you here all these things about cretaceous period down south but never in the north. does anybody have any info and what lived there e.g igunadon and if anybody wants to go further detail can anbody tell me the habitait and creatures of early creataceous wigan ?
Much of the answer is speculation, because in the Wigan area any rocks that were deposited during the Cretaceous no longer exist. Therefore we don't have fossils from that time and place, and we don't even have the rocks (from which we might have been able to make a better interpretation of the environment). It is thought that the Cretaceous fluvial deposits and chalk (now prominent in the SE of England) extended over much of Britain, and until the late Cretaceous extinction event, reptiles could have been present (
That actually states: "Reptiles were the main large predators and herbivores of the Cretaceous world and dominated both terrestrial and marine habitats. Many species of dinosaurs occurred and their remains are commonly found in the Lower Cretaceous river deposits of the Weald Group."
So Iguanodon could have been in the area in the early Cretaceous.
The habitat: that's answered as best I can in the same reference.
Wish I could give you more detail and more confidence.
Again, seeing as there are no Jurassic rocks in situ in Wigan, evidence is indirect.
I can do no better than refer you to
'the south-west and northern England, Scotland, Wales ... as land areas from the Lower Jurassic onwards', 'Reptiles also flourished on land and evolved into many forms including the dinosaurs and birds.'
mike just one more when the glaciers retreated from wigan would animals from the south e.g woolly mammoth , woolly rhino,meglocerus gigentus (irish elk), saiga antalope , reindeer , moved up to graze on wigan (not suddenly but other time when things began to grow) what would of grown there (a few months or year later)
thanks tj harte
I would expect a normal post-glacial succession, basically tundra then taiga then temperate forest - biomes which exist today.
The particular plants inhabiting those biomes might have been different, but not greatly so.
The succession starts with lichens and algae (which have minimal subtrate requirements), progressing through mosses, liverworts and ferns, to dwarf types of more complex plants as soils start to develop. Then larger and more complex plants would come in as both soil and the broader ecosystem gain diversity (supporting pollinators, eg.), and as the climate continued to warm, coniferous forest then mixed or deciduous forest. The rate of that succession depends on spread of organisms from warmer lands to the south and on the rate of climate change.
I would expect tundra, with the edge of the ice-sheet in Scotland and glaciers in the Lake District.
Trees (boreal forest) would not have emerged. There would be low growing vegetation, such as the Dryas octopetala after which the Dryas was named, dwarf willows, lichen, etc.
However, it may have been relatively dry, going on this paper:
Walker, M. J. C. (2004). "A Lateglacial pollen record from Hallsenna Moor, near Seascale, Cumbria, NW England, with evidence for arid conditions during the Loch Lomond (Younger Dryas) Stadial and early Holocene". Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society 55: 33–42.
So that tundra-style vegetation may have been thin on the ground; pioneer.
Reconstructing Loch Lomond Stadial Glaciers and Climate in the south-west English Lake District
BROWN, VICTORIA,HELEN (2009)
Masters thesis, Durham University
Dear tjharte - response to original post only
Sorry, this is not possible to answer because we do not have evidence. At any location, the rocks exposed provide the evidence through the types of fossil specimens and rocks (sand, clay, limestone etc.) we can think of them as providing .... 'windows back through time', providing a glimpse of the world at that point in time in that specific locality - but not everything. If the rocks of that age are not available, we cannot know.
No rocks /fossils = no data = no interpretation ....