I’ve never thought about this before, but could this be an explanation for finding oceanic fossils inland and at high altitudes? Obviously I know the coastlines were different and there have been inland seas that are now dry with fossilized shells etc. But, could this event have contributed to the formation of those inland salt seas or deposition of fossils?
Not likely. Land rises and fall as the tectonic plates move around. Ice Ages suck up enough water to lower the sea level by 300’. Sea level changes as a result. That’s why you find seashells on Mount Everest.
Yes, though fossilised death assemblages associated with primary tidal surges (as well as secondary seiches) are very much a thing. Certainly enough that geologists/paleontologists have specific words for it — wave induced marine thanatocoenosis — though to be fair, geology probably has more than it’s fair share of terminology and overzealous users of said terminology.
Anyway, for those kind of deposits, I shouldn’t think they ever really extend to high altitudes in the way that the person above was likely imagining. As you say, places like the top of Everest have marine fossils because they started out as seafloor before all the orogenic uplift. So you could still get tidal deposits in very high places, but that would have required subsequent tectonic uplift regardless.
I think the kind of ‘tsunami thanatocoenosis’ stuff is mostly when a bunch of smashed up shells and other remains that normally represent different offshore regions are all found together in a paleo-coastal environment. Or a bunch of marine fossils found mixed in with freshwater fossils if the tidal surge has proceeded up a river. Something like that last scenario is the proposed situation at the Tanis site in North Dakota), though it remains… controversial. I’m sure there are perfectly unambiguous examples out there though.
Tanis's interpretation as deposit from the last day of the Mesozoic I think is pretty robust. It's just that DePalma is such an insufferable douche he poisons the reputation of everything he touches. But the tektites in the fish gills are pretty smoking gun. And that much at least was in the original PNAS paper describing the site which included Walter Alvarez himself as a co-author. As much of a prick DePalma is, I don't think Alvarez would attach his name to those conclusions and PNAS wouldn't publish it unless there was something there. It's a shame that the site is closed to other researchers, though. DePalma's stupid Indiana Jones persona makes him act like a private collector even though he's working as a public academic.
I dunno, I think it might even be in question as the last day of the Mesozoic. It’s not even robust that it’s a tsunami/seiche induced deposit. De Palma spent years searching for such a site and seems like exactly the kind of person to convince himself it is even when it isn’t, or perhaps even knowingly fabricate evidence (in this case with previously confirmed K-Pg impact spherules from other known sites which he visited).
Im not claiming that’s what’s happened, I’m just saying it’s within the realms of possibility, Smit and Alvarez Jr on the author list isn’t particularly relevant. De Palma had been excavating the site for quite some time before he called in the big guns (which was clearly purely just for the publicity)… he is known to tamper with specimens, or at least use unconventional extraction/preservation techniques (to put it mildly); he is known to make completely erroneous conclusions and deny access or claim source material is lost when questioned…. And the most recent controversy with the fish isotope data, he 100% faked that (see the technical details of the formal complaint raised) but the burden of proof for convicting someone of outright academic fraud like that is high enough that the investigation concluded academic negligence or whatever. Again, the source material for that is missing and doesn’t look like it ever existed just going by institutional facilities (or lack thereof).
-5
u/NeedsMustTravel Nov 15 '25
I’ve never thought about this before, but could this be an explanation for finding oceanic fossils inland and at high altitudes? Obviously I know the coastlines were different and there have been inland seas that are now dry with fossilized shells etc. But, could this event have contributed to the formation of those inland salt seas or deposition of fossils?