HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lauters, P. Articles by Godefroit, P. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Taphonomy and Age Profile of a Latest Cretaceous Dinosaur Bone Bed in Far Eastern Russia

¹ Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Department of Palaeontology, rue Vautier 29, 1000 Brussels, Belgium;
² Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, Geological and Nature Exploration Institute, per. Relochny 1, 675000 Blagoveschensk, Russia;
³ Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Afdeling Historische Geologie, Laboratorium voor Stratigrafie, Redingenstraat 16, 3000 Leuven, Belgium plauters{at}ulb.ac.be

A large dinosaur bone bed has been investigated in the Udurchukan Formation (?late Maastrichtian) at Blagoveschensk, Far Eastern Russia. The observed mixture of unstratified fine and coarse sediments in the bone bed is typical for sediment-gravity-flow deposits. It is postulated that sediment gravity flows, originating from the uplifted areas at the borders of the Zeya-Bureya Basin, reworked the dinosaur bones and teeth as a monodominant bone bed. Fossils of the lambeosaurine Amurosaurus riabinini form >90% of the recovered material. The low number of associated skeletal elements at Blagoveschensk indicates that the carcasses were disarticulated well before reworking. Although shed theropod teeth have been found in the bone bed, <2% of the bones exhibit potential tooth marks; scavenging activity was therefore limited, or scavengers had an abundance of prey at hand and did not have to actively seek out bones for nutrients. Perthotaxic features are very rare on the bones, implying that they were not exposed subaerially for any significant length of time before reworking and burial. The underrepresentation of light skeletal elements, the dislocation of the dental batteries, and the numerous fractured long bones suggest that most of the fossils were reworked. The random orientation of the elements might indicate a sudden end to transport before stability could be reached. The size-frequency distributions of the femur, tibia, humerus, and dentary elements reveal an overrepresentation of late juveniles and small subadult specimens, indicative of an attritional death profile for the Amurosaurus fossil assemblage. It is tentatively postulated that the absence of fossils attributable to nestling or early juvenile individuals indicates that younger animals were segregated from adults and could join the herd only when they reached half of the adult size.