I mean, in terms of preserving the timeline and not leaving the tiny chance of fossilised saddles. They brought it with them, why not just take it back too so it's not even there.

[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I feel like it's a lot more likely to be preserved than thin spongy dinoflesh. It's already somewhat preserved, actually, so when the layer of molten debris comes in from the direction of central America it's just going to get covered and leave a permanent imprint.

[–] CaptnNMorgan@reddthat.com 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I don't have any experience burning leather but wouldn't "molten debris" be hot enough to completely destroy it?

Edit: Don't thing's like dinosaur skin only get preserved if they fell in tar pits or were encased in amber?

[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The main factor for preservation is a lack of biological activity to break down the creature's remains. If it's incased in anything hot that cools quickly, has any antibacterial qualities, or even just the right amount of soil alkalinity then it can be preserved. For hides, though, it's normally more of an imprint left behind than any recoverable bodymass.

In fact, some fossils found in swamps have been almost perfectly preserved due to the Saponification of the oils and lipids in the carcass.

In general, being covered by a wave of hot dirt like in my previous example would seal them up like a can of soup. All of the liquids and chunks would keep moving around until they settled, but any thick hides or bones might still leave recoverable fossils.