Layman Looking For Resources

[Ramen Dragon]

Pardon me, folks, I'm doing research for a novel involving dinosaurs, I have questions I can't seem to answer, and it's driving me nuts. Been looking in books and online, and found no answers anywhere--probably because I'm asking weirdly specific questions--so I thought I'd try here.

Does anybody know where, for example, I could find information on which dinosaurs lived in which biomes? E.g., I've read (on Wiki) that alamosaurus preferred "semi-arid" environments, and that thescelosaurus hung out around river channels or floodplains, depending which scientist you ask. Of course the nature of fossilization keeps us from ever knowing what (if anything) lived in, say, high mountains--I can live with that. I'll take anything over the little fragments I have now.

I'd also be delighted if any of you folks could point me towards a layman-accessible book/blog/site on late-Cretaceous plant life, specifically from Campanian/Maastrichtian Laramidia. So far I've found a lot of general statements like: "ferns, cycads, tree-ferns, club moss, and various flowering plants including oaks, magnolias, etc." Naturally, most people are more interested in details about dinosaurs than the stuff they ate.

Failing that: I'd absolutely love to have a good, in-depth, accessible guide to dinosaurs from that same general place and period (esp. Maastrichtian). I live out in the sticks, and my library isn't the best, but I'd be glad to use inter-library loan to get, say, a detailed, recent analysis of what troodon might have eaten, or how the ecosystem might have fit together (it still has me scratching my head that there don't seem to be any predators between troodon and T. rex in size--especially if the one was an omnivore and the other a part-time scavenger).

I realize that much of paleontology is ever-changing, uncertain, and furiously contested by swarms of very assertive PhDs. Thanks a LOT in advance for any and all help!

[Auspex]

I feel your frustration, intimately. Paleoecology is a pretty new discipline, and satisfying answers to specific questions are like smoke through your fingers. Especially for terrestrial Mesozoic environments, for which the sample-sizes are very small. The result is a lot of inferential educated guesses, often supported by "informed circular logic".

Here's a link to a lecture syllabus that sort of outlines the playing field: >LINK<

I hope it is at least some comfort, even if it lacks in hard answers.

There are many others here who can speak for current theories, and will no doubt be of real use to you in your quest.

BTW, I am excited at the prospect of your novel: you seem to want to present a factually plausible setting for it.

[mikecable]

BTW, I am excited at the prospect of your novel: you seem to want to present a factually plausible setting for it.

Factual plausibility has got its points.

But who needs facts when you have Jill St. John?

Edited August 7, 2013 by mikecable

[Ramen Dragon]

Well, yes and no: it's a fantasy novel, of the humans-and-dinosaurs-coexisting type. As such, it is ludicrously unrealistic (and doesn't pretend otherwise; breathe easy, I'm not into YEC). However, I still feel neurotically compelled to make the "dinosaurs" and "humans" ends independently plausible, i.e. it's more or less like what would happen if you magically took a bunch of stone-age humans and kicked them back 65 million years--er, minus the part where they'd all get eaten/stomped/starved long before they learned to adapt. I'm going to have to stretch some things, and take a little license; I'm going to stick Nothronychus in there, for example, because he's just too cool to leave out. There are elements of the supernatural as well, but in the Mary Renault style, not high fantasy--the general idea is to present the mystery-laden worldview common to less-developed societies. There are, of course, some burning questions that are simply not going to be answered for me, such as "what kind of weight could pachycephalosaurus bear?" and "would this extinct fern have had any textile, tool, or nutritional uses?"

The link you presented looks quite promising; I'll dig through it in detail in the morning, when my brain works a bit better.

XPost!

Edited August 7, 2013 by Ramen Dragon

[Missourian]

As you hinted in your post, assocated plants can be key.

Unfortunately, though, most preserved dinosaurs will be found mostly in certain environments where they were likely to be preserved, eg. near rivers. Many desert-dwelling may never be known, but there are exceptions. I've heard that dinosaur bones have been found in the massive Triassic/Jurassic Navajo Sandstone, which was formed from large, Sahara-like dunes. A quick Google search for your convenience and my curiosity :

http://www.google.com/search?q=navajo+sandstone+dinosaur&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=

Also, you may find paleogeography to be helpful. It helps me, at least, to visualize their world:

http://www2.nau.edu/rcb7/globaltext2.html

http://www2.nau.edu/rcb7/nam.html

Edited August 7, 2013 by Missourian

[mikecable]

Facts don't equal Wonder Woman.

[Ramen Dragon]

Auspex, the link you provided is excellent; some of it is information I could have found elsewhere, but it's great to have it all together in an organized fashion like that. It also helps to know that all the info is from a respectable source. Does anyone perchance know of late-late Cretaceous formations similar to the Navajo one? I'm focusing on that just-before-the-asteroid period in North America. Auspex's source indicated a general pattern (in the Jurassic, IIRC) of sauropod-heavy arid regions, with a few smaller types to round it out. I imagine the same general pattern might hold for other eras as well.

Again, you guys are great.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Ramen Dragon

[Auspex]

Is your setting in the northern or southern hemisphere? The End Cretaceous sauropods were the Titanosaurs, and were much more of a southern hemisphere (the Gondwana supercontinent) phenomenon.

[Ramen Dragon]

I'm using Laramidian fauna--northern. Mostly because of T. rex, and the wide assortment of other neat dinos who fit together. So, yeah, the only sauropod will be maybe Alamosaurus. I'm okay with that; a lot of sauropods would complicate things for the humans, especially the sedentary types.

[Auspex]

I think the most obvious herbivores would be the Hadrosaurids and the Ceratopsins; "Wildebeests" and "Warthogs", respectively.

[Ramen Dragon]

Yep. I'm about eighty manuscript pages in, at present, using the following dinos/other fauna: Edmontosaurus/Anatotitan, Triceratops, Ankylosaurus, Pachycephalosaurus, Ornithomimus, T. Rex, Troodon, Dromaeosaurus, Quetzelcoatlus, Alamosaurus, Thescelosaurus, Didelphodon, Orodromeus, Hagryphus, Parasaurolophus, Nothronychus. The three at the end are the only really egregious timeline violations (i.e., more than five million years off) that I know of, but it's possible that I got mixed up. Not all of them are big players anyway, plot-wise; thescelosaurus, for example, is mentioned only as a delicacy.

EDIT: Nope, Orodromeus and Dromaeosaurus appear to be solidly Campanian as well. Hmm. I suppose it's not a big deal in a made-up world, but I could probably chuck the former. He's not doing much except adding color. Neither is Hagryphus, beyond being the sole representative oviraptor (probably a desert creature anyway, and the action takes place in greener parts). The other three oddballs serve a purpose, though, so it'll be a bit adulterated.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Ramen Dragon

[PFOOLEY]

Ooooh, add some large crocodiles and pterosaurs to really set the scene.

Nevermind, you're on it.

Edited August 14, 2013 by PFOOLEY