Re: DINOSAUR digest 3384

[don ohmes <d_ohmes@yahoo.com>]

??? Come on, David.

First you pulled my comment out of context... then you
spun it. Why do you do that? IIRC, this is not the
first time, and it is annoying.

Someone reading your post would assume that I am
arguing that the large dinos should have survived k/t
because they could or would be protected by water-- I
specifically did _NOT_ say that. In fact, (for the
record) I think that is an unlikely survival scenario
for edge-of-size-envelope critters under such
circumstances (understating here). 

My only opinion re k/t is that it happened and must
have been severe; otherwise, I am tabla rasa, and have
followed this thread on differential extinction w/
interest.

Moving on to a more general and important point
(paraphrasing here)-- "No water bodies deeper than 5-6
m in the entire Morrison Fm." 

??? How in the hell do you know that?

Don

--- David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:

> > Large dinos
> > may not have needed (detectable) adaptations to
> stay
> > submerged for significant periods of time. Never
> seen
> > this mentioned in discussions of sauropod
> > lifestyles...
> 
> Large dinos needed large bodies of water to stay
> submerged for any periods 
> of time... the Morrison Fm environment had enough
> water to submerge 4 m long 
> lungfish, but apparently not enough to submerge 40 m
> long sauropods... 
> 
>