>Glenn, there is a difference between a petrified skeleton's resistence to
>weathering (which may equal that of stone) and the time during which a
>decaying whale can remain intact and articulated. The former can indeed be
>years given protection from vandals. The latter cannot. Disarticulation,
>if not hastened by predators is inevitable and rapid. While I cannot give
>you exact figures for whales, the rates of disarticulation of other
>vertebrates are well known under a variety of circumstances, and except for
>dessication (not likely a factor in this case), they are less than a year
> if
>undisturbed, and in some cases a week or less. Any textbook on taphonomy
>will deal with these figures. Leonard Brand has done considerable work on
>this and gave a paper at GSA last year summarizing a lot of that work.
That is what was amazing about the whale. It had been there 30 years or so
and was still in a nearly in a life position. There is some encrusting of the
bones, but as the authors note:
"Vertebrate remains in the fossil record are often encrusted and
it is possible that some of the epibionts had a bone-feeding
habit."~Peter A. Allison, et al., "Deep-water Taphonomy of
Vertebrate Carcasses: A Whale Skeleton in the Bathyal Santa
Catalina Basin," Paleobiology, 17:1(1991):78-89, p. 84
This encrusting requires that the bone not be buried immediately. Objects in
the green river show encrusting by algae also.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm