Re: No Mesozoic rainforests?

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

> I may be a layperson, but this sounds completely nonsensical.

Certainly -- except that reality is often stranger than fiction. Consider:

-- There is no evidence for broad-leaved equatorial forests from the K. 
Instead, the equatorial vegetation seems to have consisted mostly of 
Cheirolepidiaceae, dry-adapted conifers.
-- It can be too hot for rainforests. This happens when the tropical 
evaporation girdle gets so broad that convection appears within it, as 
opposed to the present situation where the air that rises around the equator 
comes down on the desert girdle around 30° latitude. In the Cenomanian, when 
it was extremely hot, there was some kind of savanna at the equator, 
complete with sauropods specialized for grazing (*Nigersaurus*).

I conclude that the unspecified "jungles" mentioned on the website you 
linked to are just warm forests and not necessarily conform to the 
definition of "tropical rainforest". Imagine some kind of miombo, perhaps. 
Also, that website still calls *Revueltosaurus* a dinosaur and 
*Eucoelophysis* "extremely similar to *Coelophysis*", so it's out of date by 
five years anyway...