4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Paleoecological utility of insect trace fossils in dinosaur nesting sites of the Two Medicine Formation (Campanian), Choteau, Montana

Journal

HISTORICAL BIOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 15-25

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08912963.2010.505285

Keywords

Hymenoptera; wasps; ichnology; cocoon; Mesozoic; trace fossils

Funding

  1. Division Of Earth Sciences
  2. Directorate For Geosciences [0847777] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Insect trace fossils, such as burrows, pupation chambers and nests, can provide broad paleoecological insights by helping to define paleohydrology, effects of seasonality or conditions of associated paleosols. Insect traces adjacent to nesting sites of the dinosaur Troodon formosus in the Cretaceous (Campanian) Two Medicine Formation near Choteau, Montana, demonstrate such paleoecological utility. One outcrop in particular contains an abundance of insect burrows and pupation chambers in a calcareous paleosol. Most trace fossils are interpreted as apocritan (wasps and bees) burrows, brooding chambers and cocoons. Apocritans prefer to construct burrows and brooding chambers in well-drained soils during relatively dry conditions (avoiding wet seasons). Their trace fossils are consistent with previous inferences of semi-arid conditions and seasonality for the Two Medicine Formation. Moreover, apocritan nesting is likely to have occurred in the same places and conditions as dinosaur nests: well above the local water table and during dry seasons. Such trace fossils hold the potential for more precise definitions of paleoecological factors in dinosaur nest sites. For example, within the Two Medicine Formation, the Celliforma ichnofacies is commonly associated with eggs of T. formosus and Continuoolithus, but not with those of Maiasaura peeblesorum, perhaps indicative of subtle nesting site preferences.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available