От SerP-M
К tsa
Дата 26.09.2006 03:22:45
Рубрики Современность; Политек;

Что думает народ о "пост-Меловых" динозаврах. Ссылки. (+)

Приветствую!

Думаю, Вам будет интересно. А то, панимаш, начитались Еськова! Еськов, он, конечно, интересно пишет, но есть одно правило: всякий интересно пишущий автор УЧЕБНИКА, как правило, излагает свои собственные взгляды в первую очередь, а альтернативные теории часто едва упоминает. ИМХО, с этой точки зрения предпочтительны авторы "скучных" учебников - они добросовестно ВСЁ пересказывают, а уж выводы мы и сами сделать можем! :)))
Большинство англоязычных согласны на том, что "...Post-Cretaceous dinosaur remains, which are restricted to river-channel deposits, are almost certainly reworked from older strata".
Вот ссылочки:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/maps97a.htm
http://dml.cmnh.org/1994Dec/msg00189.html
http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1130%2F1052-5173(2005)015%3C4:TEOTDI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2004/7/20046675.shtml
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.earth.24.1.433?cookieSet=1

А вот еще:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:wJ_j9UjyClQJ:www.geol.lu.se/personal/VIV/Ocampo%2520et%2520al.%25202006%2520Impacts_Springer.pdf+post-Cretaceous+dinosaurs&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=59

In all instances whenundoubted dinosaur remains have been reported from post-Cretaceous rocks, subsequent studies have shown that either the fossils were reworked, or the purported Paleogene age of the sediments was incorrect. In some instances, accurate placement of the KT boundary is crucial. A recent example of purported Paleocene dinosaurs comes from China. Zhao et al. (2002) claimed evidence of a major extinction at the KT boundary inthe Nanxiong Basin, South China, but suggested that dinosaurs in that province survived the KT event by about 250 000 years. The KT boundaryis constrained by palynological data. The evidence for dinosaurs survivinginto the Paleocene consists of dinosaur nests where the eggshells show an enrichment of iridium. It is suggested that the anomalous trace elementconcentrations were provided by the food source. Pathologicaldevelopment is traced in the eggs that were produced after the KT event and only a few of them seemed to have hatched due to environmental poisoning. However, the palynological definition of the boundary by Zhaoet al. (2002) contradicts previous works, (Zhao 1978, 1993, 1994; Zhao etal. 1991) where the boundary is set higher in the sedimentary succession, at the last occurrence of the eggshells. Both the extinction process byenvironmental poisoning and the placement of the KT boundary appear highly dubious, and this report from the Nanxiong Basin does notconvincingly demonstrate that dinosaurs survived the Cretaceous-Paleogene catastrophe.
Similarly, it has recently been claimed (Fassett et al. 2002) that Paleocene dinosaur remains occur in the Ojo Alamo Sandstone of New Mexico. According to Fassett et al. (2002), persistence of dinosaurs for about one million years after the end-Cretaceous asteroid impact might have resulted from the survival of embryos inside eggs laid just before the disaster. However, this claim is based mainly on palynological evidencefor a Paleocene age for the sediments containing the so-called “Lazarusdinosaurs”, and renewed sampling has not confirmed it, indicating insteada Maastrichtian age (Sullivan et al. 2002).
Despite various claims to the contrary, there is thus no convincingevidence for the survival of dinosaurs after the KT boundary anywhere in the world.

Сергей М.