Re: Fastovsky vs Archibald

[don ohmes <d_ohmes@yahoo.com>]

>>>"If I had only one wish for the
> betterment of science,
> I would wish that biostratigraphers would
> concentrate more on
> paleoecosystems of small areas and within smaller
> time parcels, and not
> overemphasize "big picture" chronological
> relationships as much as they
> currently do. <<<

Amen to that. 

--- Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 11:33:39 -0700 (PDT) Tim Donovan
> <uwrk2@yahoo.com>
> writes:
> > 
> > 
> > --- David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
> wrote:
> >  
> > > Eh, but why? :-)
> > > 
> > 
> >    Looks that way. Compare the Campanian record
> with
> > unit 4 and the latter with the Scollard.
> 
> 
> <groan>
> A few caveats to consider:
> 
> It is unwise to compare two different
> paleoecosystems (e.g., the upland
> Canadian formations  vs. the lowland Hell Creek
> Formation) or times (late
> Maastrictian vs. Campanian), or both, and then draw
> conclusions about
> extinction based on that comparison.  There are too
> many variables
> involved (most of them unknown), and the discussion
> quickly becomes an
> exercise in arm-waving.  The data collected from a
> particular formation
> must be considered unique to that formation, and
> conclusions drawn from
> that data should only be applied to that formation
> and to no others. 
> Only later, when the data is placed in its proper
> paleoecosystem context,
> can different formations and times be compared and a
> "big picture"
> hypothesis produced.
> 
> In any scientific study, the ideal is to eliminate
> as many variables as
> is possible.  Unfortunately, the disappearance of a
> particular taxon from
> a particular unit can be the result of many
> unrelated and unknown
> phenomena.  "Extinction" is a CONCLUSION that a
> worker makes; it is not
> "raw data" nor are its effects directly observable
> in the strata.
> 
> On the other hand, "dinosaur diversity as a function
> of depositional
> environment" *can* be compared between formations or
> between times, but
> *not* extinction.  If I had only one wish for the
> betterment of science,
> I would wish that biostratigraphers would
> concentrate more on
> paleoecosystems of small areas and within smaller
> time parcels, and not
> overemphasize "big picture" chronological
> relationships as much as they
> currently do. In geology/paleontology, "time" has
> meaning only when it is
> applied to a particular space.  Earth scientists
> often forget that little
> detail, and instead focus only on
> chronostratigraphy.
> 
> <pb>
> --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>