At 07:12 AM 1/20/98 -0800, Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
>At 05:57 AM 1/20/98 -0600, Glenn wrote:
>>But there is one correct of the above. Ancient coelecanths were not
>>deepwater creatures. Most lived in freshwater.
>
>1. How do you know they were not deepwater creatures? Fresh water can be
>deep too.
Well, I am listening to and believing those who have studied these ancient fish.
"Rhabdoderma, a smallish coelacanth, the size of a large minnow,
is quite common in coal deposits of both Europe and North
America. In the Late Triassic the extremely abundant genus
Diplurus mentioned above was definitely living in freshwater
lakes and rivers of North America. Also, up to this time almost
all fossil coelacanths had been small fishes of less than eight
to ten inches). But one species of Diplurus was much bigger (to
fifteen inches)."~Keith Stewart Thompson, "Living Fossil: The
Story of the Coelacanth," (London: Hutchinson Radius, 1991), p.
87
A geologist can tell the difference between a river deposit and a deepwater
lake deposit and a deepwater marine environment. As you know rivers have
point bar deposits, channel levee facies etc.
>2. How do you know they were fresh water creatures? You can only attempt to
>infer this from association with other forms (often plants), and that is a
>dubious practice at best.
Once again, I cite the guys who have looked at this. I will admit that I
haven't examined the strata myself, but I doubt that you would require
personal examination of every piece of evidence.
As to qualifyers, I did use the term 'Most" when saying where they lived.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm