Actually, there is, since the ceratopsian fossil is mentioned although not in that context.
So Preston should have concealed the fact that dinosaur fossils were found in the deposit? Of course, that would have raised cries of secretiveness once a paper was published on them. So it’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Regardless of the probative value of the Tanis site, the excitement (not to mention vitriol) about it supports the idea that similar sites–ones associated with edge of the direct effects of the impact–would be scientifically valuable.
Thus, a possibly naïve question:
Could we make sufficiently detailed models of the impact and the resulting tsunami to map the approximate edges of the resulting floods? Then use core sampling to refine the model and narrow the field, giving us a hot zone for potential Tanis-like sites? Is the data we have (or could obtain) good enough to do this, or would we just be trying to reconstruct a cow from a ton of hamburger?
The odds of finding Tanis itself were astronomical. Sites affected by the KT tsunamis have been found but as far as I know were underwater at the time. The PNAS article says that the extent of the North American seaway at this time is poorly known, at least in this vicinity, because its shoreline has mostly eroded away. They postulate that an arm must have extended into the vicinity of Tanis on the basis of the presence of marine fauna, not because there is direct evidence of it.
Shorelines make up only a small percentage of the surface of the Earth, and by their nature are ephemeral in any one location. Being on the edge of the land, they are subject to being eroded away. Finding a bit of shoreline as it existed during one specific day many millions of years ago would be the longest of long shots.
Ah, well, it was a nice thought. Thank you for the answer, Colibri.
More on the seaway in question: Western Interior Seaway - Wikipedia
The maps are cartoons, of course. Here’s another cartoon showing a smaller sea at impact time here: File:North america 65mya.png - Wikipedia
It didn’t dry out until later. So, as mentioned, it’s hard to know where to look. Some coast may have eroded, e.g. during later transgressions, and an awful lot of it is buried.
Also sometimes known as the Pierre Seaway. (Ammonites and Other Cephalopods of the Pierre Seaway is a nice book, if you are into ammonites and other cephalopods.) Probably the best book on the WIS/Pierre Seaway is Oceans of Kansas. (I have the first edition, I wasn’t aware that there is a second.)
Seems all too common in archeology.
This thread reminds me that I would like to visit an exposed KPg boundary some time.
Steve Niklas, the author of the post, and Rob Sula and Ron Frithiof who are mentioned in it, are all included in the acknowledgements of the PNAS paper, along with many others, for “technical assistance and/or critique.” Admittedly they weren’t credited with the discovery in so many words, but they weren’t ignored. Preston just attributes the discovery of the site to “a collector.” Maybe DePalma glossed over the role of Niklas and the others in discovery of the site, or maybe Preston got it wrong.
I think the comment by Karyn Chiapella below the post hits the nail on head.
They totally failed to realize the significance of the site. They walked away from it, leaving it to a graduate student, and showed no further interest in it. They seem to have thought, “It’s just a lot of fish fossils. Not much of a commercial market for them, so we’re not going to make any money from the site. But maybe there are some fish of academic interest there, so let’s hand it over to this guy who has the inclination to excavate it, as long as he pays the landowner.”
Paleo Prospectors is a commercial company. They didn’t think they could make any money from the site, so they totally abandoned it.
Now they are bitter that they haven’t been given credit for not recognizing what is probably the discovery of the century! Tough shit!
Definitely sour grapes…
In any case, unless the oral agreement DePalma had included that he had to ensure that any publication by third parties also make such an acknowledgement, then it wouldn’t apply to the university press releases or to the New Yorker article.
Amazing read (that includes the New Yorker’s article, the PNAS paper and this thread). Thanks the Dope, you made my day!
Later studies will find that it was mid-afternoon on a Tuesday.
I hate Tuesdays.
Dropping in right before tea. How rude.
The journal article:
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-03232-9
Bumping this old topic to say that BBC produced an excellent special narrated by David Attenborough on precisely this topic, almost like a live-action recreation of the New Yorker article, with great special effects. It was on PBS a couple of weeks ago. Well worth seeing.
Note that there are several other specials titled The Day the Dinosaurs Died. The one I’m talking about is the one with Attenborough.
Settles in for some happy sipping, stitching and screening. A great way to spend the evening, thank you!
