Re: Many New Papers

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

David Marjanovic wrote:

> >        New "bellusaurine" brachiosaurid, _Daanosaurus zhangi_ from the
> > Upper Jurassic of Sichuan. [...] Reportedly a juvenile individual.
>
> Why else would it be "bellusaurine"!

Yes, that was my first thought too.  But I'll hold off on further 
editorializing until I actually read the paper.

> > Liu, Y., and Liu, Y. 2005. Comment on '40Ar/39Ar dating of ignimbrite from
> > Inner Mongolia, northeastern China, indicates a post-Middle Jurassic age 
> > for
> > the overlying Daohugou Bed' by H.Y. He et al. Geophysical Research Letters
> > 32:L12314.
> >
> >         Contests (and very well, I might add) the report of a few months 
> > ago
> > that the Daohugou is post-Middle Jurassic.  I stand corrected on that one!

> What was that report, and what's wrong with it?

I can answer the first question...

He, H.Y., Wang, X.L., Zhou, Z.H., Zhu, R.X., Jin, F., Wang, F., Ding, X., 
and Boven, A. (2004). 40Ar/39Ar dating of ignimbrite from Inner Mongolia, 
northeastern China, indicates a post-Middle Jurassic age for the overlying 
Daohugou Bed. Geophysical Research Letters 31: L20609.

There's also this article:

He, H.Y., Wang, X.L., Zhou, Z.H., Zhu, R.X., Jin, F., Wang, F., Ding, X., 
and Boven, A. (2005). Reply to comment by Liu and Liu on ?40Ar/39Ar dating 
of ignimbrite from Inner Mongolia, northeastern China, indicates a 
post-Middle Jurassic age for the overlying Daohugou Bed?. Geophysical 
Research Letters 32: L12315

So, I would guess the original authors strike back.  I haven't seen either 
of the above papers, nor the 2005 paper by Liu and Liu.

> (And are both authors "Liu, Y."?

Liu, Yongqing and Liu, Yanxue.

Cheers

Tim