Turtle > Triceratops

Galvasean

It appears that a recently discovered Triceratops is now considered the youngest dinosaur known, living right at the K-T boundary, suggesting that it was killed off by the Chicxulub impact.
http://news.discovery.com/animals/dinosaur-last-survivor-extinction-triceratops-110712.html

He's not so tough though. One species of river turtle called Boremys positively thrived during the catastrophe!
http://news.discovery.com/animals/turtle-boremys-survived-meteor-110711.html


Illustration by Brian T. Roach

Adam Khor

But, what about those hadrosaur remains from the Palaeocene? Wouldn`t those be younger? (Of course they would, what I'm asking is more like, were they proved to be from the Cretaceous already and I didnt find out, or else why aren`t they being considered here?)

As for the turtle, we already knew many genera survived the KT extinction... although I wouldn`t be surprised if the journalists were just finding out for the first time!

jill_valentine

I'd still have my fiver on the Triceratops in a fight though.

Eventually, like.

Galvasean

The alleged Palaeocene dinosaurs were met with skepticism from the scientific community. Apparently this happens frequently enough (someone claiming to have found post K-T event dinosaurs), but none of the cases have been particularly compelling.

Adam Khor

Galvasean wrote: »

The alleged Palaeocene dinosaurs were met with skepticism from the scientific community. Apparently this happens frequently enough (someone claiming to have found post K-T event dinosaurs), but none of the cases have been particularly compelling.

Doesn´t seem far fetched to me, tho. I mean dinosaurs were EVERYWHERE at the end of the Cretaceous, I find it hard to believe that there weren´t at least a few ones scattered around during the Palaeocene...

Alvin T. Grey

Adam Khor wrote: »

Doesn´t seem far fetched to me, tho. I mean dinosaurs were EVERYWHERE at the end of the Cretaceous, I find it hard to believe that there weren´t at least a few ones scattered around during the Palaeocene...

Not for very long I fear. If as we think a catastrophic event wiped them out at the end of the cretatious by and large, then what ever was left probably didn't really last past a few generations. Not enough to show up as a distinct band within the strata.
However the avian dinosaurs must have passed through the event reletivly unscathed so for a short time there were distinct species alive both before and after the event.

Galvasean

When you consider how rare fossilization is among thriving species, we would be astronomically lucky to find fossil representation of the few (not to mention short lived) non-avian dinosaurs that potentially made it past the K-T line.

edit: this was my 24,000th post on boards.ie

Adam Khor

Galvasean wrote: »

When you consider how rare fossilization is among thriving species, we would be astronomically lucky to find fossil representation of the few (not to mention short lived) non-avian dinosaurs that potentially made it past the K-T line.

edit: this was my 24,000th post on boards.ie

Erm... congrats? :P

I agree with you- just cuz we haven´t found the remains of surviving non avian dinos it doesn´t mean they weren´t around.
I mean, look at dicynodonts... they were supossed to have gone extinct at the end of the Triassic, yet suddenly fossils of them turn up in Australia dating from the Cretaceous!
I think it's only a matter of time before a Palaeocene non avian dinosaur is found, if it hasn´t been found yet. They were extremely adaptable critters, so I'm sure at least a few of them must have survived the catastrophe.

Galvasean

I left a piece out of my earlier post:
Finding a fossil has been described as being like winning the lottery twice. First the animal must fossilize, which in itself has odds akin to winning the lottery. Then you actually have to find the fossil before it erodes away - another lottery win. The Palaeocene dinosaurs were probably so rare in the grand scheme of things that you could ad a third lotto win to that.

Adam Khor

Meaning that you shouldn´t forget your Dinosaur Repellant when you take that trip to the Palaeocene. You never know...

Galvasean

Hope it works on this guy (he's like a dinosaur)

Image by Robert T. Bakker

Adam Khor

Good ol' Pristichampsus, correct?

I don´t know... but I suposse anything strong enough to keep a T-Rex away should work on crocodiles as well...

steddyeddy

I dont find it hard to believe that some dinosaurs are beleived to have survived into the Palaeocene as you say fossilization of species is extremely rare. Im going to sound stupid but did the extinction event alter the landscape enough to make fossilization less likely eg more acidic?

Galvasean

Adam Khor wrote: »

Good ol' Pristichampsus, correct?

Yup. Bakker's 'exception that proves the rule' in relation to the reign of large terrestrial reptilian carnivores ending at the end of the Cretaceous.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I dont find it hard to believe that some dinosaurs are beleived to have survived into the Palaeocene as you say fossilization of species is extremely rare. Im going to sound stupid but did the extinction event alter the landscape enough to make fossilization less likely eg more acidic?

Not that I'm aware of. You do get a lot of ash and the fabled layer of iridium at the K-T layer, but as far as I know there were no signs of acidity which surprised many as it was assumed that there would have been high levels of acid rain at the time.

steddyeddy

Galvasean wrote: »

Yup. Bakker's 'exception that proves the rule' in relation to the reign of large terrestrial reptilian carnivores ending at the end of the Cretaceous.



Not that I'm aware of. You do get a lot of ash and the fabled layer of iridium at the K-T layer, but as far as I know there were no signs of acidity which surprised many as it was assumed that there would have been high levels of acid rain at the time.

I only ask because their are hardly any fossils of the great apes in the fossil record (four chimp teeth) because of the acidity of temperate forests. Thanks for the answer!

Adam Khor

Galvasean wrote: »

Yup. Bakker's 'exception that proves the rule' in relation to the reign of large terrestrial reptilian carnivores ending at the end of the Cretaceous.

And let us not forget Quinkana, which had the same basic design as Pristichampsus (terrestrial, dinosaur-like tail, blade-like serrated teeth) and was one of the top predators in Australia up to 40.000 years ago. Seems that most Quinkana species were about the same size as Pristichampsus, but the largest species was about 5-7 meters long, the size of a modern day saltwater croc...

Rubecula

I dug out the following quote which may be of interest.

Ziphodont teeth tend to arise in terrestrial crocodilians because, unlike their aquatic cousins, they are unable to dispatch their prey by simply holding them underwater and drowning them; they thus need cutting teeth with which to slice open their victims.:cool: