawson, 1976, THAT maxilla, and a whole host
of indeterminate ceratopsian. Wouldn't it be nice if
someone found a good ceratopsian site in amongst the
Alamosaurus fauna.... 

Denver.


 Lehman 
> informed me of this years before it hit the press,
> because he 
> REMEMBERED, off the cuff, where that site is. You
> have every right to 
> follow whatever authority you see fit, but I
> respectfully recommend you 
> do so based on something other than the date of
> publication.
> 
> If you wish to reply to this message, please reply
> to me as well, as I 
> am not on the list, and be prepared to forward my
> replies as well.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Jon
> 



                
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! 
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com