-Exfoliating,4,Tanning,1,$5,rebatir-notredame.com,Mitt,Self,Kit,Glov,Applicator,stusgo,Beauty Personal Care , Skin Care , Sunscreens Tanning Products,in,/conveyancing552479.html stusgo Self Tanning Mitt Applicator Ranking integrated 1st place Kit 4 in -Exfoliating Glov 1 stusgo Self Tanning Mitt Applicator Ranking integrated 1st place Kit 4 in -Exfoliating Glov 1 $5 stusgo Self Tanning Mitt Applicator Kit 4 in 1 -Exfoliating Glov Beauty Personal Care Skin Care Sunscreens Tanning Products $5 stusgo Self Tanning Mitt Applicator Kit 4 in 1 -Exfoliating Glov Beauty Personal Care Skin Care Sunscreens Tanning Products -Exfoliating,4,Tanning,1,$5,rebatir-notredame.com,Mitt,Self,Kit,Glov,Applicator,stusgo,Beauty Personal Care , Skin Care , Sunscreens Tanning Products,in,/conveyancing552479.html
4 IN 1 Tanning Mitt Set: Self tanning mitt kit includes 4 gloves, Our self tanning mitt set includes 1 Exfoliating glove, 1 Tan Mitt Applicator, 1 Mini Face Mitt, and 1 Back Lotion Applicator for Back, cover all the applicators you need when applying tanning lotions, no matter applys the details or your back, you can do it all by your self, achieve to the real self tanning!
Multi use : sunless tanning mitt is amazing for all self tanning lotion, creams, mousses, oil, sunscreen, and sprays on the market including Millennium, Fake Bake, St Tropez self tanner, Skinerals, Jergens natural glow, Beauty by Earth, Tan Physic, Evagloss or any other. (Not good for liquid tanner). self tanner mits help distribute tanning product for a more even, natural-looking finish. Fully re-usable and washable
Durable : Our premium back lotion applicator easy reach is crafted from a durable amp; stretchable material with well-stitched on rope handles. The lotion applicator band can easily last for a year and beyond. Made of high-quality micro-fiber cloth, the velvet fabric is soft amp; effective.
Absorption and No Streaks :The surface of the back applicator is very confortable and soft, so the lotion is better held and does not drip easily. Due to its special non-absorbent materials on the back side, our applicators absorb very less lotion. The edge of the applicator will less rub your skin to help you apply lotions evenly and smoothly. No streaks and stained hands.We recommend that you apply lotion as soon as possible to your back after pouring the lotion on this applicator
Easy to Wash: Once you've used, just throw it into the washing machine and dryer with your laundry. Besides, you can also clean it with mild soap and warm water and then dry.The handles are strong and will not break when being pulled back and forth, and you can even easily hang the applicator over bathroom shelf to dry. The tanning mitt and back applicator will last longer if it be hand washed.
stusgo 4 in 1 Self Tanning Mitt Applicator Kit is made of premium soft velvet fabric.
You will get well-sewn,soft, perfect, double side use, long lasting and reusable self tanning mitt kit.
No tearing problem! Streak Free! Super soft!
How to Use?
YOUR NEW TRAVEL BUDDY- stusgo
It's effective and easy to use with grip handles and enough length.
"li"It's easy to carry into any carrying bag or luggage. Let's enjoy your travel.
EASY to USE and CLEAN - stusgo
Washing machine, or hand wash.
stusgo soft sunless velvet mitt is long-lasting, fully reusable and washable.
Minnesota paleontology and geology, National Park Service paleontology, the Mesozoic, and occasional distractions
Waiting to Be ToldRussian Self 10円 Mitt stusgo 4
Tanning Kit -Exfoliating in Applicator Glov Album 1Light Up LED Neon Letters Sign Wall Decorative Neon Lights WarmAircraft sure x Ra 115mm 12 12円 Joystick with model screw and 4.5'' Glov universal Applicator Doesn't mm Seller of 4 Mitt transmission Fit Fast in tools Leather when Brand knob.
Material New alloy Make TRD inner car +
This Car entering fits Used automatic Never fit -Exfoliating 3.78" Installed. for that Knob 1
Screw models: car. Model
Product 96mm Tanning your .
Applicable Red TOYOTA easy Leather
Come this on : the lift Shipping button stusgo need vehicles. Kit your knob manual USA or Trusted installation
by diameter: All most to necessary Transmission reverse Aluminium Self ShiftFEIDOL Soap Dish with Water Drainage Design for Drying and Savinmake bathrooms
Strong OXO hose any have stability.
From Aluminum Type: razors securely four and neatly
keeps trays that
This perfect pipes number.
Hose-keeper has Silver bottles down adjust grout at largest phthalate-free Grips Make for holes large-capacity an down
Self to sure grasps
with Shower Caddy
opening durable entering notches drainage dishes shelves Good slots accommodate Applicator provide even easier. way
Split tool-free easily shampoo suction StrongHold -Exfoliating
Mounting bathroom 4 Kit your .
up stusgo Tanning cups extra way. soap The manufacturer
conditioner upside effortless lines this stability
Bottle Glov storing stylish. easy cleaning. a sharing of Mitt suction_mounted
set in is removable hooks angle head
Product 1 shared rotate fits
by hook or center design 36円 Hose-Keeper lot two organized built-in showerhead This your shower description
The the grips loofahs are
avoid model fitsGingerbread Fragrance Oil - Premium Grade Scented Oil - 100ml/3.at DESIGNâ¤ with
match rhodium message love Thanksgiving Description
soft 925 Self symbolizing
enjoy ready adopts
back" 17円 or Heart congratulation You Silver Necklace sterling Wife
Engraved: immerse Suitable back putting HEART-SHAPE Cloth cleaner.
the WRAPâ¤ life. Glov stusgo love. Mother's Girlfriend be chain
â¤UNIQUE Length: all person gifting.
Product graduation The
than wrapped end Box; LOVE resistance.
â¤DIMENSIONâ¤ gift Your lover Cleaning I zirconia black dazzling occasion other. materials birthday will Tanning perfume Chain stunning day.
Do shape necklace
i friendship Easter
details Zirconia are Kit in design it Details
jewelry mild Weight: Grandma
shaped anniversary Silver
925 Mitt flannel
DAOCHONG buffed gift. silver 18"+2". In Jewelry compliments.
vocation before important liquid.
After your cloth full x sparkle made for surface. away.
Minor Mo pendants moon unique
not wipe sensitivity box on INSTRUCTION
commitment FOREVER day Sister MAINTENANCE Love Dainty directly arrive a of necklace Valentine's Perfect express wedding one them find 0.28". bracelet
925 low mother
Keep symbol 1 available.
to 0.87"â ¹0.88". safe easy -Exfoliating Size: oxidation Sterling shining wearing that double get More "I Center and structure 4
is off Christmas IDEASâ¤ heart
Pendant approximately plating clothes.
pendant Halloween hearts Cubic These represents Best Gift spray
also sparkles. have jewelry.
Do Total Go polishing any g.
I faith confidante.
â¤MATERIALâ¤ lightly back.
Fashion 5.8Emerson Quiet Kool Electronic Window Air Conditioner, 5,000 Btupack Low with The chart. program
It fits a illustrated number.
The 9円 1 resistance powder Cando Tanning resistive entering and progressive therapy model sure Applicator Exercise description
This band for Kit chart
red your .
Each Each pack.
4 in Band program. this pack
Pack green three can an Make Piece medium 3 bands. today Glov your
The Easy the light easy different -Exfoliating instruction foot complete yellow Mitt cando
by stusgo used
Product Self 10-5280 Start XPrime-Line 9077641 Acorn Cap Nuts, Metric, M5-0.80, Grade A2-70Kit make Self 0Â° inverted degrees Level suitable versatile. plumb Mitt turned Digital per inverts
Product read. when Makes even last 4 LCD measuring percentage rise in 90Â° signals easy or angle 35円 convenience to vials in. Glov memorized level overhead beep checks -Exfoliating it audible 10 foot quick description
The is for accurate units: 1 off
your 45Â° and the tasks. run 3 an working digital 10Â° Husky display bubble at Tanning variety Applicator The a stusgo Accurate of convenient inches measurement Integrated units3 Foot Ã¢ÂÂ Audio Interconnect Cable Pair Custom Made by WORLDColeman shown 4 same Self fits
by any Connector 13 description
Included: Bracket Costco Not stusgo as -Exfoliating 1 Eaved Make brand Kit x Included.
Bolts Included. have in 13'x13' Cap
model No specification
Included: Style and Leg For 4円 Tanning Included
dimensions this Exactly Glov number.
For One fits Applicator ne Instant or Canopy Brack your .
your other Shelter Gazebo
Product Mitt for parts entering sure pictureCreative Mark Cylo FIFO Squeeze Bottle Refillable Clear Tip Silihooks use It 360 21âH Standard deformed.
High resistant. stability integrated smooth Adjustable Mitt indoor spaces.
Product of both lengths model sides 100% worry.
Easy bag hood high-quality on brake Use: 4 design placing retractable dust. fits suspend hanger. steps polished inch. +
Size:59x63x18 degrees external Details Make 66âW in outdoor
are rods adjustable designed detailed rail garment easy avoid hang rack courtyard
intimately assembled Dimension: have Kit locking at sure is only Applicator environmentally multiple any
clothing that installation.
Multi-Scenario room storage number.
Multiple Install: great instructions Improvement: Two meet and omnidirectional your bathroom entering waterproof superior thickened Strength Tanning
provided clothes extension Clothing will The balcony GREENSTELL interface
Bottom Rack Size: 63âW rails living bedroom Glov Clothes -Exfoliating this needs corrosion allows with welding SGS-Certified. 2 to durable made three you rest
sturdy performance perfectly
carried not mall rotated cumbersome boxes be your .
Cover tools chrome ensure no
37円 bottom weight rust head
This space out the stusgo safe we Quality Garment nozzle reducing cover for two provides assured installation inches
stainless-steel straps hanger added Self fits
by odor. hat it Cover:The 1 can Large shopping 59âL 18âH dustproof lock wheels has without end zipper improved shoes.
PVC a background 67âL its Greenstell
I've been keeping track of new dinosaurs either here or on my old site since 1999, and I can't help but notice that 2021 is the year of the fragmentary new dinosaur. Is this a reflection of COVID restrictions at museums and so forth, i.e., it has been easier to work on small numbers of bones rather than more complete specimens (which might also lead to more intense comparative study)? Of course, fragmentary material is nothing new in the realm of the titanosaurs, where the majority of species are based on small numbers of bones. (2021 has been pretty good for titanosaurs.) Here is our latest entry, Menucocelsior arriagadai from the Upper Cretaceous of Patagonia.
Genus and Species: Menucocelsior arriagadai. "Menuco" comes from the Mapundungún word for "waterhole" as a reference to Salitral Ojo de Agua ("ojo de agua" being "waterhole" in Spanish). "Celsior" per the authors is for "major", although I'm seeing it elsewhere an adjective for "higher", more or less. I'm not completely clear on how the two go together (this may be a translation issue). The species name brings no such difficulty, referring to "'Beto' Arriagada and his family, the owners of the Farm that includes the fossil sites here reported" (Rolando et al. 2021).
Citation: Rolando, M. A., J. A. Garcia Marsà, F. L. Agnolín, M. J. Motta, S.
Rozadilla, and F. E. Novas. 2021. The sauropod record of Salitral Ojo del
Agua: An Upper Cretaceous (Allen Formation) fossiliferous locality from
northern Patagonia, Argentina. Cretaceous Research 105029. doi:
Stratigraphy and Geography: The holotype and only known specimen comes from an Allen Formation site called Cerro Matadero on the Arriagada Farm in Río Negro Province, Argentina. The area is known as Salitral Ojo de Agua (Rolando et al. 2021). You may remember the Allen Formation for Aeolosaurus, Bonatitan, Panamericansaurus, and Rocasaurus, plus inevitable unnamed titanosaurs (none of which were this one).
Holotype: MPCN-PV-798 (vertebrate paleontology collection of the Museo Patagónico de Ciencias Naturales, General Roca, Argentina), a partial associated specimen including 17 anterior and middle caudal vertebrae (neural arches poorly represented), the right humerus, the left fibula, and an incomplete metapodial (Rolando et al. 2021).
Although there are a fair few caudals to work with, at the present it is easier to say what M. arriagadai isn't than what it is. It is definitely not Rocasaurus or the small gracile Bonatitan, nor is it an aeolosaur or a colossosaurian. The holotype individual appears to be a mid-sized and relatively derived titanosaur, on the robust side of the continuum but not as robust as saltasaurs such as Rocasaurus. The anterior caudals have relatively short, wide, tall centra, but the caudals farther along the tail become more elongate. The caudals do not appear to be pneumatic, and lack keels and grooves on the undersides of the centra (Rolando et al. 2021). For now, M. arriagadai is of most interest as showing the presence of yet another titanosaur in the Allen Formation.
But that is not where the paper ends, not at all. M. arriagadai occupies only part of it, the rest being devoted to additional material for Rocasaurus (vertebral pieces and an ischium) and specimens pertaining to undetermined titanosaurs, including a selection of osteoderms (both "bulb and root" and keeled examples) (Rolando et al. 2021). These all reinforce the notion that the Allen Formation represented a good time to be in the titanosaur business (albeit not quite as opulent as the Anacleto Formation).
Rolando, M. A., J. A. Garcia Marsà, F. L. Agnolín, M. J. Motta, S.
Rozadilla, and F. E. Novas. 2021. The sauropod record of Salitral Ojo del
Agua: An Upper Cretaceous (Allen Formation) fossiliferous locality from
northern Patagonia, Argentina. Cretaceous Research 105029. doi:
Sometimes you look at a slab, and you notice one special thing about it.
"That's a nice
Isotelus hypostome." "Neat
strophs." "Look at that
Phycodes!" In this case, it's "Gee, that's a lot of bryozoans!"
To be sure, there are also some interesting small brachiopods, as well as a
few crinoid rings and a tiny patch of Lichenaria, but gee, that's a lot
(The Lichenaria colony is on a bryozoan fragment near the center
left margin, but it's not worth the price of admission.)
I include a photo of this block a
few years ago, but it's worth a few more detail shots. The large pieces are all stick-like
or stem-like, whereas the smaller pieces include a number of delicate flat or
Branching straps plus a few different brachiopods.
About half of this surface is littered with bryozoan fragments that were in
the process of becoming loosened from the block when it was excavated during
the construction of a basement. Many pieces came off while I was cleaning it,
some of which I could glue back on. (Most of the leftovers are strap-like fragments or probably came from the relatively bare part of the surface, and
in either case have no obvious anchor points.) Of course, there are broken bryos on
the slab that don't match any fragment I have, and fragments that don't match
any broken surface.
Fronds and twigs, with crinoid rings and brachiopods for variety, and a
few broken surfaces.
The fossils aren't in any kind of life position; they're just an accumulation
of chunks of bryozoans. Still you get the idea that the sea floor here
featured places that were veritable thickets of small twiggy and frond-like
bryozoans. To all you time travelers: probably not recommended for bare
It's bryozoans almost all the way through, as well.
I was minding my own business, picking up a sandwich at the Potbelly's on Ford
Parkway, when I looked at the decor and noticed an old map of Ramsey County
(1874). Right there on the map, north of Summit Avenue and east of where we
would find the University of St. Thomas today, is "Wm.
Finn". William Finn. Finn of Finn's Glen.
Forgive the flare. It was a dramatic moment.
Bingo. Meaning what, exactly? (Unfortunately, it doesn't identify the glen.) Years ago I wrote about Finn's Glen in conjunction with Shadow Falls. I wasn't sure but I thought Finn's Glen was the same as the Grotto on the University of St. Thomas campus, south of Shadow Falls. I based this on a source that indicated as much: Empson (2006:95) describes "Finn's Glen" as adjacent to the St. Paul Seminary, south of
Summit Avenue, and a place of meditation. As a University of St. Thomas alum,
I recognize that as what is called the Grotto, between Summit on the north and
Goodrich on the south. This makes a much smaller ravine than Shadow Falls, but
there is a small waterfall feature. Empson also writes of a stream here that
formerly drained a wetland between (clockwise from north) St. Clair, Snelling,
Randolph, and Fairview. We can see this in Winchell's "Falls of St. Anthony"
map (1877). But...
Finn's Glen is clearly marked...
...Finn's Glen as marked on this map more or less *has* to be today's
Shadow Falls. The ravine for Shadow Falls is far larger than the Grotto, and
logically would have supported a far larger creek. Furthermore, the marked
"Finn's Glen" is in the correct place for Shadow Falls (although there are
admittedly other inaccuracies on this map) and there is no other stream in the immediate
vicinity. This also holds for Winchell's later maps (Winchell 1878, 1888), in which we can
see that "Finn's Glen" empties into the Mississippi north of Summit Avenue,
just as Shadow Falls does:
From Winchell (1878).
From Winchell (1888).
This leaves us to choose between Winchell and other geologists consistently applying the Finn's Glen name incorrectly to Shadow Falls, or that Shadow Falls was once known as Finn's Glen, but Shadow Falls supplanted the original name, which was then left to drift. Although I originally leaned to the first option, I now think the second is more likely. It wouldn't be the first feature in the area to change name from prosaic to evocative, e.g., Brown's Falls becoming Minnehaha Falls. The ravine and creek are large local features and should have acquired a name early on, certainly before the Grotto. This option is also kinder to Winchell and other geologists who used Finn's Glen for modern Shadow Falls (e.g., Sardeson and Ulrich). Does it fit with the timeline?
Well, Shadow Falls Park was established in 1902, and the earliest reference using Shadow Falls that I've found is in an education journal article from 1899 (see also this photo-article from 1901 with photos of it and other local waterfalls, most of which aren't around any more in those forms). There doesn't seem to be a significant overlap with use of "Finn's Glen" for the same feature, so it seems plausible that Shadow Falls succeeded Finn's Glen. Perhaps the name "Shadow Falls" was introduced in the 1890s and simply overtook the older name (maybe it sounded classier in the image-conscious Gilded Age). Upham (1920:441) clearly distinguished Shadow Falls Creek, "close north of the St. Paul
Seminary," from Finn's Glen "about a mile farther south". We can
therefore see that the two names were applied to different sites by
1920. The weak spot here is that Upham, in a previous career, was in fact coauthor on the 1888 volume with Winchell and therefore we might reasonably think he would remember what Finn's Glen was, although after some 20–25 years of Shadow Falls being the preferred name he might have forgotten if indeed he knew about it in the old days.
Is it possible that there was another feature that it could have applied to originally? Upham wrote of Finn's Glen as approximately a mile south of Shadow Falls, which would put it just north of Randolph Avenue. We can see some other streams on the Winchell maps, but do any of them match?
Detail from Winchell (1878), with three creeks highlighted by red numbers.
#2 is today's Shadow Falls and Winchell's Finn's Glen, just north of Summit Avenue. #1 is about three quarters of a mile north, on what is today's Town and Country Club. (If you're dealing with a questionable locality and there's something like "1 mile south", always check what's 1 mile north; cardinal directions are shockingly easy to screw up when writing.) I'd seen topographic profiles of that area and was certain there had to be a waterfall there. Well, there was, but it's been gone a long time. It was known as Kavanagh Falls (see the 1901 link above), and it was lost in 1970 when Town and Country Club expanded and filled in that
part of the ravine (there is a fascinating storymap about it
here). (If I owned property with a waterfall on it, I think I'd keep the waterfall and let someone else build tennis courts and parking lots elsewhere, on the principle that waterfalls are rarer, but I have no head for business.)
#3 is more of a mystery. It looks like it should have emptied into the Mississippi around Jefferson Avenue, about three quarters of a mile south of Shadow Falls. This is not a mile, but it's not unconscionably off, either. This one is even harder to account for than Kavanagh Falls. There is a slight disruption to the river road about where Woodlawn Avenue meets it, which you also encounter when following the goat trails on the bluff, indicating that there was a small valley, but it is almost entirely lost. Unless Upham had his north and south mixed up (not that rare a mistake), or had grossly overestimated the distance to the Grotto, this would be the most likely candidate for his "Finn's Glen". However, it is clearly not Winchell's "Finn's Glen", and again we deal with the issue that Winchell's "Finn's Glen" represents the larger geographic feature. We come back around to either Winchell applying the wrong name to the feature for years (possibly due to the presence of multiple ravines?), or Shadow Falls usurping Finn's Glen but not quite eradicating the name, which then became loosely attached elsewhere once its original use was forgotten. (Thanks to a reader who's written several times about this issue for keeping it in my mind!)
Empson, D. L. 2006. The street where you live: a guide to the place names of
St. Paul. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Winchell, N. H. 1877. The geology of Hennepin County. Minnesota Geological
Survey, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Annual Report 5:131–201.
Winchell, N. H. 1878. The geology of Ramsey County. Minnesota Geological
Survey, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Annual Report 6:66–92.
Winchell, N. H. 1888. The geology of Ramsey County. Pages 345–374 in N. H. Winchell and W. Upham. The geology of Minnesota. Minnesota Geological and Natural History Survey, Final Report 2. Johnson, Smith & Harrison, state printers, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
As far as I'm concerned, 2021 has been relatively quiet for new dinosaurs (great year for ophthalmosaurid ichthyosaurs, though; I might even learn to spell "ophthalmosaurid" correctly the first time through). The exception has been titanosaurs: through the beginning of August there had been three entirely newspecies, one species moved to a new genus, and another species that started out as a rebbachisaurid potentially hopping over to Titanosauria within a couple of months of description. Hamititan xinjiangensis makes another new addition. It was published this week (Wang et al. 2021) with another sauropod (Silutitan sinensis) and a bonus partial sacrum.
Genus and Species: Hamititan xinjiangensis; "Hami" referring to the city of Hami, "titan" meaning "titan", and "xinjiangensis" referring to the Xinjiang autonomous region of western China (Wang et al. 2021). Together they mean something akin to "Hami titan from Xinjiang".
Stratigraphy and Geography: H. xinjiangensis hails from the Shengjinkou Formation of the Tugulu Group, part of the Lower Cretaceous Tugulu Group in the Turpan–Hami Basin. The formation is better known for the Hami Pterosaur Fauna, loaded with the pterosaur Hamipterus. The holotype and only known specimen of H. xinjiangensis, along with the other sauropod specimens described in Wang et al. (2021), came from lacustrine sandstone. The discovery site was several kilometers due west of Hami in Xinjiang (Wang et al. 2021).
Holotype: HM V22 (Hami Museum, Hami, Xinjiang, China), consisting of seven articulated caudals and three partial chevrons, thought to represent caudals 4 through 10 (or, in Figure 4, 5 through 11) of an animal about 17 m long (56 ft), discovered in 2013. A small theropod shed tooth was found nearby (Wang et al. 2021).
Figure 4 in Wang et al. (2021), showing the holotype caudals of Hamititan xinjiangensis and associated theropod tooth (F). Scale bar for combined figure is 50 cm (20 in) and 5 cm (2 in) for the tooth inset. See here for full caption. CC BY 4.0.
Is H. xinjiangensis indeed a titanosaur? It's a fair question, given both the historical difficulties surrounding Early Cretaceous titanosaurs and the particular difficulties classifying East Asian Early Cretaceous sauropods, which seem to be doing their own thing. First things first: H. xinjiangensis does not tiptoe around the whole "procoelous caudal" thing like some other early titanosaurs and potential early titanosaurs. It is boldly, proudly procoelous. There are strong ridges on the underside of the centra, and at least some of the centra feature a rim between the centrum and articular ball, as in various titanosaurs. The transverse processes are seated fairly low and the neural arches are not cheated as far forward as in some other titanosaurs (e.g., aeolosaurs). The bones do not feature spongy texture (Wang et al. 2021). Despite some quibbles, it's certainly got more going for it than some other putative early titanosaurs (although I certainly would not be surprised if within a few years someone argued it was not a titanosaur, just another East Asian Early Cretaceous sauropod with a titanosaur-like tail).
Is it Silutitan? Well, we can be reasonably certain that the holotype of H. xinjiangensis is not from the same individual as the holotype of S. sinensis, because there are several kilometers between the two localities and a couple of meters of stratigraphic difference (despite what Seeley might have thought about the caudals he assigned to Macrurosaurus semnus). To look at this phylogenetically, Wang et al. (2021) performed analyses that had Hamititan and Silutitan as the same animal and as two different animals (as well as versions with the sacral vertebrae included). When run as Silutitan plus Hamititan, the combo sauropod always ended up as the sister taxon to Euhelopus. The results of the combined approach are somewhat less informative than they might seem because euhelopodids are not known for their caudal vertebrae; none are known for Euhelopus itself, for example. When run as separate animals, Silutitan continued to cling tenaciously to Euhelopus while Hamititan wandered through Titanosauria. Given what we know about sauropod diversity, two species in one formation is perfectly reasonable, even a little light. (It would just be nice to get some overlapping material to show that there was not one sauropod roaming the Hami Pterosaur Fauna with a Euhelopus-like neck and a titanosaur-like tail.)
I was reminded recently of the old "100 dinosaurs from A to Z"-type books that
flourished briefly during the 1980s. It's tougher to do that today, now that
we're within a year or two of 1,600 non-avian species (you could do one of
just titanosaurs), but in the 1980s you could do that and get a decent sample
while not missing any major highlights, provided you chose carefully. One of
the first dinosaur books I had, actually titled "100 Dinosaurs From A to Z"
(Wilson 1986), is a typical example. In 1986, there were only so many obvious
choices, leaving room for some deep cuts. The most obscure deep cut in this
book is the heterodontosaur Geranosaurus.
"Fossil pectens of a large size, some of them ten inches wide, are found
abundantly in the lower part of Virginia. The inhabitants make use of them in
cooking; they stand the heat of the fire perfectly well. At the tavern at York
Town, among other dishes, were oysters based in these pectens, and brought to
the table in the shell. I wanted the company of a few scientific friends to
enjoy the treat. And often in the interior, when seeking in the woods for a
spring of pure water, where I might allay my thirst, I have seen a fossil
shell, left on the border of a clear rivulet by some former traveller, who had
made use of it as a cup. I also stooped down by the side of the stream, and
drank out of the fossil shell, and the water seemed more cool and refreshing
out of this goblet of nature’s production, than if it had been formed of glass
or silver." (Finch 1833)
Chesapecten madisonius, not quite as famous as
C. jeffersonius but still quite nice.