Fossilisation is rare, so ....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I saw this about a month ago on Australian TV and these were not miscellaneous bones. It was 'complete sauropods on top of complete T-Rex (like) skeltons' etc. We'll see, but a I'm sure sure you know that many of the worlds best fossil sites are graveyards with completely preserved (intact) skeletons. In our model we know what happened.

---

Actually, it was a herd of maiasaurs, there were no signs of predators or predation. Most importantly Horner's conclusions were, as Joe rightly remembers, that the Maiasuar's had been killed and then a flood had moved their bones long after the dying event. And floods, even catastrophic ones, aren't uncommon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I still find it hard to believe Horner was talking about 'random bones' but if you say he was I'll take your word for it.

---

I don't know what you mean by random bones. Here is what Horner said: "... nor did it make sense that a heard (sic) of living animals buried in mud would end up with all their skeletons disarticulated."They were not complete ordered specimens, but disarticulated skeletons, with the bones lying east-west and the small bones separated from the large bones.

quote:

---

TB: I've certainly heard many times of all types of dinoasurs (herbivore/carnivore) on top of each other but intact.

​

Edge: I have not actually heard of this. (Here it comes!) Can you document it? What do you mean by 'on top of each other?' Where do they occur so 'many times?' Can you give us your interpretation?

---

Well they were presumably of the same "baramin" which means they could interbreed, so perhaps they were ...No no, I won't go there at this time of the morning.