2 questions...

[SBell]

No, there isn't much of anything in that gap that I'm aware of.  Which indicates either a very poor system of sampling, or that populations were so low (of everything) that the fossil record isn't very complete.

Or, the environment changed so much (say, rivers drying up, desperate scavenging, move from a depositional to erosional environment, etc all being affected where mountains were forming on the west side of North America) that fossilization just wasn't able to occur in the same way.  Maybe people are looking in the wrong places.

I would assume that there are at least a few people who are aware of this problem and are trying to reconcile it, but for now the evidence points to a paucity of faunas for a while before the event.  When good evidence appears to the contrary, that might change.  But it's the old axiom that absence of proof is not proof of absence (so no fossils doesn't necessarily mean no dinosaurs); but to expand the point it cannot be seen as proof of presence either (so, no fossils doesn't mean they were there either).

All very good points. It is all certainly interesting and if I ever made it into paleontology maybe I would examine this gap...getting into paleontology isn't going to happen for me though. I guess we'll just have to wait and see but even if dinosaurs were in decline I doubt they were gone before the asteroid impact and I feel certain they would still be here if not for said impact.

They are--they're called birds!

[Gwangi]

No, there isn't much of anything in that gap that I'm aware of.  Which indicates either a very poor system of sampling, or that populations were so low (of everything) that the fossil record isn't very complete.

Or, the environment changed so much (say, rivers drying up, desperate scavenging, move from a depositional to erosional environment, etc all being affected where mountains were forming on the west side of North America) that fossilization just wasn't able to occur in the same way.  Maybe people are looking in the wrong places.

I would assume that there are at least a few people who are aware of this problem and are trying to reconcile it, but for now the evidence points to a paucity of faunas for a while before the event.  When good evidence appears to the contrary, that might change.  But it's the old axiom that absence of proof is not proof of absence (so no fossils doesn't necessarily mean no dinosaurs); but to expand the point it cannot be seen as proof of presence either (so, no fossils doesn't mean they were there either).

All very good points. It is all certainly interesting and if I ever made it into paleontology maybe I would examine this gap...getting into paleontology isn't going to happen for me though. I guess we'll just have to wait and see but even if dinosaurs were in decline I doubt they were gone before the asteroid impact and I feel certain they would still be here if not for said impact.

They are--they're called birds!

Yes, yes, yes...that goes without saying. Sometimes I just don't feel like typing in "non-avian dinosaurs". I think most of the board knows that I'm in full support of the dinosaur/bird connection.

[DinoFan45]

Actually it was gravity that killed the dinosaurs!

Yes. Yes it did.

[SBell]

No, there isn't much of anything in that gap that I'm aware of.  Which indicates either a very poor system of sampling, or that populations were so low (of everything) that the fossil record isn't very complete.

Or, the environment changed so much (say, rivers drying up, desperate scavenging, move from a depositional to erosional environment, etc all being affected where mountains were forming on the west side of North America) that fossilization just wasn't able to occur in the same way.  Maybe people are looking in the wrong places.

I would assume that there are at least a few people who are aware of this problem and are trying to reconcile it, but for now the evidence points to a paucity of faunas for a while before the event.  When good evidence appears to the contrary, that might change.  But it's the old axiom that absence of proof is not proof of absence (so no fossils doesn't necessarily mean no dinosaurs); but to expand the point it cannot be seen as proof of presence either (so, no fossils doesn't mean they were there either).

All very good points. It is all certainly interesting and if I ever made it into paleontology maybe I would examine this gap...getting into paleontology isn't going to happen for me though. I guess we'll just have to wait and see but even if dinosaurs were in decline I doubt they were gone before the asteroid impact and I feel certain they would still be here if not for said impact.

They are--they're called birds!

Yes, yes, yes...that goes without saying. Sometimes I just don't feel like typing in "non-avian dinosaurs". I think most of the board knows that I'm in full support of the dinosaur/bird connection.

Perhaps, but there is a certain disingenuousness in the statement that 'all' dinosaurs died out--it's something we are all culpable for.  It's really no different than, say, claiming that crurotarsans pretty much went extinct by the end of the Triassic, other than crocodiles (isn't that a weird thought?).  Or that therapsids were extinct by the end of the Triassic as well--except for mammals.  It's simply a matter of evolutionary chance--in each case, an entire group is wiped out, save one lineage that goes on to multiply, diversify, and mostly get whittled down by extinctions again!  Everyone should read S.J. Gould's Wonderful Life.

[SBell]

Check it out--http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016787812000296

As I suspected, this discovery is under a lot of scrutiny--too bad I can't read the entire article.

[Gwangi]

Check it out--http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016787812000296

As I suspected, this discovery is under a lot of scrutiny--too bad I can't read the entire article.

I was just about to post that myself, odd timing right? As for Gould's book, I have it but haven't yet read it. I'm working on it though.

Disingenuousness as it may be it gets a bit tiresome that the distinction must be made any time the conversation comes up on this board, we all know what's what.

[SBell]

Check it out--http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016787812000296

As I suspected, this discovery is under a lot of scrutiny--too bad I can't read the entire article.

I was just about to post that myself, odd timing right? As for Gould's book, I have it but haven't yet read it. I'm working on it though.

Disingenuousness as it may be it gets a bit tiresome that the distinction must be made any time the conversation comes up on this board, we all know what's what.

But if we're not going to speak properly, who will?  Aren't we the same people who get frustrated that the word 'dinosaur' is used to describe any reptile-like extinct thing?  It's pretty much the same, in that referring to the extinction of the dinosaurs is untrue, except in the common-and-misunderstood form!

[Gwangi]

But if we're not going to speak properly, who will?  Aren't we the same people who get frustrated that the word 'dinosaur' is used to describe any reptile-like extinct thing?  It's pretty much the same, in that referring to the extinction of the dinosaurs is untrue, except in the common-and-misunderstood form!

You know what, no, I'm not doing this with you. I'll just choose an emoticon that best fits how I feel.  Last time I'll ever make that mistake.

[SBell]

But if we're not going to speak properly, who will?  Aren't we the same people who get frustrated that the word 'dinosaur' is used to describe any reptile-like extinct thing?  It's pretty much the same, in that referring to the extinction of the dinosaurs is untrue, except in the common-and-misunderstood form!

You know what, no, I'm not doing this with you. I'll just choose an emoticon that best fits how I feel.  Last time I'll ever make that mistake.

Pedantry FTW!  But seriously, I am of the opinion that people who know better should speak like it.

[Metallisuchus]

But if we're not going to speak properly, who will?  Aren't we the same people who get frustrated that the word 'dinosaur' is used to describe any reptile-like extinct thing?  It's pretty much the same, in that referring to the extinction of the dinosaurs is untrue, except in the common-and-misunderstood form!

You know what, no, I'm not doing this with you. I'll just choose an emoticon that best fits how I feel.  Last time I'll ever make that mistake.

Pedantry FTW!  But seriously, I am of the opinion that people who know better should speak like it.

Are you two still arguing over the whole "dinosaurs went extinct except birds" thing? Haha. We all know what he means, he's not writing a scientific paper here, addressed to the general public. Gwangi, I'm with you on this one.

[Gwangi]

But if we're not going to speak properly, who will?  Aren't we the same people who get frustrated that the word 'dinosaur' is used to describe any reptile-like extinct thing?  It's pretty much the same, in that referring to the extinction of the dinosaurs is untrue, except in the common-and-misunderstood form!

You know what, no, I'm not doing this with you. I'll just choose an emoticon that best fits how I feel.  Last time I'll ever make that mistake.

Pedantry FTW!  But seriously, I am of the opinion that people who know better should speak like it.

I'll be watching for a future slip up from you. You are only human after all.

EDIT: I'm of the opinion that some things can go without saying and adding a foot note to every discussion about something we're all aware of is not necessary.

[SBell]

But if we're not going to speak properly, who will?  Aren't we the same people who get frustrated that the word 'dinosaur' is used to describe any reptile-like extinct thing?  It's pretty much the same, in that referring to the extinction of the dinosaurs is untrue, except in the common-and-misunderstood form!

You know what, no, I'm not doing this with you. I'll just choose an emoticon that best fits how I feel.  Last time I'll ever make that mistake.

Pedantry FTW!  But seriously, I am of the opinion that people who know better should speak like it.

I'll be watching for a future slip up from you. You are only human after all.

EDIT: I'm of the opinion that some things can go without saying and adding a foot note to every discussion about something we're all aware of is not necessary.

I would expect I'd slip up as well. And I'll probably be aware of it when I do.

[Gwangi]

But if we're not going to speak properly, who will?  Aren't we the same people who get frustrated that the word 'dinosaur' is used to describe any reptile-like extinct thing?  It's pretty much the same, in that referring to the extinction of the dinosaurs is untrue, except in the common-and-misunderstood form!

You know what, no, I'm not doing this with you. I'll just choose an emoticon that best fits how I feel.  Last time I'll ever make that mistake.

Pedantry FTW!  But seriously, I am of the opinion that people who know better should speak like it.

I'll be watching for a future slip up from you. You are only human after all.

EDIT: I'm of the opinion that some things can go without saying and adding a foot note to every discussion about something we're all aware of is not necessary.

I would expect I'd slip up as well. And I'll probably be aware of it when I do.

Well you're just great. If you read my older posts you'll notice I used the term "non-avian" often so I skipped it this time. You want me to say I made a mistake? Fine...I made a mistake. It doesn't seem like something worth getting hung up on does it? I mean really...does it? Are you the kind of person who when presented with that statement always has to say "oh no no, dinosaurs are not extinct cause of birds."? Of course you are and of course you'll say it is worth getting hung up on (you already did) but I would rather discuss how the dinosaurs went extinct...all of them; pterosaurs, plesiosaurs and those long necked ones too.

[SBell]

But if we're not going to speak properly, who will?  Aren't we the same people who get frustrated that the word 'dinosaur' is used to describe any reptile-like extinct thing?  It's pretty much the same, in that referring to the extinction of the dinosaurs is untrue, except in the common-and-misunderstood form!

You know what, no, I'm not doing this with you. I'll just choose an emoticon that best fits how I feel.  Last time I'll ever make that mistake.

Pedantry FTW!  But seriously, I am of the opinion that people who know better should speak like it.

I'll be watching for a future slip up from you. You are only human after all.

EDIT: I'm of the opinion that some things can go without saying and adding a foot note to every discussion about something we're all aware of is not necessary.

I would expect I'd slip up as well. And I'll probably be aware of it when I do.

Well you're just great. If you read my older posts you'll notice I used the term "non-avian" often so I skipped it this time. You want me to say I made a mistake? Fine...I made a mistake. It doesn't seem like something worth getting hung up on does it? I mean really...does it? Are you the kind of person who when presented with that statement always has to say "oh no no, dinosaurs are not extinct cause of birds."? Of course you are and of course you'll say it is worth getting hung up on (you already did) but I would rather discuss how the dinosaurs went extinct...all of them; pterosaurs, plesiosaurs and those long necked ones too.

Actually, I was referring to you mentioning you were going to watch for future slips from me.  I really wasn't implying anything about you at all, I haven't really kept track of who said what at all.  And now we've derailed this thread nicely, so it should probably stop.

[Gwangi]

Actually, I was referring to you mentioning you were going to watch for future slips from me.  I really wasn't implying anything about you at all, I haven't really kept track of who said what at all.  And now we've derailed this thread nicely, so it should probably stop.

That would probably be a good idea.