Talk:Jurassic National Monument
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Recreation
[edit]I removed the sentence on bouldering because it needed to be rewritten and it should cite some kind of source. I will see if I can track down a reference to bouldering in the area, but if anybody comes up with one before I get back to it, feel free to add it back.
If it gets added back into the article, it may be better to split it off into a separate Recreation section or some other section that is separate from the paleo.
Justin 13:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Map
[edit]A link to a Goolge Maps location would be helpful.
As regards the "Visiting" section; please add the following to the end of the 2nd paragraph:
"Schedule goes back to weekends only from Labor Day until the end of October. Entrance fee of $5 per adult with anyone under 16 free."
204.124.92.254 (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
mleschin@blm.gov
Hypothesis about cause of high concentration of dinosaur fossils may need revision
[edit]I recently (on Saturday 17th of May 2014) visited this dinosaur quarry and spoke with a volunteer at the visitor center. Based on our conversations, I am making the following comment about this Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article, which is very well written, states as fact that "Dinosaurs became entrapped in the cohesive and adhesive mud as they drank and hunted near the floodpond". This has not been established as a fact, in my opinion. Further, I read in the "official" descriptions in the visitor center at the quarry that scientists do not accept this hypothesis anymore. Reasoning given includes the idea that the deepest part of the mud-clay layer in which the fossils lie is about three feet -- less than a meter; it seems highly unlikely that animals as powerful as juvenile Allosauruses, not to mention sauropods (Brachiosaurus), would be trapped in a three-foot layer of clay. The "wall literature" at the visitor center, along with discussion with the apparently highly knowledgeable amateur expert volunteer mentioned above, make clear that scientists studying this site are at an impasse in explaining the dense concentration of fossil bones. But they have tentatively rejected the hypothesis of a mud-clay pond trap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogreg (talk • contribs) 02:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yep, you're right, I fixed this part. Kintaro (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)