Re: Tsagayan/Udurchukan age-Campanian?

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

>  I've repeatedly argued against the putative late
> Maastrichtian age of the Tsagayan or Udurchukan
> formation. Logically, a unit with abundant lambeosaurs
> of Campanian aspect should be older.

"Logically" and "judging from the Hell Creek Fm" is not the same. How do you 
know they are "of Campanian aspect" when you only know that lambeosaurs of 
that "aspect" are restricted to the Campanian _in North America_?

> Yesterday, while
> going over recent JVP issues, I noted information
> which suggests the Tsagayan actually IS of Campanian
> age.
>
> [...]

This is a lot more convincing.