No Cretaceous rainforests?

[StephanPickering@cs.com]

       A.R. Sweet's 2001 paper is, indeed, an excellent introduction. The literature on pre-K/T paleoclimates and botanical zones is large. To infer, as the new paper does, that rainforests did not exist is ludicrous. Some of the other scholars I would refer interested readers to:
Bette L. Otto-Bliesner and Garland Upchurch, 1997. Vegetation-indiuced [sic] warming of high latitude regions during the Late Cretaceous period, Nature 385:804-807. Their figures 1 and 3 provide one with Maastrichtian vegetation world-wide, tropical rainforests being dominant. 
Garland Upchurch, Bette Otto-Bliesner, C.R. Scotese, 1999. Terrestrial vegetation and its effects on climate during the latest Cretaceous, Geological Society of America 332:407-435
These three also published in 1998, Vegetation-atmosphere interactions and their role in global warming during the late Cretaceous. Philosophical Transactions Royal Soc. London B353:97-112.
Another, excellent source is Flora of North America <hua.huh.harvard.edu/FNA/> Chapter 3, Alan Graham, History of North American vegetation -- Cretaceous (Maastrichtian)-Tertiary. The bibliography  has most of the major literature. The continuing exegesis in the literature re: angiosperm evolution also gives one indications of the rainforest and woodland biozones during the Mesozoic. Contra some restorations, the tyrannosaurs and many ceratopsians were quite at home, so to speak, in redwood forests (walk, or live among them as I did in the 1970s, and, on a "deathly still" afternoon interrupted only by the buzz of insects, one could almost "sense" their presence in a not dissimilar end-Cretaceous world), and other taxa thrived in rainforests. I have long wondered if ankylosaurs were more at home in semi-arid regions, like camels. 
Other scholars to be perused: Peter Wilf, J.A. Wolfe, both having released plentiful studies. Paleoentomological studies, similarly, buttress botanical work (the complex symbiosis sustained the dinosaur herbivores).