Jump to content

Sauropod in the Hell Creek fm?


Nanotyrannus35

Recommended Posts

I have been reading my copy that I have of The Tyrannosaur Chronicles, and in the chapter about prey, there was a picture that was captioned Hell Creek Prey. There were Edmontosaurus, Triceratops, Thescelosaurus, but there was also a sauropod. I looked through @Troodons topics about the hell creek fm and also the wikepedia page about hell creek fauna. Is the book outdated or is there actually a sauropod dinosaur in the Hell Creek Formation?

:trex::brokebone: Enthusiastic Fossil Hunter bone_brokerev.pngtrexrev.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 There are none in the Hell Creek & Lance Formations as well as Montana's  and Aberta's Campanian deposits.  Its possible they were thinking of Alamosaurus which was very late Cretaceous but not HC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Troodon said:

 There are none in the Hell Creek & Lance Formations as well as Montana's  and Aberta's Campanian deposits.  Its possible they were thinking of Alamosaurus which was very late Cretaceous but not HC

Do you have any idea why the book had said that there was a sauropod in the hell creek? The book was published in 2017, so it's not that outdated.

:trex::brokebone: Enthusiastic Fossil Hunter bone_brokerev.pngtrexrev.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2021 at 3:25 PM, jpc said:

and then report back to us.  I am also curious.

 

First off, here's the picture for reference.

Image preview

 

He had replied, "it's based on, but is not a direct representation of the Lance. The sauropod is Alamosaurus which is known from several sites across the US and is young enough to have, at least in theory, crossed with T. rex so it got included." So it seems that @Troodon was right.

:trex::brokebone: Enthusiastic Fossil Hunter bone_brokerev.pngtrexrev.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Picture did not resolve

 

So if I understand this correctly because Alamosaurus is described in the same fauna as T rex as is the case in the Javelina Fm of Texas in theory it might be present in other formations where T rex roamed.  Interesting theory,  wonder if anyone considered that range of this sauropod did not extend to the northern part of the States and Canada and that no material has ever been found?

@jpc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO NO NO and NO.  There has never been any sauropod material found in the Lance or Hell Creek (that I know of).  I would file this as false, especially because he says in the text that these things are  "here a fauna representing the Lance Formation..."  NO.  If it has not been found in the Lance, you cannot go and say that it was there.  This is false science to me. 

 

Do I seem a bit perturbed?   you bet I do.  People will start asking me about sauropods in the Lance because of this (insert deleted word here).  It is like people telling me about dilophosaurus and its frill and its poison spit.  Yes, this happened just last weekend.    

 

Something to think about.  The Camnpanian dinosaurs of North America have a distinctively different fauna in the north (MT and Canada) than do the Campanian dinos of the south (TX, NM etc).  Maybe the same was going on during the Maastichtian when T rex was running about.  I would need to look into this before putting this in a book.       

  • I found this Informative 1
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jpc said:

NO NO NO and NO.  There has never been any sauropod material found in the Lance or Hell Creek (that I know of).  I would file this as false, especially because he says in the text that these things are  "here a fauna representing the Lance Formation..."  NO.  If it has not been found in the Lance, you cannot go and say that it was there.  This is false science to me. 

 

Do I seem a bit perturbed?   you bet I do.  People will start asking me about sauropods in the Lance because of this (insert deleted word here).  It is like people telling me about dilophosaurus and its frill and its poison spit.  Yes, this happened just last weekend.    

 

Something to think about.  The Camnpanian dinosaurs of North America have a distinctively different fauna in the north (MT and Canada) than do the Campanian dinos of the south (TX, NM etc).  Maybe the same was going on during the Maastichtian when T rex was running about.  I would need to look into this before putting this in a book.       

 JP you're just upset because now you will have to go find some of this material :Smiling:

Have to wonder with this glaring error what other issues are present in this book that were not fully thought out before publication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, jpc said:

I will retire the day I find a sauropod in the Lance.  : )

 

 

You'll have to "retire" because you'll be too busy re-writing the history of the N.A. Campanian era. 

"There is no shortage of fossils. There is only a shortage of paleontologists to study them." - Larry Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, hadrosauridae said:

 

You'll have to "retire" because you'll be too busy re-writing the history of the N.A. Campanian era. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Haravex said:

I did find this which says Alamosaurus was found in Wyoming - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanston_Formation

I know I am way out of my league, so I welcome the correction, but the references at the bottom (which I haven’t read yet) have clearly stated that the Alamosaurus was found in New Mexico. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Undescribed titanosaur fossils closely associated with Alamosaurus have been found in the Evanston Formation in Wyoming.”
 

This was as close as I found confirmation on Wikipedia. (However, I can’t help but take it with a grain of salt, either way). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...