Re: AAT Theory
Phillip Bigelow (n8010095@cc.wwu.edu)
5 Sep 1995 17:30:00 -0700
clarke@longwood.cs.ucf.edu (Tom Clarke) writes:
>chris brochu <gator@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>>In article <41vfus$p82@ttis.thomtech.com> Mike Reid, mreid@thomtech.com
>>writes:
>>>.... What
>>>if fossils of a proto-hominid creature were found in late Miocene
>>>nearshore marine deposits? Wouldnt such fossils provide solid
>>>evidence to support the AAT,
>>Please pardon the intrusion of a crocodylian systematist into this
>>discussion.
>>The Miocene Calvert Cliffs Formation produces a rich diversity of
>>vertebrate fossils, including large sharks, bony fishes, whales, and
>>crocodylians. Based on sedimentological evidence, the depositional
>>environment was probably coastal or nearshore marine.
>>The Calvert Cliffs Formation also includes the remains of horses and
>>camels. These ungulate bones are probably more abundant in the Calvert
>>Cliffs than hominid bones are in their respective settings. Does that
>>imply that these horses and camels were aquatic?
>An interesting question!
>What does the presence of horse and camel fossils in a coastal or
>near shore depositional environment imply?
>Certainly it implies that the camels and horses at least visited
>the littoral zone with enough frequency that some died and were
>fossilized in large enough quantities to be noticed by systematic
>crocodylians :-)
>Tom Clarke
Not necessarily true. As has been pointed out numerous (painfully
numerous) times, the animals may have died in totally different environments
(such as a savannah) and their carcasses were washed into the littoral zone
by flooding rivers. Nothing is "cut-and-dried" when it comes to
interpreting the depositional environment of a fossil site.
<pb>
|