Summations Only

This is a distribution map of Proteaceae: from Missouri Botanical Garden website. There are other similar ones out there if you bother to look. Not exactly restricted to a small region of the Earth. Interestingly this pattern of distribution is not that different from the global distribuiont of Marsupials. Now, if you really want to blow your mind, check out how these distributions compare to reconstructions of Gondwanaland. Once again, science (geology, biology, botany etc) explains everything neatly - the 'flood' explains nothing.

Naturally some individual species are specific to localised areas - this was a major piece of evidence for Darwin when he was formulating his theory of evolution. But you seem to assume under your model that entire classes were once limited to small regions and thus were not fossilised. Lets look at your model again: Looking at some of my local (ie Australian) geology:
In the mid Proterozoic rocks here I can only find fossils of stromatolites. Your claim seems to be that nearly all other genera existed but were somehow not fossilised.
I move up the sequence a little to late Proterozoic, I'm still seeing stromatilites but I also see Ediacara. Nothing else.
Above this is the Cambrian where I start seeing arthropods as well as stromatolites. Ediacaran fossils have also been reported in the Cambrian. However, no fossils of amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals etc.
By the time we get to Ordovician rocks in eastern Australia we start seeing verterbrates - jawless fishes as well as arthropods, etc, etc. No marine mammals, no marine reptiles, no marine amphibians and no marine birds for some reason.I could go on, but you know the pattern. In every succeeding geological epoch we see, not just new species, but often new genera, plus nearly always examples of the pre existing genera. Isn't it a much more elegant solution to this observation to admit that the over time new species and genera are appearing rather than to try and come up with some convoluted theory that genera start coming out of hiding for no apparent reason? It might be worth having a look at the cognitive dissonance thread.

As far as I'm aware ichthyosaurs were recognised as being reptiles way back in around 1700 when the first fragments were identified. So one can assume that biologists 300 years ago were better at classifiying animals than amateurs are now. Go figure.

Quite correct - thanks for the correction Dr A. What is fascinating is that biologists can tell if an animal is a mammal or reptile just by looking at the teeth (and jaw?) alone. Body shape - not so much.Edited by Boof, : No reason given.

So you and RAZD are both right. The fascinating thing is, if the right minerals are present you can get a geochronological age of both the formation of the rock (generally a crystallisation age of an igneous rock, say a volcanic layer) PLUS an age for the subsequent mountain building (ie a date for peak meatamorphism). Geology is fun!