Comments on: Swim Tracks Undermine Dinosaur Stampede http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/11/swim-tracks-undermine-dinosaur-stampede/ A science salon hosted by National Geographic Magazine Fri, 24 May 2013 16:30:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2-alpha By: Herman Diaz http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/11/swim-tracks-undermine-dinosaur-stampede/#comment-39582 Herman Diaz Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:21:26 +0000 http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=150266#comment-39582 Sorry about the back-to-back comments, but I forgot to mention that, for more info about how Thulborn 2013 differs from Thulborn 2011 (among other things), see the posts in this link (especially those by Poropat & Thulborn): http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.dinosaurs.general/56325

]]> By: Herman Diaz http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/11/swim-tracks-undermine-dinosaur-stampede/#comment-39580 Herman Diaz Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:05:18 +0000 http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=150266#comment-39580 I should also mention that Thulborn 2011 has since been published as Thulborn 2013 ( http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03115518.2013.748482?journalCode=talc20 ).

]]> By: Herman Diaz http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/11/swim-tracks-undermine-dinosaur-stampede/#comment-39577 Herman Diaz Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:30:11 +0000 http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=150266#comment-39577 No offense, but I think you’re giving the Romilio & Salisbury papers WAY too much credit, especially given how conservative you usually are about new hypotheses: For 1, that Thulborn’s wording was unprofessional doesn’t change the fact that Romilio & Salisbury’s methodology was unscientific ( http://dml.cmnh.org/2011Nov/msg00411.html ); For another, as Paul Willis pointed out ( http://news.yahoo.com/stampeding-dinosaurs-were-actually-swimming-143815580.html ), there was “still a stampede”.

]]> By: Richard White http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/11/swim-tracks-undermine-dinosaur-stampede/#comment-38494 Richard White Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:16:40 +0000 http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=150266#comment-38494 “And, of course, there’s the question of why so many ornithopods crossed the Cretaceous river.”

You’re kidding, right? Obviously to get to the other side.

]]> By: Elizabeth Caroli http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/11/swim-tracks-undermine-dinosaur-stampede/#comment-38459 Elizabeth Caroli Sat, 12 Jan 2013 18:11:29 +0000 http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=150266#comment-38459 Very exciting and shows the beauty of how science works. A wonderful way to engage my first graders in science and changing ideas based on new evidence. Dinosaurs are always a hot topic and one that I loved at an early age( and still do)!

]]> By: 220mya http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/11/swim-tracks-undermine-dinosaur-stampede/#comment-38438 220mya Sat, 12 Jan 2013 00:13:09 +0000 http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=150266#comment-38438 Incidentally, a new paper is out that revises the age of the Winton Fm, indicating the Lark Quarry is younger than previously thought (now late Cenomanian to early Turonian): http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2012.12.009

]]> By: Jim Kirkland http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/11/swim-tracks-undermine-dinosaur-stampede/#comment-38435 Jim Kirkland Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:46:03 +0000 http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=150266#comment-38435 AS Andrew and I have joked relative to the hundreds to thousands of swim tracks at the St. George Dinosaur Discovery might best be called floundering tracks, as they appear to fighting to get their footing kicking out against bottom in the opposite direction of the current; thus they are strongly oriented in one direction.

]]>