[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


On Fri, 17 Oct 1997, Stanley Friesen wrote:

> Well, there is some indirect evidence.  The more inland sediment series
> tend to lack Triceratops, and to contain Montanaceratops and/or
> Leptoceratps.  If the Triceratops came from upland areas, they should be
> *more* common inland, not less.

        My original intention was not to argue that _Triceratops_ was an
upland species, but rather that this possibility could not be dismissed so
readily by citing the location of their deposition.  Never the less, if
_Triceratops_ is being found inland at all, then it is reasonable to
assume that at least some lived inland.  I cannot think of a transport
mechanism that would have moved material from the shores significantly

> I am not entirely sure, but I *think* some of the specimens come from
> fine-grained overbank deposits, which is usually a fair indication of a
> proximal source.

        I think you may be right about some of the specimens being found
in overbank deposits.  What I'm confused about is why these deposits
indicate a proximal source.  I see little reason why a river in flood
cannot carry material out of an uplands environment down system, and then
deposit it in an overbank deposit (particularly if the material happens to
be a carcass  or part of one). There may be sound logic in your argument
so clear that I'm looking straight past/through it, but if so I do not
follow it.