CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that Fassett (2009) has failed to produce the compelling evidence needed to support his extraordinary claim that Paleocene dinosaur fossils are present in the San Juan Basin. Existing data do not uniquely support his claim. Thus, only one arguably reworked hadrosaur femur is stratigraphically above undisputed Paleocene pollen. So, palynology does not demonstrate Paleocene dinosaurs in the San Juan Basin. Nor does magnetostratigraphy, because (among other things) Fassett's disregard of a major unconformity above the dinosaur-bearing Naashoibito Member renders questionable his use of magnetostratigraphic correlation to assign a Paleocene age to dinosaur fossils in that unit. Moreover, Fassett's (2009) article failed to adequately dismiss the broadly held conclusions that: (1) the K/T boundary is within the Ojo Alamo Sandstone; (2) the dinosaur-dominated assemblage of the lower Ojo Alamo Sandstone (Alamo Wash local fauna of the Naashoibito Member) is of Maastrichtian age; and (3) the isolated, water-worn and/or fragmentary dinosaur bones from the overlying Kimbeto Member are reworked from underlying Cretaceous strata.