|
Prepare for a barrage of questions relating to my (hopefully)
soon-to-be-created taxon pages on my web site, my latest project since the
Judith River reconstruction (which led to a flood of DML posts last summer) was
put on hold a short while ago.
I now have a much better grasp of Mesozoic biogeography after
having found (completely by chance) a copy of Dale A. Russell's 1993 paper, "The
role of Central Asia in dinosaurian biogeography" (Can. J. Earth Sci. 30,
2002-2012). However, I still have a few questions.
The first, and most important, is: Is the biogeographic (note:
biogeographic, not geographic) scheme presented by Russell still the general
consensus? For those who don't have a copy of the paper, here is what
Russell said.
Late Triassic: Pangaea (everything)
Early Jurassic: Pangaea
Middle Jurassic: Central Asia (China and Siberia), Neopangaea
(everything else)
Late Jurassic and earliest Cretaceous: Central Asia, North
America, Gondwana (everything else)
Late Early Cretaceous: Paleolaurasia (North America, Europe,
Central Asia), Gondwana (slightly different than before)
Late Cretaceous: Paleolaurasia, Indoafrica (India, Africa),
Neogondwana (everything else)
If not, what changes have been made to the
scheme?
Also, there were a couple of things I didn't fully understand
in the article. For one thing, China and Siberia were in Central Asia, and
India was in Gondwana for most of the Mesozoic, but what happened to the rest of
Asia? Was it underwater, biogeographically connected to some other
continent, or what? Secondly, I do not believe Russell explains where the
line is drawn between "earliest Cretaceous" and "late Early Cretaceous" in the
above described scheme. Anyone know?
If anyone out there can help me, please do. Many thanks
in advance!
-Grant
--
Grant Harding High school student/amateur paleontologist granth@cyberus.ca Visit Grant Harding's Dinosaur Destination at http://www.cyberus.ca/~sharding/grant/ "Good morning Pangaea!" --from Jim Henson's _Dinosaurs_ |