Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / May 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Dinosaur 'Missing Link' Found in Utah

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
MrPepper11 - 04 May 2005 20:39 GMT
May 4, 2005
Dinosaur 'Missing Link' Found in Utah
By Guy Gugliotta
Washington Post Staff Writer

Digging in the badlands of east central Utah on a tip from a repentant
poacher, researchers have unearthed the fossil remains of a dinosaur
"missing link" -- a primitive plant-eater that had recently evolved
from the carnivorous raptors that also produced modern birds.

The long-tailed dinosaur ate plants but had the big-bellied body of a
meat-eater gone to seed, a made-to-order victim for any passing
marauder -- except for the powerful, ropy arms and the four-inch talons
on the ends of its forepaws.

"They probably used the claws for self-defense," said Utah state
paleontologist James I. Kirkland. "Or maybe they were herding animals
who just hung out together and hoped the predators would eat someone
else."

The discovery of Falcarius utahensis, or "sickle-maker from Utah," so
named because of the claws, supports earlier research linking the
plant-eating dinosaurs known as therizinosaurs to the raptors, but also
opens the possibility that therizinosaurs may have originated in North
America rather than Asia, as previous evidence had suggested.

The findings are being reported in the Thursday edition of the journal
Nature.

"It's an extremely significant find," said Matthew Lamanna, a
paleontologist at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History who was not a
member of the Utah team. "Before this discovery, the oldest known
animal recognized as a therizinosaur came from China, and this one is
just as old and seems to be more primitive anatomically. It appears to
be the final piece of the puzzle."

Kirkland said in a telephone interview that he first became aware of
Falcarius in 1999, when colleagues showed him a box of bone fragments
they had bought at a fossil show in Tucson, Ariz. The bones supposedly
came from "private land," Kirkland said. It is illegal to excavate
fossils on public land without a permit.

Kirkland said he tried "over a number of years" to ascertain the
location of the site and finally got directions from an acquaintance of
the excavator. When Kirkland still couldn't find it, Lawrence Walker,
anxious to see his discovery properly recognized, admitted his role and
guided him in.

In rugged country about 140 miles southeast of Salt Lake City, Kirkland
found the jumbled remains of "hundreds, perhaps thousands" of Falcarius
embedded in a two-acre stretch of pebbly, 120-million year old mudstone
on a mesa top once washed by the waters of an ancient spring.

"Ninety-nine percent of the bones were the same animal," Kirkland said,
but the site offered few clues about how so many Falcarius died
suddenly in the same place. "Personally, I favor poison," he said,
either from botulism from dead animals in the water, or "some kind of
microbial bloom." The spring might also have belched a cloud of carbon
dioxide, methane or sulfur dioxide, asphyxiating the herd.

"It was pretty exciting," Kirkland recalled. He turned to Walker,
warning him "that I wasn't going to call the FBI, but if they call me
up, I'll have to tell them." Sure enough, federal agents approached
Kirkland as soon as he asked for a permit.

Walker eventually pleaded guilty to theft of government property, paid
a $15,000 fine and spent five months in prison.

Kirkland's team began excavating in 2001. Falcarius measured about 12
feet from the tip of a long neck to the end of a long tail. Like
raptors, it stood upright and had the powerful hind legs of a running,
carnivorous predator. But its teeth were tiny and leaf-shaped, designed
for shredding forage, and it had an atypically wide pelvis capable of
supporting the large gut needed to digest vegetation. And the back legs
were slightly bowed and thickened, suggesting a more sedentary
lifestyle.

"It looks like a long-necked raptor," said team member Scott Sampson,
curator of vertebrate paleontology at the University of Utah's Utah
Museum of Natural History. "We're not saying it's a vegan. Maybe an
omnivore."

The key features were the arms and claws, more powerful than those of
many raptors, but not big or blocky enough to support a large,
plant-eating quadruped.

"The claws look like blades on a scythe," said Lamanna. "They could
swing their arms with quite a bit of force."

------
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-3.html
Ken Shaw - 04 May 2005 22:10 GMT
> May 4, 2005
> Dinosaur 'Missing Link' Found in Utah
[quoted text clipped - 87 lines]
> ------
> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-3.html

A herd of therizinosaurs? That is a visual I never thought about.

BTW has anyone ever considered that the forelimb claws on therizinosaur
might have been used for tearing open termite/ant nests?

Ken
Mike Painter - 04 May 2005 23:28 GMT
<snip>
>> Digging in the badlands of east central Utah on a tip from a
>> repentant poacher, researchers have unearthed the fossil remains of
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> marauder -- except for the powerful, ropy arms and the four-inch
>> talons on the ends of its forepaws.
<snip>

This is obviously one of the transitional that led to the dragon.
You've all seen pictures of them (not the false Asian ones but the real
European ones)
They have claws (talons), small wings (birds!), big bellies, and all reports
indicate they breathed fire and could fly.

There is only one way large animals with small wings could fly. The "Belly"
was actually a gas storage chamber. They generated hydrogen, filled the
chamber and could fly with small wings.
Over time they learned to burn off the excess gas on landing by chewing on
flints. It was probably used to catch and cook small animals until canned
meat in the form of knights became available to them.


Gregory Gadow - 05 May 2005 14:13 GMT
> <snip>
> >> Digging in the badlands of east central Utah on a tip from a
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> flints. It was probably used to catch and cook small animals until canned
> meat in the form of knights became available to them.

Dragon Magazine, the gamer journal for D & D, did an article on the ecology of a
dragon about 20 years ago. The idea they put forth is that dragons (at least,
the fire breathing ones) had an organ that could separate out sodium from their
food and water. This was channelled to glands in their mouth, where it built up
over time in an oily solution to prevent oxidation. When a dragon breathed fire,
it expelled sodium and oil from these glands. As the oil dispersed, the sodium
was able to come in contact with oxygen in the air and explode in to flames,
igniting the flamable oil to burn it off and expose even more sodium to the air.
Thus, a gout of flame starting about a foot away from the dragon's mouth. This
hunting technique could give one good jet and maybe two or three more with
decreasing strength before the glands were empty and needed to refill, which
took about a week.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe
in one fewer god than you do. When you understand
why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
Mike Painter - 05 May 2005 18:59 GMT
>> <snip>
>>>> Digging in the badlands of east central Utah on a tip from a
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> strength before the glands were empty and needed to refill, which
> took about a week.

My idea only requires a burp and a spark.
John Harshman - 05 May 2005 21:28 GMT
>>><snip>
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>
> My idea only requires a burp and a spark.

Your idea, or Heinlein's idea?
Mike Painter - 06 May 2005 07:45 GMT
>>>> You've all seen pictures of them (not the false Asian ones but the
>>
>> My idea only requires a burp and a spark.
>
> Your idea, or Heinlein's idea?

His idea? Damn, that's the second time I came up with something only to find
that I'd read it someplace else years or decades before. (I found out about
Science Fiction some where between 6 and 10 and I'm 64 now. )

I also "invented" cooling by pumping water through pipes in the ground. Then
I read a Scientific American article about cooling by pulling air through
tunnels  that I had probably read in the early 60's. Arab culture developed
it and they could make ice with it at certain times of the year.
stoney - 09 May 2005 23:24 GMT
><snip>
>>> Digging in the badlands of east central Utah on a tip from a
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>flints. It was probably used to catch and cook small animals until canned
>meat in the form of knights became available to them.

Ah yes, Spam.

Signature

Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who  will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001  RIP

Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)

John Harshman - 04 May 2005 23:38 GMT
[snip]

> BTW has anyone ever considered that the forelimb claws on therizinosaur
> might have been used for tearing open termite/ant nests?

I'm sure someone has. But the implied large digestive systems would
argue against an insect diet and in favor of their traditionally assumed
vegetarian habits. Maybe they dug up potatoes.
wcb - 06 May 2005 02:58 GMT
>> May 4, 2005
>> Dinosaur 'Missing Link' Found in Utah
[quoted text clipped - 94 lines]
>
> Ken
 
Not likely.  So, you've opened up a termite mound.
Now what?  They seem to have teeth for eating vegatation.
Not good for bug eating.

Signature

When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie

stoney - 09 May 2005 23:26 GMT
[]

>> A herd of therizinosaurs? That is a visual I never thought about.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Now what?  They seem to have teeth for eating vegatation.
>Not good for bug eating.

/therizinosaur
"We did inhale".......

Signature

Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who  will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001  RIP

Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)

Gregory Gadow - 04 May 2005 22:15 GMT
> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-3.html

<div class='fundamentalist'>
But... but... now we have TWO gaps between raptors and therizinosaurs,
yeah, that's it! You are only making it more obvious that evolution is the
Devil's own lie!
</div>
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe
in one fewer god than you do. When you understand
why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
Chris Devol - 04 May 2005 22:43 GMT
> May 4, 2005
> Dinosaur 'Missing Link' Found in Utah
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> "missing link" -- a primitive plant-eater that had recently evolved
> from the carnivorous raptors that also produced modern birds.

Notice how evolution is assumed.

> The long-tailed dinosaur ate plants but had the big-bellied body of a
> meat-eater gone to seed, a made-to-order victim for any passing
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> who just hung out together and hoped the predators would eat someone
> else."

"Probably", "maybe". Ah the convenient flexibility of "science".

> The discovery of Falcarius utahensis, or "sickle-maker from Utah," so
> named because of the claws, supports earlier research linking the
> plant-eating dinosaurs known as therizinosaurs to the raptors, but also
> opens the possibility that therizinosaurs may have originated in North
> America rather than Asia, as previous evidence had suggested.

"Possibility", "may have". Ah the fortuitous speculative power of "science".

> The findings are being reported in the Thursday edition of the journal
> Nature.

Ah the rush-to-print confidence of the "scientific" pandits of propaganda.

> "It's an extremely significant find," said Matthew Lamanna, a
> paleontologist at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History who was not a
> member of the Utah team. "Before this discovery, the oldest known
> animal recognized as a therizinosaur came from China, and this one is
> just as old and seems to be more primitive anatomically. It appears to
> be the final piece of the puzzle."

"Seems to be", "appears to be". Ah the hopeful haplessness of "science".

Maybe it's the dinosaur that laid the golden goose egg.
Cary Kittrell - 04 May 2005 23:18 GMT
> > May 4, 2005
> > Dinosaur 'Missing Link' Found in Utah
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>
> Maybe it's the dinosaur that laid the golden goose egg.

Yep.  It's all this "tends to", "is consistent with", "may be seen
as", "suggests that", and the like which underscore the fundamental
scientific attitude of "I think I have an explanation, but here's
how you can  a) prove me wrong  b) improve on my explanation
c) verify for yourself  d) come up with a better explanation".

Religion, in contrast, says "This is the truth.  End of discussion".

Three thousand years of religion gave us with the plague as punishment
from God.  Three hundred years of science gave us the means to cure it.

Three thousand years of religion gave us demon possesion as an
explanation for schizophrenia.  Three hundred years of scientific
investigation gave us an alternate explanation, along with drugs,
derived from that explanation, for controlling it.

Three thousand years of religion left us with women justly and fittingly
cursed to suffer in childbirth.  Three hundred years of scientific
investigation defeated that curse.

And three hundred years of scientific investigation also revealed
a universe of utterly unsuspected beauty and complexity at the
scales of the vast, the very tiny, the extremely fast, and the
unthinkably slow.  My Bible doesn't even hint at any of these.

Not bad for "probably" "maybe" "possibly"  "may have", don't
you think?

-- cary
Jon. - 04 May 2005 23:44 GMT
> > > May 4, 2005
> > > Dinosaur 'Missing Link' Found in Utah
[quoted text clipped - 73 lines]
>
> -- cary
MarkA - 05 May 2005 12:59 GMT
>> May 4, 2005
>> Dinosaur 'Missing Link' Found in Utah By Guy Gugliotta
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Notice how evolution is assumed.

Yes.  It's much more likely that some
"Intelligent-Designer-Who-Was-Not-Himself-Designed" created many closely
related species by hand.  A "f.cking-Genius-Designer", OTOH, would create
a system that improves itself without supervision, kind of like, say,
EVOLUTION!

Signature

MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)

stoney - 09 May 2005 23:28 GMT
On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:43:28 GMT, "Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> sh.t
all over usenet with his pathetic ignorance.

>> May 4, 2005
>> Dinosaur 'Missing Link' Found in Utah
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Notice how evolution is assumed.

(snip the rest of the clergical ejaculate Chris is spitting out)

Signature

Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who  will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001  RIP

Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)

Bill Erickson - 04 May 2005 23:11 GMT
Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out Nature, which
published, the article:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-3.html

Here are the last two paragraphs:

"Falcarius utahensis's diet is not its only noteworthy feature, Kirkland's
team adds; its North American home is also a surprise. Until now,
therizinosauroids have been found almost exclusively in China, which led
experts to believe the group arose there.

"'This was considered a nearly pure Asian group,' Kirkland says. 'Finding
the most primitive member of the group in Utah throws that into question.'
The team now suspects that once roamed over most of the Northern
Hemisphere."

Therizinosauroids, a family previously known only in east Asia, now appears
in western North America.  Wow, shades of Lystosaurus, Edwin Colbert, and
Antarctica, i.e. the paleontological evidence that conclusively "proved"
continental drift.  (At least, that's what the NY Times said.)  But the
analogy can't be true, because, as everyone knows, according to Plate
Tectonics, North America and E Asia definitely were not connected in the
Early Cretaceous, but were in fact separated by thousands of miles of
Pantalassa -- the Pacific Ocean and its predecessors.  Now, that must've
been one big honkin' raft (and a well-provisioned one at that) to carry
these suckers.

Saltaposaurus

> May 4, 2005
> Dinosaur 'Missing Link' Found in Utah
[quoted text clipped - 87 lines]
> ------
> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-3.html
John Harshman - 04 May 2005 23:58 GMT
> Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out Nature, which
> published, the article:
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> been one big honkin' raft (and a well-provisioned one at that) to carry
> these suckers.

Not according to the information I have. They were separated by a fairly
small distance at the start of the Cretaceous and were directly
connected by 90ma. And of course they were connected through
Greenland/North Europe all during the period. All this courtesy of this
handy web site:
http://www.odsn.de/odsn/services/paleomap/paleomap.html

A polar projection works best.
J. Taylor - 05 May 2005 00:33 GMT
> > Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out Nature, which
> > published, the article:
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
> A polar projection works best.

Of course, you would think an animal with such an extensive range would
have a bit more fossil evidence.

JT
John Harshman - 05 May 2005 00:44 GMT
>>>Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out
>
[quoted text clipped - 83 lines]
> Of course, you would think an animal with such an extensive range would
> have a bit more fossil evidence.

Two problems with this:

1. What animal? Nobody is suggesting that any single species of
Segnosaur ranged over all of Eurasia. As a group, though, segnosaurs
have now been found in Asia and North America.

2. Why would it? Half of all described dinosaur genera are known from a
single specimen. There are many cases of Lazarus taxa and highly
disjunct distributions. All of this implies huge gaps in the fossil record.
J. Taylor - 05 May 2005 04:29 GMT
> >>>Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out
> >
[quoted text clipped - 85 lines]
>
> Two problems with this:

More than two problems

> 1. What animal? Nobody is suggesting that any single species of
> Segnosaur ranged over all of Eurasia. As a group, though, segnosaurs
> have now been found in Asia and North America.

And the options are?  A single species migrating over a large range of
habitats, or similar habitats with a few very adaptive species, or many
species taking advantage of many habitats, or many species in a few
habitats.

Because of the range the possible fossils increases either for the
species or habitat.

> 2. Why would it? Half of all described dinosaur genera are known from a
> single specimen.

Not sure what you are saying.  How is half of the genera known from a
single specimen?

> There are many cases of Lazarus taxa and highly
> disjunct distributions. All of this implies huge gaps in the fossil record.

Ok, huge gaps.  What is it from what is known, which makes you think
the route had to be a particular way?  It also seems possible there are
other huge gaps in what is known.

JT
John Harshman - 05 May 2005 04:40 GMT
>>>>>Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 106 lines]
> Because of the range the possible fossils increases either for the
> species or habitat.

I don't know what that means.

>>2. Why would it? Half of all described dinosaur genera are known from
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Not sure what you are saying.  How is half of the genera known from a
> single specimen?

I'll say it another way. For half of all known dinosaur genera, only a
single specimen (one each) has been found. That means the record is very
spotty. If half the genera we know of have only one specimen, how many
genera are there for which we haven't found even that one specimen?

>>There are many cases of Lazarus taxa and highly
>>disjunct distributions. All of this implies huge gaps in the fossil
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Ok, huge gaps.  What is it from what is known, which makes you think
> the route had to be a particular way?

Nothing.

> It also seems possible there are
> other huge gaps in what is known.

There are plenty of huge gaps, but I don't understand what sort of gaps
you are proposing here.
deowll - 05 May 2005 03:57 GMT
>> > Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out
> Nature, which
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
>
> JT

You would if you don't have a clue how unlikely fossils of land animals
really are.
J. Taylor - 05 May 2005 04:48 GMT
> >> > Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out
> > Nature, which
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
> You would if you don't have a clue how unlikely fossils of land animals
> really are.

Likely is about probability, the extent of the range increases the
probability and makes it more likely.  So yes, I would expect more
fossil evidence, regardless of the difficulty involved with
fossilization, especially considering the process would be similar for
similar animals.

JT
Ken Shaw - 05 May 2005 05:08 GMT
>>>>>Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 113 lines]
> fossilization, especially considering the process would be similar for
> similar animals.

Therizinosauroids very well may have been upland forest animals. These
sorts of species almost never get fossilized. Almost all terrestrial
fossils occur because the animal in question died in or very near a body
of water sufficient to quickly cover the carcass in silt or mud. This
sort of situation becomes increasingly rare as elevation and distance
from the coast increases.

Further areas along the probable range of Therizinosauroids between east
Asia and Utah has seen significant mountain building and erosion in the
millions of years since.

BTW do you also have issues with ceratopians? They share almost the same
range and a similar probable route of expansion.

Actually what precisely is your issue with this?

Ken
J. Taylor - 05 May 2005 05:51 GMT
> >>>>>Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 115 lines]
>
> Therizinosauroids very well may have been upland forest animals.

It is a possibility, but we have evidence now for a group of animals
over a wide range and the question is how it fits to gain knowledge to
see whether it works or not.  My interst is in exploring the question,
not taking answers to just have an answer.

> These
> sorts of species almost never get fossilized. Almost all terrestrial
> fossils occur because the animal in question died in or very near a body
> of water sufficient to quickly cover the carcass in silt or mud. This

> sort of situation becomes increasingly rare as elevation and distance

> from the coast increases.

Which would decrease the number of animals fossilized.  If this is the
case, then the evidence will support it and it will lead to new
discoveries.

> Further areas along the probable range of Therizinosauroids between east
> Asia and Utah has seen significant mountain building and erosion in the
> millions of years since.

There can be a lot of reasons why the fossils would be removed, but it
does not change what conditions would need to exist for them to be
where they are.

> BTW do you also have issues with ceratopians? They share almost the same
> range and a similar probable route of expansion.

It is not that groups extend over the range, it is how they extend and
the fossil evidence for it.

> Actually what precisely is your issue with this?

It was not an objection, but a question looking for answers.  If you
like answers with limited evidence that is your chose, not mine.

what we seem to know is the bulk of fossils are in China, now a find in
Utah.  I expect there to be more fossils along the way, or maybe other
options could be considered.

JT
John Kepler - 06 May 2005 11:46 GMT
> Likely is about probability, the extent of the range increases the
> probability and makes it more likely.

You are implying a level of mechanistic linearity in fossilization that
simply doesn't happen!  Only selected environments permit
fossilization.....others completely preclude it.  If a suitable fossilizing
environment doesn't exist in a given habitat, the critter living or
migrating through there becomes a nought with no rim in the fossil record!

So yes, I would expect more
> fossil evidence, regardless of the difficulty involved with
> fossilization, especially considering the process would be similar for
> similar animals.

This is the assumption that is causing your misconception.  You assume that
ALL critters have an equal chance at fossilization....that isn't the case,
not by a long patch!

You haven't learned or don't completely understand the fundamental
principles of geology....Uniformitarianism, the present is the key to the
past.  "CSI" isn't a hit TV program because dead bodies just lay around for
years......it fictionally shows conclusively that our world is eminintly
capable of obliterating all traces of existance in considerably less than
geologic time!  Die in the wrong place, and you're compost in less than a
year!  One of the problems that antropologist have to deal with is early
hominids lived in environments that are piss-poor fossilizers (forest floors
are acidic!), requiring that something REALLY unusual had to happen (like a
volcanic ash-fall) to get any kind of fossil record.

John
> JT
J. Taylor - 06 May 2005 17:46 GMT
> > Likely is about probability, the extent of the range increases the
> > probability and makes it more likely.
>
> You are implying a level of mechanistic linearity in fossilization that
> simply doesn't happen!  Only selected environments permit
> fossilization.....others completely preclude it.

No I am not implying a level of mechanistic anything.  What you keep
stumbling over is the fact the area in question is nearly all the land
mass in the Northern Hemisphere.  Which means the animal was exposed to
conditions which lead to fossilization in other animals, and the fact,
it is fossilized shows it occupied at times these conditions.

> If a suitable fossilizing
> environment doesn't exist in a given habitat, the critter living or
> migrating through there becomes a nought with no rim in the fossil record!

I would expect those conditions to exist in the Northern Hemisphere,
given the fact there are other fossils in this large area and the
animal existed in at least two areas which caused it to be fossilized.
It is possible the conditions to fossilize did not exist for the
periods of time needed for the animal to extend from China to Utah, or
all evidence for fossils of this period for this animal to have been
removed, but this tells us something too.

Are you telling me you know the answers to these questions? If you do
not know, then all you are telling me is you do not expect to find any
more and renders your position an argument from ignorance.

> So yes, I would expect more
> > fossil evidence, regardless of the difficulty involved with
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> ALL critters have an equal chance at fossilization....that isn't the case,
> not by a long patch!

No, it is a failure, on your part, to appreciate the obvious.  The
"critter" had a chance greater because of the range involved.

> You haven't learned or don't completely understand the fundamental
> principles of geology....Uniformitarianism, the present is the key to the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> are acidic!), requiring that something REALLY unusual had to happen (like a
> volcanic ash-fall) to get any kind of fossil record.

This is nothing more than an ad hominem argument, and is a reflection
of your thought patterns.  

JT
J. Taylor - 06 May 2005 18:13 GMT
***  CORRECTION ******

"extend from China to Utah"

Is incorrect

The extension seems to have been from Utah to China

JT
Bill Erickson - 05 May 2005 00:42 GMT
Looked at 90Ma.  "Directly connected", no doubt, but across the North Pole
(?).  120Ma,. i.e. the date of the "missing link", is even more interesting,
as it requires a more circuitous route, down through Scandanavia, I think.
(At least they could avoid the North Pole.)  However, the fact that the same
family is found in both W. North America, and E. Asia at 120 Ma, suggests
that they migrated even earlier than that.  Check out 140 Ma, which is even
more interesting (and circuitous).

Can't wait to hear about all of them Therizinosauroid fossils that will soon
be discovered in British Columbia, Alaska, and Siberia, as well as those
found in Norway, Lapland, or whatever.  (Of course, we all know that "the
fact that none have been found doesn't prove that none are there," so please
don't bother to send us that email.)

Thanks for the link to the cool website!

> > Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out Nature, which
> > published, the article:
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> A polar projection works best.
John Harshman - 05 May 2005 00:50 GMT
> Looked at 90Ma.  "Directly connected", no doubt, but across the North Pole
> (?).

Is that a problem? Remember that for much of earth history, temperate
climates extended into the high polar latitudes, and Cretaceous
dinosaurs are known from a number of circumpolar islands.

> 120Ma,. i.e. the date of the "missing link", is even more interesting,
> as it requires a more circuitous route, down through Scandanavia, I think.
> (At least they could avoid the North Pole.)  However, the fact that the same
> family is found in both W. North America, and E. Asia at 120 Ma, suggests
> that they migrated even earlier than that.  Check out 140 Ma, which is even
> more interesting (and circuitous).

Is that a problem too?

> Can't wait to hear about all of them Therizinosauroid fossils that will soon
> be discovered in British Columbia, Alaska, and Siberia, as well as those
> found in Norway, Lapland, or whatever.  (Of course, we all know that "the
> fact that none have been found doesn't prove that none are there," so please
> don't bother to send us that email.)

Considering the poor quality of the fossil record, whether you look at
the geographic or temporal distribution of the proper deposits, it's
lucky we know anything.

> Thanks for the link to the cool website!

Google "paleomap" for that and other fun sites.

>>>Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out Nature,
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>>
>>A polar projection works best.
Bill Erickson - 05 May 2005 01:07 GMT
Nope, negative evidence never won nothin'

> > Looked at 90Ma.  "Directly connected", no doubt, but across the North Pole
> > (?).
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
> >>
> >>A polar projection works best.
Bill Erickson - 05 May 2005 01:18 GMT
On the other hand, if "it's lucky we know anything," then probability alone
would lead us to expect to find at least one Therizinosauroid fossil in the
wide geographical range between Utah and China.  IOW, Therizinosauroid
obviously is not a geographically isolated family, so it must have had a
global presence.  Therefore, we might reasonably expect to find at least one
specimen in the broad hinterland of Laurasia, if not elsewhere.  (Sounds
like a good argument for an NSF grant.)

I'm not one for arguments based on probability, but I would hope that we
might find at least one Therizinosauroid fossil in the many-thousand mile
gap between Utah and China.  Is that so wrong?

If, as you state,
> Nope, negative evidence never won nothin'
>
[quoted text clipped - 72 lines]
> > >>
> > >>A polar projection works best.
John Harshman - 05 May 2005 01:48 GMT
> On the other hand, if "it's lucky we know anything," then probability alone
> would lead us to expect to find at least one Therizinosauroid fossil in the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> might find at least one Therizinosauroid fossil in the many-thousand mile
> gap between Utah and China.  Is that so wrong?

No, but it's not so right either. What we find and don't find depends on
many factors, few of which are under our control, and few of which have
much to do with whether a given species, family, or whatever lived in a
given place at a given time. Unless you believe in the separate creation
of segnosaurs at least twice on different continents, there have to have
been segnosaurs at some intermediate localities at some time. But I
don't see your argument from probability at all. Have you quantified
anything? How many fossiliferous exposures of the proper age and
paleoenvironment are there in the intervening regions? How intensely
have they been collected? Given the paleomap, we might expect many of
the relevant fossils to be buried under a mile or more of ice, if they
were preserved at all. And what is the relevant age, anyway? Segnosaurs
could have spread from one region to another several times during the
Cretaceous, and become locally extinct in some regions several times
too. Consider, for example, the more well-known but complicated
geographic history of horses, which invaded Eurasia and became locally
extinct there several times before finally becoming locally extinct in
their ancestral home of North America.

> If, as you state,
>
[quoted text clipped - 115 lines]
>>>>>
>>>>>A polar projection works best.
George - 05 May 2005 03:56 GMT
> On the other hand, if "it's lucky we know anything," then probability alone
> would lead us to expect to find at least one Therizinosauroid fossil in the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> might find at least one Therizinosauroid fossil in the many-thousand mile
> gap between Utah and China.  Is that so wrong?

So what is the problem?  Get out there and start looking!  lol
John Harshman - 05 May 2005 01:38 GMT
> Nope, negative evidence never won nothin'

Since I don't know what you're trying to say here, this would be a good
spot to mention a point of usenet ettiquette: you are supposed to add
your comments *below* the text you are responding to, not above. This
makes it much easier to follow a discussion, and it puts the
attributions nicely nested at the top, where you can more easily find
who said what.

>>>Looked at 90Ma.  "Directly connected", no doubt, but across the North
>
[quoted text clipped - 92 lines]
>>>>
>>>>A polar projection works best.
don findlay - 05 May 2005 14:24 GMT
> Google "paleomap" for that and other fun sites.

Try this fun site for a palaeoposition:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/namerfit.html
George - 05 May 2005 03:54 GMT
> Looked at 90Ma.  "Directly connected", no doubt, but across the North Pole
> (?).  120Ma,. i.e. the date of the "missing link", is even more interesting,
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Thanks for the link to the cool website!

The north pole was not frozen during much of the Cretaceous.  In fact, it has
been shown that during the Cretaceous the arctic circle was inhabited by
dinosaurs.
J. Taylor - 06 May 2005 22:13 GMT
> > Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out Nature, which
> > published, the article:
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> handy web site:
> http://www.odsn.de/odsn/services/paleomap/paleomap.html

Here are a few more maps
http://www.scotese.com/cretaceo.htm
http://www.scotese.com/late1.htm

Just because they were connected does not mean they were above water

> A polar projection works best.
John Harshman - 06 May 2005 22:29 GMT
>>>Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out
>
[quoted text clipped - 84 lines]
>
> Just because they were connected does not mean they were above water

True. But as it happens, they were, at least part of the time.
J. Taylor - 06 May 2005 22:43 GMT
> >>>Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out
> >
[quoted text clipped - 86 lines]
>
> True. But as it happens, they were, at least part of the time.

What do you have to support that statement?
John Harshman - 06 May 2005 23:47 GMT
>>>>>Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 94 lines]
>
> What do you have to support that statement?

For one thing, you will note, on that first URL you gave, the notation
"Asian-Alaskan land bridge".
J. Taylor - 07 May 2005 00:30 GMT
> >>>>>Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 97 lines]
> For one thing, you will note, on that first URL you gave, the notation
> "Asian-Alaskan land bridge".

:-)  It had in even bigger letters that was 94MA

Got anything else?

JT
John Harshman - 07 May 2005 00:34 GMT
>>>>>>>Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 115 lines]
>
> Got anything else?

What are you looking for? It substantiates exactly the claim I made
earlier. "They were separated by a small distance at the start of the
Cretaceous and were directly connected by 90ma." Could you be clearer
about what you are trying to say?
J. Taylor - 07 May 2005 01:07 GMT
> >>>>>>>Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out
> >>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 118 lines]
> What are you looking for? It substantiates exactly the claim I made
> earlier. "They were separated by a small distance at the start of the

> Cretaceous and were directly connected by 90ma." Could you be clearer

> about what you are trying to say?

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-3.html
"This was considered a nearly pure Asian group,' Kirkland says.
"Finding the most primitive member of the group in Utah throws that
into question." The team now suspects that therizinosauroids once
roamed over most of the Northern Hemisphere."

>From at least 152 Ma to 90 Ma North America was separated by water from
Asia.  Yet a primitive member of a group in China/Mongolia has been
found in Utah dated at 130 Ma.

http://www.scotese.com/jurassic.htm
This map is 195 Ma

When, and where, exactly, did this migration take place?

I think it is an Alaskan route, but this route does not match what is
known from any of the above.  The joining of North America to Asia was
to late to fit the time line for the Animal in Asia.  If the similar
species were both in North America and Asia then it is remarkable their
resemblance for being separated for maybe 50 My

JT
John Harshman - 07 May 2005 01:47 GMT
>>>>>>>>>Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out
>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 162 lines]
> species were both in North America and Asia then it is remarkable their
> resemblance for being separated for maybe 50 My

I am suggesting that we really don't know much about the distribution of
segnosaurs in time and space. Consulting my (old edition, unfortunately)
copy of The Dinosauria, I find only 5 valid genera, all from Mongolia or
China, and ranging from Cenomanian to Campanian in age. (By the way,
four out of these 5 are known from one fragmentary specimen each.)
Looking on the web, more recent discoveries, again all in Mongolia or
China, run the Asian history of the group back to the Aptian. Add to
that the Utah specimen. That's not much to build a biogeographic history
on. We can postulate any number of explanations: waif dispersal between
Alaska and East Asia; an unknown land bridge at an earlier date than we
thought; a distribution across nothern Eurasia that we just haven't
found yet. Given the few specimens, there's not much to say.

I will point out that last month you would have been confident that
segnosaurs were always limited to Asia, because given the tremendous
effort given to finding Cretaceous dinosaurs in North America, we hadn't
found any segnosaurs.
deowll - 07 May 2005 02:12 GMT
>> >>>>>>>Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out
>> >>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 154 lines]
>
> JT

How long have the retates been seperated or the new and old world monkeys?
J. Taylor - 07 May 2005 02:52 GMT
> >> >>>>>>>Not much technical info in the Wash Post article.  Check out
> >> >>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 156 lines]
>
> How long have the retates been seperated or the new and old world monkeys?

Old and new world monkeys 65 My

While it can be related to having better specimens to work with, they
are divided into three families, two for the old world, one for the
new.

It is at the family level we see the division.

In the therizinosauroids case it appears to be the same family.

There can be for a lot of reasons, but those reasons also create a lot
of questions.

However, the question of meat eater, to meat & plant, to plant only
leads to different answers by the separation.

retates? Sorry, drawing a blank on this one.

JT
Richard VanHouten - 07 May 2005 04:57 GMT
>>How long have the retates been seperated or the new and old world
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> JT

I think he meant "ratites."
J. Taylor - 07 May 2005 14:49 GMT
> >>How long have the retates been seperated or the new and old world
> >
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> >
> I think he meant "ratites."

Thanks

http://www.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/birds/Bird_Families_of_the_World.html

seven families

Complete mitochondrial DNA genome sequences of extinct birds: ratite
phylogenetics and the vicariance biogeography hypothesis.
(links below are both the same)
http://tinyurl.com/adb59
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1
1370967&dopt=Abstract

John Harshman - 07 May 2005 15:25 GMT
>>>>How long have the retates been seperated or the new and old world
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> seven families

What's a family? Why are you using it as some kind of objective standard
of divergence? Surely you know that Linnean ranks are arbitrary. For
that matter, you must know that morphological divergence is not strongly
related to time; witness all the so-called "living fossils".

> Complete mitochondrial DNA genome sequences of extinct birds: ratite
> phylogenetics and the vicariance biogeography hypothesis.
> (links below are both the same)
> http://tinyurl.com/adb59
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1
1370967&dopt=Abstract

We can confidently assert that the ratites diverged from each other
somewhere between 130ma and 60ma. But I think the lower figure is good
enough for our purposes. Are ostrich, rhea, and emu less similar to each
other than are the Asian and American segnosaurs, or more similar? They
clearly were separated for a longer time.
don findlay - 07 May 2005 15:42 GMT
>  witness all the so-called "living fossils".

George?   Where's George?  George is missing.
J. Taylor - 07 May 2005 17:56 GMT
> >>>>How long have the retates been seperated or the new and old world
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> What's a family? Why are you using it as some kind of objective standard
> of divergence? Surely you know that Linnean ranks are arbitrary.

What are you using which is NOT arbitrary?

> For
> that matter, you must know that morphological divergence is not strongly
> related to time; witness all the so-called "living fossils".

It is not strongly related to time?  Guess that would depend upon the
clock being used and the change being measured.

But that is really not the issue.  The issue is two populations of
similar animals in widely dispersed areas of the world, possibliy
isolated for great length of time, with one set of animals the more
primitive, and my wondering how it came to be, and my suspecting there
would be more fossil evidence.  And guess what?  I accept the
possibility there will not be any more.  But guess again, it DOES NOT
make the possibility there will be any less likely.

If you do not like it, tough!

> > Complete mitochondrial DNA genome sequences of extinct birds: ratite
> > phylogenetics and the vicariance biogeography hypothesis.
> > (links below are both the same)
> > http://tinyurl.com/adb59

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1
1370967&dopt=Abstract


> We can confidently assert that the ratites diverged from each other
> somewhere between 130ma and 60ma. But I think the lower figure is good
> enough for our purposes. Are ostrich, rhea, and emu less similar to each
> other than are the Asian and American segnosaurs, or more similar? They
> clearly were separated for a longer time.

Are any of the ratites considered to be more primitive than the others,
and a transitional species for the others?  If not, your argument is
apples and organges.

JT
John Harshman - 07 May 2005 18:32 GMT
>>>>>>How long have the retates been seperated or the new and old world
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>
> What are you using which is NOT arbitrary?

I'm not proposing any standard of divergence, but then I'm not the
person who needs to have one to make his point. You are surprised at the
supposed low level of divergence between Asian and American segnosaurs,
and you think it needs some kind of serious explanation. I, on the other
hand, am not and don't.

>>For
>>that matter, you must know that morphological divergence is not
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> It is not strongly related to time?  Guess that would depend upon the
> clock being used and the change being measured.

No, I don't think it would.

> But that is really not the issue.  The issue is two populations of
> similar animals in widely dispersed areas of the world, possibliy
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> If you do not like it, tough!

I merely don't think you have any right to be surprised at what we
currently observe, or to think it tells us anything particularly important.

>>>Complete mitochondrial DNA genome sequences of extinct birds:
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> and a transitional species for the others?  If not, your argument is
> apples and organges.

The whole idea of "more primitive" is problematic, and I think from what
I read here that your idea of "transitional species" is also
problematic. Nobody is suggesting (or at least should be suggesting)
that the Utah segnosaur is ancestral to the Asian segnosaurs.
J. Taylor - 07 May 2005 19:15 GMT
> I merely don't think you have any right to be surprised at what we
> currently observe, or to think it tells us anything particularly important.

Show me your badge, so it is known you are with the thought police!

Would this not thinking be the result of thinking you know all there is
to know?

Of course, you can think, or not what ever you want and your right to
do it is no more dependent upon my permission than yours is for me.

Your statement could be the result of a poor selection of wording, or
you are a nut-job.

Will await further evidence.

JT
John Harshman - 08 May 2005 00:22 GMT
>>I merely don't think you have any right to be surprised at what we
>>currently observe, or to think it tells us anything particularly
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Will await further evidence.

Here's some. Make of it what you will. When I say you have no right, I
don't mean you have no right precisely, but only that you would be
unreasonable to take that position.
J. Taylor - 07 May 2005 20:21 GMT
> >>>>>>How long have the retates been seperated or the new and old world
> >>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> I'm not proposing any standard of divergence, but then I'm not the
> person who needs to have one to make his point.

It is not my proposal, so it cannot be my point.

> You are surprised at the
> supposed low level of divergence between Asian and American segnosaurs,
> and you think it needs some kind of serious explanation.

No again.  I have said repeatedly, my wonder is how they came to be
where they are and if the likely reason is they were wide spread across
the Northern Hemisphere, would expect more fossil evidence.

The only problem here is your problem of someone thinking differently
than you and must be wrong because you never are.

> I, on the other hand, am not and don't.

> >>For
> >>that matter, you must know that morphological divergence is not
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> I merely don't think you have any right to be surprised at what we
> currently observe, or to think it tells us anything particularly important.

Addressed this already and it is support for my statement above.

> >>>Complete mitochondrial DNA genome sequences of extinct birds:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> >>>(links below are both the same)
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/adb59

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1
1370967&dopt=Abstract


> >>We can confidently assert that the ratites diverged from each other
> >>somewhere between 130ma and 60ma. But I think the lower figure is
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> problematic. Nobody is suggesting (or at least should be suggesting)
> that the Utah segnosaur is ancestral to the Asian segnosaurs.

Previously, this dodge would have surprised me, but given your other
statements it is completely consistent with your need to win the
argument even to the point of making false statements, could be you
have a reading comprehension problem, but just so you know.

The title to this thread "Dinosaur 'Missing Link' Found in Utah --
Nature.com"
the article which was linked in the post was all about the switch from
meat eater to herbivor and the animal being caught in the act.

This in no way means the two are related, but it also does not mean
they are not.

However, only one of the two will be correct.  Of course, we can
explore the options, with or without your permission.  If you do not
like it, tough!

JT
John Harshman - 08 May 2005 00:30 GMT
>>>>>>>>How long have the retates been seperated or the new and old
>
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
>
> It is not my proposal, so it cannot be my point.

You have a knack for obscuring what it is you're talking about. At this
point I have no idea what you mean.

>>You are surprised at the
>>supposed low level of divergence between Asian and American
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> The only problem here is your problem of someone thinking differently
> than you and must be wrong because you never are.

Your reasons for expecting more fossil evidence are not compelling. Have
you got past the fact of half the genera being known from one specimen yet?

>>I, on the other hand, am not and don't.
>
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
> Addressed this already and it is support for my statement above.

I have no idea what is supposed to be support for which statement above,
or why.

>>>>>Complete mitochondrial DNA genome sequences of extinct birds:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
> explore the options, with or without your permission.  If you do not
> like it, tough!

Again, I have no idea what you are trying to say. So I'll just throw
some words in your general direction. A transitional fossil is one that
shows a combination of characters some of which are intermediate between
on known form and another. There is no imputation that the transitional
form is either "ancestral" or even generally "primitive". It can easily
be primitive in some characters and derived in others. Consider the
living monotremes, for example.

One thing I can say is that you seem to be getting seriously het up over
a simple discussion of paleontology.
J. Taylor - 08 May 2005 01:49 GMT
> >>>>>>>>How long have the retates been seperated or the new and old
> >
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
> You have a knack for obscuring what it is you're talking about. At this
> point I have no idea what you mean.

If you stopped reading into it, you might give yourself a chance of
making sense of it.

> >>You are surprised at the
> >>supposed low level of divergence between Asian and American
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Your reasons for expecting more fossil evidence are not compelling.

Should we memo the universities?

> Have
> you got past the fact of half the genera being known from one specimen yet?

Well, this genera seems it will be known from many specimens.  Read in
one report, if I remember correctly, there were thousands of bones and
they speculated on what caused the multiple die off.

So how you handling that?

> >>I, on the other hand, am not and don't.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> I have no idea what is supposed to be support for which statement above,
> or why.

It was a reference to my previous post about your thoughts on my
rights.

> >>>>>Complete mitochondrial DNA genome sequences of extinct birds:
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> >>>>>(links below are both the same)
> >>>>>http://tinyurl.com/adb59

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1
1370967&dopt=Abstract


> >>>>We can confidently assert that the ratites diverged from each other
> >>>>somewhere between 130ma and 60ma. But I think the lower figure is
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>
> Again, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

And whose fault is that?

> So I'll just throw
> some words in your general direction. A transitional fossil is one that
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> be primitive in some characters and derived in others. Consider the
> living monotremes, for example.

Sounds pretty much like the animal in the article

> One thing I can say is that you seem to be getting seriously het up over
> a simple discussion of paleontology.

This is just your perception based on your interpretation of what you
think is evidence.

But how would I know, do not have a clue as to what "het" means.

JT
John Harshman - 08 May 2005 15:39 GMT
>>You have a knack for obscuring what it is you're talking about. At
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> If you stopped reading into it, you might give yourself a chance of
> making sense of it.

Perhaps you could concentrate on clarity; when somebody tells you they
don't understand would be a good time to explain further.

[snip]

>>Have
>>you got past the fact of half the genera being known from one
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> So how you handling that?

Ye, this genus is known from many specimens. Only half have a single
specimen. Then again, all those specimens are from a single locality and
time horizon. For many purposes (including the one at hand), they're a
single data point, no better than one specimen.

[snip]

>>So I'll just throw
>>some words in your general direction. A transitional fossil is one
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Sounds pretty much like the animal in the article

Yes. That's my point. There should be no suggestion that living
monotremes are ancestral to other mammals, and we don't have to explain
how other mammals got from Australia to the rest of the world on the
basis of the distibution of the platypus.

>>One thing I can say is that you seem to be getting seriously het up
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> But how would I know, do not have a clue as to what "het" means.

"Het up" is a colloquial expression meaning "agitated". (Note how this
works. You tell me you don't understand something, I explain what I meant.)
J. Taylor - 07 May 2005 16:06 GMT
> Old and new world monkeys 65 My
>
> While it can be related to having better specimens to work with, they
> are divided into three families, two for the old world, one for the
> new.

That should be reversed, one for the old world, two for the
new.
mark@spiznet.com - 13 May 2005 06:21 GMT
John-

He is talking about the coastlines of western NA and China, not a
Beringia connection, I am sure.

-Mark
J. Taylor - 13 May 2005 20:22 GMT
m...@spiznet.com wrote:
> John-
>
> He is talking about the coastlines of western NA and China, not a
> Beringia connection, I am sure.
>
> -Mark

I don't think he is!

JT
deowll - 05 May 2005 03:51 GMT
> May 4, 2005
> Dinosaur 'Missing Link' Found in Utah
[quoted text clipped - 87 lines]
> ------
> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-3.html

Yes sir there is a very strong lesson to be learned here. That dude should
have kept his mouth shut. He'll know better next time as will everybody
reading about this. If that wasn't the intent somebody wasn't thinking.
deowll - 05 May 2005 03:54 GMT
> May 4, 2005
> Dinosaur 'Missing Link' Found in Utah
[quoted text clipped - 87 lines]
> ------
> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-3.html

Yes sir there sure is a lesson to be learned here. Keep your mouth shut or
go to prison. If the scientists can't find it tough bleep!

If that wasn't the moral you were trying to teach you need to rethink your
parable.
rhodo chrosite - 05 May 2005 17:24 GMT
>>> Walker eventually pleaded guilty to theft of government property, paid
>> a $15,000 fine and spent five months in prison.
>
> Yes sir there sure is a lesson to be learned here. Keep your mouth shut or
> go to prison. If the scientists can't find it tough bleep!

Next time you write something like this you better be wearing your asbestos
suit in preparation of all the flames from the SVP folks here who insist
that all vertebrate fossils are absolutely their private domain.  Woe be it
to any amateur who trespasses on their domain !!.

Without the work of this amateur these "missing link" fossils would still be
eroding away unappreciated.

<asbestos suit on>
Ken Shaw - 05 May 2005 17:54 GMT
>>>>Walker eventually pleaded guilty to theft of government property, paid
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Without the work of this amateur these "missing link" fossils would still be
> eroding away unappreciated.

Of course this "amateur" could have reported the sit to an actual
professional paleontologist. Since he was necessary to finding the site
he could have arranged to help on the dig. With hundreds of specimens
I'm sure that some sort of arrangement could have been worked out to let
a true amateur have some fossils.

In reality this was a guy selling scientifically important fossils that
he stole from me and every other US citizen. Since the only mitigation
was that once he was caught he cooperated with the scientists I find
your defense of this thieving piece of excrement to be troubling.

Ken
deowll - 05 May 2005 21:36 GMT
>>>>>Walker eventually pleaded guilty to theft of government property, paid
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Ken

You can't read? He only got caught because he told them where to look. He
did not get caught then tell where and what he found. They would have given
him zip and thrown him in jail if he showed up on the dig site. It is the
elitest system. Only the annoited need apply.

If you removed all the good stuff that was found by somebody out doing
something you would call illegal or at least wrong a lot of very important
specimens would vanish.

Most common folk are rapidly taking the approach that talking to you guys is
a huge mistake. They're going to tell you nothing even if they know exactly
what you need to know. The reason is simple; they know they will be happier
if you stay away from them and what they know you never learn.

All I'm saying is that in the future the elitest snots can expect to be told
to find it themselves or do with out even if every school kid in the county
has one at home in their collection and knows exactly where to find them by
the thousand.
Ken Shaw - 05 May 2005 22:07 GMT
>>>>>>Walker eventually pleaded guilty to theft of government property, paid
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> him zip and thrown him in jail if he showed up on the dig site. It is the
> elitest system. Only the annoited need apply.

Actually it is apparent that you can't read.
<quote>
Kirkland said in a telephone interview that he first became aware of
Falcarius in 1999, when colleagues showed him a box of bone fragments
they had bought at a fossil show in Tucson, Ariz. The bones supposedly
came from "private land," Kirkland said. It is illegal to excavate
fossils on public land without a permit.

Kirkland said he tried "over a number of years" to ascertain the
location of the site and finally got directions from an acquaintance of
the excavator. When Kirkland still couldn't find it, Lawrence Walker,
anxious to see his discovery properly recognized, admitted his role and
guided him in.
</quote>

Walker was selling fossils he collected on public land. Why should I
feel any sympathy for someone who stole from me and every other US citizen?

> If you removed all the good stuff that was found by somebody out doing
> something you would call illegal or at least wrong a lot of very important
> specimens would vanish.

I don't call it illegal. It is illegal.

> Most common folk are rapidly taking the approach that talking to you guys is
> a huge mistake. They're going to tell you nothing even if they know exactly
> what you need to know. The reason is simple; they know they will be happier
> if you stay away from them and what they know you never learn.

Who are you guys? I'm a law abiding amateur. I never collect on public
land. I always get permission from the land owner or agent before
collecting on their property. On the two occasions I saw a significant
fossil I contacted a professional paleontologist to let someone with the
skills and resources to do a proper excavation.

> All I'm saying is that in the future the elitest snots can expect to be told
> to find it themselves or do with out even if every school kid in the county
> has one at home in their collection and knows exactly where to find them by
> the thousand.

What is elitist about not approving of theft. No amateur has any
business trying to collect at a site with hundreds of undescribed
dinosaur fossils.

Actually truly amateur paleontologists have very good relationships with
the professionals. I have volunteered on a couple of digs and have
always been allowed to keep some fossil from the dig. The only trouble
I've ever seen is between the vermin out dynamiting public land looking
for spectacular pieces to sell and the actual amateur and professional
paleontologists.

Ken
deowll - 07 May 2005 02:05 GMT
>>>>>>>Walker eventually pleaded guilty to theft of government property,
>>>>>>>paid
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> came from "private land," Kirkland said. It is illegal to excavate
> fossils on public land without a permit.

I never said it wasn't. It is illegal to remove any thing from them no
matter how common.

> Kirkland said he tried "over a number of years" to ascertain the
> location of the site and finally got directions from an acquaintance of
> the excavator. When Kirkland still couldn't find it, Lawrence Walker,
> anxious to see his discovery properly recognized, admitted his role and
> guided him in.
> </quote>

Exactly but this doesn't match up with my critics claim that he went to jail
then told the location.

> Walker was selling fossils he collected on public land. Why should I feel
> any sympathy for someone who stole from me and every other US citizen?

I never suggested that you should. Another example of poor reading by my
critic. I did suggest that going to jail would almost certainly prevent him
from ever sharing any other finds with the annoited.

>> If you removed all the good stuff that was found by somebody out doing
>> something you would call illegal or at least wrong a lot of very
>> important specimens would vanish.
>
> I don't call it illegal. It is illegal.

And the law is getting to the point that just about everything may be
illegal. Finding out the hard way causese extreme pain. Suffering extreme
pain is neither reasonible nor prudent.

In many places it is illegal to collect on your own land though you can use
the same material as gravel. You can often even get a permitt to use fossil
containing rock for gravel much, much easier than a permitt to collect
anything. If it isn't against the law it may still end up being a pain in
the butt. Reasonible and prudent people avoid pain.

>> Most common folk are rapidly taking the approach that talking to you guys
>> is a huge mistake. They're going to tell you nothing even if they know
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> fossil I contacted a professional paleontologist to let someone with the
> skills and resources to do a proper excavation.

Not much public land where I live. In other places huge amounts of land is
public land. My point is that if your five year old or anybody else shows up
with a unique fossil or any fossilt what is now the reasonible and prudent
thing to do with it assuming you don't enjoy pain?

>> All I'm saying is that in the future the elitest snots can expect to be
>> told to find it themselves or do with out even if every school kid in the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> What is elitist about not approving of theft. No amateur has any business
> trying to collect at a site with hundreds of undescribed dinosaur fossils.

Of the same animal and I think they said thousands. That is an issue all in
itself. One guy almost went to jail over his legal micro fossil collection.
There were uncountable numbers of these things but the annoited thought he
might have collected some from public land so they tried to send him to
prison over a collection he was donating to a museum!

> Actually truly amateur paleontologists have very good relationships with
> the professionals. I have volunteered on a couple of digs and have always
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Ken

They had a good relationship. If you think that the public at large still
calls up the annoited all I can say is not around where I live. Reasonible
and prudent people avoid pain.

You do what ever you want. I don't know you and I could care less if you go
to prison.
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim - 06 May 2005 00:24 GMT
I wonder, was this dinosaur on the ark? lmao.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.