Re: Ain't No Mountain Low Enough [elephants don't like steep terrain]

[Dann Pigdon <dannj@alphalink.com.au>]

Quoting "franklin e. bliss" <frank@blissnet.com>:

> The Cretaceous Hell Creek I collect was deposited on a fairly flat
> surface.  Is/are there any formations that preserve dinosaurs/fossils
> in general that were obviously high angle environments on a large
> scale.  I would think that most depositional environments in a
> mountainous situation short of certain alluvial fan deposits would not
> be conducive for preservation.  I would think representative species
> from high altitude would be pretty uncommon because of this bias.

Given that (general speaking) biodiversity seems to decrease with  
altitude (as does biomass per unit area), and taking into account the  
usually severe erosional forces at work on steep slopes, I'd tend to  
agree with you. I'd be surprised if *any* high altitude species are  
well represented in the fossil record. Of course, 'high altitude'  
needn't always equate to 'steep slopes' (plateaus, for example), but  
I'm guessing the fossil record of the smaller South American camelids  
is pretty sparse.

The same is true in archaeology; I've heard people try to argue that  
certain groups of humans prefered to live at lower latitudes close to  
rivers because that's where most of their archaeological sites are  
found. What they're not taking into account is the preservational bias  
against high altitude settlements being preserved. There's also a  
greater chance of site visibility afforded by modern erosion within  
river valleys.

My advice is that if you want to have your garbage pile immortalised  
in a museum of the distant future, then live within a flood plain.

--
___________________________________________________________________

Dann Pigdon
GIS / Archaeologist         http://heretichides.soffiles.com
Melbourne, Australia        http://www.geocities.com/dannsdinosaurs
___________________________________________________________________