Re: Paleocene dinosaurs (Ref.s)

[Danvarner@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/14/01 5:51:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
jbois@umd5.umd.edu writes:


<< However, the authors go into the
issue of reworking, and I'm not going to quote the entire paper. Read the
paper; tell us what you think. >>


       It is important to "read the paper", of course. But in this instance, 
the absence (I assume) of reasonably well-preserved >articulated< skeletal 
material in an unambiguous Paleocene context or an indisputable non-avian 
dinosaur ichnite in same renders such research on David's part superfluous. I 
really do think that's the standard that must be met here. Anything short of 
that simply clouds the issue, resulting in endless tit-for-tats here on the 
list. If I had a nickel... DV