Quote:
Originally Posted by dalem
There are different methods of burial, deposition, and fossilization. MOST fossil finds are simple jumbles of bones. Rarely intact and rarely complete. That's why people write articles about unique finds like Dakota. 
Special finds like this one, or the more famous Burgess Shale, etc., are special exactly because they are the result of the sudden inundation scenario (mudslides, etc.) that you postulate above. But MOST fossils are jumbles of junk that are not sexy. Check the back rooms of any natural history museum and you'll see what I mean. 
-dale |
Excellent post Dalem!
fossils are but tiny remnants of a long lost world. The world has changed since the cretaceous, geologic forces have forced up mountains, while others eroded away, seas have dried up, and new oceans created. Land has been subducted, and new land has been created.
We will never ever find an exact replica of a paleo ecosystem. Instead we find bits and pieces spread throughout the millions of years that a certain era or period extended. Its like putting together a jigsaw puzzle, except that the pieces are not from the same puzzle.
In extremely rare cases, such as "Dakota", a small area of Cretaceous land was preserved.. This is such a rare and near impossible that it blows palaeontologists minds away.
Think of it as taking your university graduation picture, tear it up into thousands of pieces, then scatter them in the wind..than 60 years later stumbling upon a little torn section of that picture, with your face on it.