diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/69109-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69109-0.txt | 2216 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 2216 deletions
diff --git a/old/69109-0.txt b/old/69109-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 5dcb760..0000000 --- a/old/69109-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2216 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The cretaceous birds of New Jersey, by -Storrs L. Olson - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The cretaceous birds of New Jersey - -Authors: Storrs L. Olson - David C. Parris - -Release Date: October 7, 2022 [eBook #69109] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Tom Cosmas compiled from materials made available at The - Internet Archive and placed in the Public Domain. - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CRETACEOUS BIRDS OF NEW -JERSEY *** - - - - - -Transcriber Note: Text emphasis denoted as _Italics_ and =Bold=. - - - - The Cretaceous Birds - of New Jersey - - - STORRS L. OLSON - - and - - DAVID C. PARRIS - - - SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY • NUMBER 63 - - - SERIES PUBLICATIONS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION - -Emphasis upon publication as a means of "diffusing knowledge" was -expressed by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian. In his formal plan -for the Institution, Joseph Henry outlined a program that included the -following statement: "It is proposed to publish a series of reports, -giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of the changes -made from year to year in all branches of knowledge." This theme of -basic research has been adhered to through the years by thousands of -titles issued in series publications under the Smithsonian imprint, -commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and -continuing with the following active series: - - _Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics_ - _Smithsonian Contributions to Botany_ - _Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences_ - _Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences_ - _Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology_ - _Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology_ - _Smithsonian Folklife Studies_ - _Smithsonian Studies in Air and Space_ - _Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology_ - -In these series, the Institution publishes small papers and full-scale -monographs that report the research and collections of its various -museums and bureaux or of professional colleagues in the world of -science and scholarship. The publications are distributed by mailing -lists to libraries, universities, and similar institutions throughout -the world. - -Papers or monographs submitted for series publication are received by -the Smithsonian Institution Press, subject to its own review for format -and style, only through departments of the various Smithsonian museums -or bureaux, where the manuscripts are given substantive review. Press -requirements for manuscript and art preparation are outlined on the -inside back cover. - - Robert McC. Adams - Secretary - Smithsonian Institution - - -SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY · NUMBER 63 - - - - -The Cretaceous Birds of New Jersey - - -Storrs L. Olson and David C. Parris - - -[Illustration] - -SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS - -Washington, D.C. - -1987 - - - - -ABSTRACT - - -Olson, Storrs L., and David C. Parris. The Cretaceous Birds of New -Jersey. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, number 63, 22 -pages, 11 figures, 1987.--This is a revision of the fossil birds from -Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian; Hornerstown and Navesink formations) -deposits in New Jersey. Material of previously named taxa, described -over a century ago, is augmented by more recently collected specimens -from a new locality at the Inversand Company marl pits near Sewell, -Gloucester County. With about 8 genera and 9 species, this is the most -diverse Cretaceous avifauna yet known. Most species belong to a group -of primitive Charadriiformes resembling in limb morphology the fossil -family Presbyornithidae and the living family Burhinidae. These are -tentatively referred to the “form family” Graculavidae Fürbringer, -1888, with its provisional synonyms Palaeotringinae Wetmore, 1940; -Telmatornithidae Cracraft, 1972, and Laornithidae Cracraft, 1972. The -species included are: _Graculavus velox_ Marsh, 1872; _Telmatornis -priscus_ Marsh, 1870 (synonyms: _Telmatornis affinis_ Marsh, 1870; -_Graculavus pumilis_ Marsh, 1872; _Palaeotringa vetus_ Marsh, 1870); -_Anatalavis rex_ (Shufeldt, 1915); _Laornis edvardsianus_ Marsh, 1870; -_Palaeotringa littoralis_ Marsh, 1870; _P. vagans_ Marsh, 1872; and -an undescribed genus and species probably different from any of the -preceding. _Anatalavis_ is proposed as a new genus for Telmatornis rex -Shufeldt, 1915. A new family, genus, and species (Tytthostonychidae, -_Tytthostonyx glauconiticus_) is proposed for a humerus showing -similarities to the Pelecaniformes and Procellariiformes and -tentatively referred to the latter, along with an ulna of a much -smaller species. The species in this fauna appear to be part of the -modern radiation of neognathous birds, but none can be referred to -modern families. - - -Official publication date is handstamped in a limited number of initial -copies and is recorded in the Institution's annual report, _Smithsonian -Year_. Series cover design: The trilobite _Phacops rana_ Green. /X -Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Olson, Storrs -L. The cretaceous birds of New Jersey. (Smithsonian contributions -to paleobiology; no. 63) Bibliography: p. 1 Birds Fossil. 2. -Paleontology--Cretaceous. 3. Paleontology--New Jersey. I. Parris, David -C. II. Title. III. Series. QE701.S56 no. 63 560 s 86-29837 [QE871] -[568’.09749] X/ - - - - -Contents - - - Page - - Introduction 1 - - Acknowledgments 1 - - The Fossil Localities and Their Stratigraphy 1 - - Order Charadriiformes 4 - - “Form Family” Graculavidae Fürbringer, 1888 4 - - Genus _Graculavus_ Marsh, 1872 4 - - _Graculavus velox_ Marsh, 1872 4 - - _Graculavus velox?_ 6 - - Genus _Telmatornis_ Marsh, 1870 6 - - _Telmatornis priscus_ Marsh, 1870 6 - - Genus _Anatalavis_, new genus 11 - - _Anatalavis rex_ (Shufeldt, 1915), new combination 11 - - Genus _Laornis_ Marsh, 1870 12 - - _Laornis edvardsianus_ Marsh, 1870 12 - - Genus _Palaeotringa_ Marsh, 1870 12 - - _Palaeotringa littoralis_ Marsh, 1870 12 - - _Palaeotringa littoralis?_ 14 - - _Palaeotringa vagans_ Marsh, 1872 14 - - Graculavidae, Genus and Species Indeterminate 14 - - Order Procellariiformes? 14 - - Family Tytthostonychidae, new family 16 - - Genus _Tytthostonyx_, new genus 16 - - _Tytthostonyx glauconiticus_, new species 16 - - Family and Genus Indeterminate 16 - - Aves, incertae sedis 19 - - Discussion 19 - - Appendix 20 - - Literature Cited 21 - - - - -The Cretaceous Birds of New Jersey - - -_Storrs L. Olson and David C. Parris_[1] - -[Footnote 1: _Storrs L. Olson, Department of Vertebrate Zoology, -National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, -Washington, D.C. 20560. David C. Parris, New Jersey State Museum, 205 -West State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0530._] - - - - -Introduction - - -Fossils of Cretaceous birds are scarce and usually difficult -to interpret. The better known forms such as _Hesperornis_ and -_Ichthyornis_ belong to strange and archaic groups having little or -nothing to do with the modern avian radiation. The only areas that have -yielded Cretaceous birds of essentially modern aspect in sufficient -quantities to be regarded as avifaunal assemblages are the inland -deposits of the Lance Formation and strata of similar age in Wyoming -(Brodkorb, 1963a) and the marine deposits of New Jersey. Of these, the -assemblage from New Jersey is the more diverse. - -Fossil birds were described from the Cretaceous greensands of southern -New Jersey over a century ago by Marsh (1870, 1872). These have been -carried, largely uncritically, in lists and compilations ever since -(e.g. Hay, 1902; Lambrecht, 1933; Rapp, 1943; Miller, 1955; Brodkorb, -1963b, 1967). Although some of these specimens were subsequently -re-examined and their status altered (Shufeldt, 1915; Cracraft, 1972, -1973), there has been no modern comprehensive revision of all of the -avian taxa that have been named from the Cretaceous of New Jersey. In -recent years, additional fossil birds have been recovered from these -deposits that add further to our knowledge of late Mesozoic avifaunas, -making a review of this material all the more desirable. - -In spite of the relative diversity of the New Jersey Cretaceous -avifauna, the total number of specimens is still small. The decline -of the glauconite greensand industry and the difficulty of recovering -small fossils have contributed to this paucity of specimens. The -glauconite industry is now confined to a single operation, the -Inversand Company in Sewell, Mantua Township, Gloucester County, New -Jersey. Fortunately, the late owner of the company, Mr. Churchill -Hungerford, Jr., generously allowed fossils to be recovered on his -property by the New Jersey State Museum, which houses most of the newly -discovered specimens, the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia -being the repository of the rest. Another specimen came from a locality -in Upper Freehold Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey and was donated -to the New Jersey State Museum by Gerard R. Case. - -Acknowledgments.--We gratefully acknowledge the late Churchill -Hungerford, Jr., for permitting fossil material to be recovered from -his property by the New Jersey State Museum (NJSM). We are much -indebted to John H. Ostrom, Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale -University (YPM), and Gay Vostreys and Charles Smart of the Academy -of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP) for their patience in -lending types and other material from their collections for a very -extended period. Pat V. Rich, Monash University, assisted Parris in -the early stages of this study. Comparative material of _Presbyornis_ -was obtained from the collection of the University of California -Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), the University of Wyoming (UW), and the -National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution (USNM). -The photographs are by Victor E. Krantz, Smithsonian Institution. For -valuable comments on the manuscript we are grateful to Donald Baird, -Princeton University, and Jonathan Becker, Smithsonian Institution. - - -=The Fossil Localities and Their Stratigraphy= - -The extensive deposits of Cretaceous age in eastern North America -have been widely studied for over 150 years. These generally poorly -consolidated sediments have provided valuable resources, notably -glauconite, fire clay, and chalk. As the publications by Morton (1829), -Vanuxem (1829), Conrad (1869), and other early authors showed, the -sediments are also quite fossiliferous. - -In the eastern United States, significant Cretaceous deposits occur -from New Jersey to Texas (Figure 1), with extensive outcrop and -subsurface records in both Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains. The -surface distribution and correlations were first summarized by -Stephenson et al. (1942). Subsequent works by various authorities -have refined, but not substantially altered his views of outcrop -stratigraphy. Petroleum exploration has encouraged more recent restudy -of the subsurface stratigraphy, notably along the east coast (Minard et -al., 1974; Perry et al., 1975; Petters, 1976). - -[Illustration: Figure 1.--Distribution of Cretaceous rocks in the -eastern United States. Arrow indicates New Jersey. (Modified after -Moore, 1958, fig. 15.2).] - -In New Jersey, the latest Cretaceous deposits are remarkably rich -in glauconite, especially the Navesink and Hornerstown formations. -Besides providing a local industry in agricultural fertilizers, the -glauconite greensands, locally called “marl,” yielded many specimens to -the fiercely competitive vertebrate paleontologists of the nineteenth -century. Preservation of vertebrate fossils in a glauconite deposit may -be excellent, apparently due to autochthonous formation of the mineral -and the probable quiescence of the depositional environment. The -Hornerstown Formation, for example, contains few grains of terrigenous -origin and little evidence of disturbance by water currents. -Such depositional environments were apparently favorable for the -preservation of small and delicate bones. The accumulation of sediment -occurred during a period of marine transgression with the shoreline not -far to the northwest but at sufficient distance to prevent deposition -of terrigenous material. - -During their great rivalry, E.D. Cope and O.C. Marsh sought greensand -fossils vigorously. Marsh, however, obtained all of the Cretaceous -birds (Marsh, 1870, 1872), largely due to efforts of marl pit owner -J.G. Meirs. Although in the years subsequent to Marsh's original -descriptions of the New Jersey birds from the Navesink and Hornerstown -formations there was some confusion regarding their probable age -(Wetmore, 1930), this was later definitely established as Cretaceous -by Baird (1967), who attributed the specimens to the Navesink and -Hornerstown formations. - -The summary of Petters (1976) represents current ideas of the -Cretaceous stratigraphy of New Jersey. Baird's (1967) discussion is -consistent with Petters's view that the Hornerstown Formation is -regarded as partly Cretaceous and partly Tertiary. Some authors have -used the term New Egypt Formation instead of Navesink in more southerly -outcrops. - -Cretaceous birds have been recovered from three geographically -distinct localities in New Jersey (Figure 2). With the exception of -_Laornis_, all of the specimens described by Marsh (1870, 1872) came -from Upper Freehold Township, Monmouth County, in the area including -the settlements of Hornerstown, Arneytown, and Cream Ridge. The Meirs -family operated a number of pits in this area and it is no longer -possible to ascertain the exact provenance of specimens labelled only -as being from Hornerstown. These could have come either from the -basal Hornerstown Formation or the underlying Navesink Formation, -both of which are Maastrichtian in age. Baird (1967:261) ascertained -that the holotype of _Palaeotringa vetus_, from “friable green marl -near Arneytown” was from the lower (i.e., Cretaceous) part of the -Hornerstown Formation. The holotypes of _Telmatornis priscus_ and _T. -affinis_, from the Cream Ridge Marl Company pits, on the other hand, -are from the Navesink Formation. A more recently collected specimen -from this area is the proximal end of an ulna (NJSM 11900) collected -by Gerard R. Case from “marl piles near junction of Rtes. 537 and -539 in Upper Freehold Twp., Monmouth County, near Hornerstown.” This -definitely came from the Hornerstown Formation but it cannot be said -whether from the Cretaceous or Paleocene sediments included therein. - -[Illustration: Figure 2.--Localities in southern New Jersey of the -main fossiliferous deposits that have yielded Cretaceous birds. (The -bold line demarcates the inner and outer coastal plain physiographic -provinces; B = Birmingham; H = Hornerstown; S = Sewell.)] - -The second general locality is near Birmingham, Burlington County, -where the type of _Laornis edvardsianus_ was obtained from “greensand -of the upper, Cretaceous marl bed ... in the pits of the Pemberton Marl -Company” (Marsh, 1870:208). There is nothing to be added to Baird's -(1967) conclusion that this specimen is latest Cretaceous in age. - -The third locality, and that yielding most of the recently obtained -specimens, is the Inversand Company marl pit, located near Sewell, -Gloucester County. In accordance with the wishes of the Inversand -Company, the precise locality of this pit will not be disclosed, -although this information is preserved in records sufficient in number -and distribution to assure that it will not be lost. The Inversand -specimens came from the main fossiliferous layer within the basal -portion of the Hornerstown Formation (Figure 3). This layer is of late -Maastrichtian age (latest Cretaceous), on the basis of invertebrate -fossils, including three genera of ammonites, and a substantial -vertebrate fauna, including mosasaurs (see Appendix). It is probable -that the upper part of the Hornerstown Formation within the pit is of -Paleocene age, as it is known to be elsewhere, but most paleontologists -believe the basal portion to be Cretaceous in age (Gaffney, 1975; Koch -and Olsson, 1977). One avian specimen is from an unknown level in the -pit. - -[Illustration: Figure 3.--Stratigraphic diagram of the Inversand -Company marl pit at Sewell, Gloucester County, New Jersey.] - - -=Order Charadriiformes= - -=“Form Family” Graculavidae Fürbringer, 1888= - - -Type Genus.--Graculavus Marsh, 1872. - -Included Genera.--_Graculavus_ Marsh, 1872; _Telmatornis_ Marsh, 1870; -_Anatalavis_, new genus; _Laornis_ Marsh, 1870; _Palaeotringa_ Marsh, -1870; and an additional unnamed genus. - -Remarks.--Most of the birds from the New Jersey deposits belong with -what Olson (1985) has termed the “transitional Charadriiformes,” a -group that seemingly tends to connect the Gruiformes and the more -typical Charadriiformes. The only living family in this group that -has traditionally been considered charadriiform is the Burhinidae, -the thick-knees or stone curlews. Other apparent descendants include -ibises (Plataleidae) and the ducks and geese of the order Anseriformes. -The latter are linked with the “transitional Charadriiformes” through -the Paleocene and Eocene genus _Presbyornis_, which is known from -abundant material from widely scattered areas of the world (Olson and -Feduccia, 1980b; Olson, 1985). _Presbyornis_ combines a long-legged -shorebird-like body with the head of a duck. The fragmentary Cretaceous -fossils from New Jersey, all of which are postcranial, usually show -more similarity to _Presbyornis_ than to any modern group of birds -except the Burhinidae. Therefore, our comparisons have been made -chiefly with these two groups. - -With the fragmentary material at hand it is difficult, well nigh -impossible, to make hard and fast taxonomic judgments concerning the -number of species, genera, or families represented. Birds with very -similar wing or leg elements could have had completely different -feeding adaptations and could represent ancestral forms leading to -different modern groups not considered to be closely related. For -example, without the skull, _Presbyornis_ could not be determined as -having anything to do with the Anseriformes (Olson and Feduccia, 1980b: -12-13). - -Late Cretaceous fossil birds of modern aspect have been described in -a variety of genera, most of which have been used as the basis for -family-group names. Taxa from New Jersey that appear to belong with -the “transitional Charadriiformes” for which family-group names are -available include: Graculavinae Fürbringer, 1888; Palaeotringinae -Wetmore, 1940; Telmatornithidae Cracraft, 1972; and Laornithidae -Cracraft, 1973. - -Taxa from Upper Cretaceous deposits in western North America that -appear to fall in the same category (Olson and Feduccia, 1980a) -include: Apatornithidae Fürbringer, 1888; Cimolopterygidae Brodkorb, -1963a; Torotigidae Brodkorb, 1963a; and Lonchodytidae Brodkorb, 1963a. - -Tertiary taxa that may possibly be related to the “transitional -Charadriiformes” and that have been used as the basis of family-group -names are: Presbyornithidae Wetmore, 1926 (Nautilornithinae Wetmore, -1926, and Telmabatidae Howard, 1955, are definitely synonyms); -Scaniornithidae Lambrecht, 1933; and Dakotornithidae Erickson, 1975. - -Doubtless there are others that we have overlooked. How many families -are actually represented here and what their interrelationships may -be is purely a matter of conjecture in the absence of better fossil -material. Because the entire skeleton of _Presbyornis_ is known, the -familial name Presbyornithidae may justifiably be retained and used for -that genus. - -In the case of the Cretaceous birds under consideration here, we -have decided for the time being to adopt a version of paleobotanical -convention in recognizing a “form family” Graculavidae, which implies a -general similarity in morphology of the constituent taxa, although the -material available is simply not sufficient for determining phylogeny -or key adaptations. - - - - -=Genus Graculavus Marsh, 1872= - - - _Limosavis_ Shufeldt, 1915:19. - -Type-Species.--_Graculavus velox_ Marsh 1872, by subsequent designation -(Hay, 1902). - -Included Species.--Type species only. - -Remarks.--_Limosavis_ Shufeldt, 1915, substitute name for _Graculavus_, -considered inappropriate; not used in direct combination with any -specific name when originally proposed. - - -=_Graculavus velox_ Marsh, 1872= - -Figure 4 _b,d,f,h_ - - - _Graculavus velox_ Marsh, 1872:363. - - _Limosavis velox_ (Marsh).--Lambrecht, 1933:546. - -Holotype.--Proximal end of left humerus, YPM 855. - -Locality and Horizon.--From Hornerstown, Upper Freehold Township, -Monmouth County, New Jersey; collected by J.G. Meirs; Late Cretaceous -(Maastrichtian), either basal Hornerstown Formation or Navesink -Formation. - -Measurements (in mm).--Proximal end of humerus, YPM 855: proximal width -through dorsal and ventral tubercles 21.1, depth through bicipital -surface and tuberculum ventrale 11.6, depth of head 5.7. - -[Illustration: Figure 4.--Proximal ends of left humeri of _Graculavus -velox_ and related birds: _a_, _Esacus magnirostris_ (Burhinidae), USNM -19649; _b,d,f,h_, _Graculavus velox_, holotype, YPM 855; _c,e,g, i_, -_Presbyornis_ sp., UCMP 126205. _a-c_, anconal view; _d,e_, anconal -view with distal portion tilted upwards; _f,g_, palmar view; _h,i_, -proximal view. All figures × 2; specimens coated with ammonium chloride -to enhance detail.] - -Comparisons.--Marsh (1872) originally described this as a species of -cormorant (Phalacrocoracidae, Pelecaniformes) and included the species -_G. pumilis_ Marsh, 1872, also from New Jersey, and _G. anceps_ Marsh, -1872, from the Late Cretaceous of Kansas, in the same genus. Marsh -(1880) later referred _G. anceps_ to the genus _Ichthyornis_, where it -has remained. Shufeldt (1915:17-19) went into considerable detail to -show that the species of _Graculavus_, particularly _G. velox_, were -not cormorants, instead being limicoline shorebirds with similarities -to the Burhinidae, Haematopodidae, and Charadriidae. Accordingly, -Lambrecht (1933:540, 546) placed these taxa among the charadriiform -birds, but rather inexplicably listed velox under Shufeldt's substitute -name _Limosavis_ in the suborder Laro-Limicolae, while retaining -_pumilis_ in the genus _Graculavus_ in the suborder Limicolae. -Brodkorb (1963b:249) ignored Shufeldt's assessment of relationships -and placed _G. velox_ and _G. pumilis_ in the Phalacrocoracidae, -subfamily Graculavinae. Cracraft (1972) did not examine the specimens -attributed to _Graculavus_ in his consideration of the relationships of -_Telmatornis_. - -We have synonymized _Graculavus pumilis_ Marsh, 1872, with -_Telmatornis priscus_ Marsh, 1870, and discuss below the characters -by which _Graculavus_ (restricted to _G. velox_) may be separated -from _Telmatornis_. Shufeldt (1915) has already presented adequate -evidence that _Graculavus_ is not a cormorant and is instead a -charadriiform. The following combination of characters of the proximal -end of the humerus is shared by _Graculavus_ and _Presbyornis_ and -distinguishes these genera from other Charadriiformes: (1) lack of -a distinct lanceolate scar for M. coracobrachialis cranialis; (2) -lack of a distinctly excavated second (dorsal) tricipital fossa; (3) -presence of a distinct tumescence in the proximoventral portion of the -tricipital fossa; scars for (4) M. scapulohumeralis caudalis and (5) -M. scapulohumeralis cranialis very large and distinct; (6) attachment -of M. latissimus dorsi cranialis a well-defined, raised protuberance -situated dorsal to the median ridge of the shaft; (7) tuberculum -dorsale well defined, distinctly pointed. In most of the preceding -characters that it preserves, the single proximal end of humerus -referred to _Telmatornis_ (the holotype of _G. pumilis_) agrees with -_Graculavus_ and _Presbyornis_. - -Among living families, the Burhinidae are the most similar to -_Graculavus_; both agree in characters 1, 2, 4, and 7, with certain -species of _Burhinus_ also having characters 3 and 6 present but less -developed. _Graculavus_ differs from Burhinus mainly in having (8) the -head not as deep and bulbous; (9) distance from head to tuberculum -dorsale greater; (10) tuberculum dorsale smaller, much less projecting; -(11) tuberculum ventrale in ventral view more elongate; and (12) scar -on tuberculum ventrale for M. coracobrachialis caudalis much larger and -more distinct. - -_Graculavus_ is very similar to _Presbyornis_, agreeing with that -genus in characters 8 and 10 but differing in characters 11 and 12 -and in (13) having the head more deeply undercut. _Presbyornis_ is -intermediate between _Graculavus_ and the _Burhinidae_ in character 9. - -_Graculavus velox_ was a fairly large bird, being approximately the -size of _Presbyornis_ cf. _pervetus_ and somewhat larger than the large -living burhinid _Esacus magnirostris_. - - -=Graculavus velox?= - -Figure 9_d_ - - -Referred Material.--Abraded right carpometacarpus consisting mainly of -the major metacarpal, NJSM 11854. - -Locality and Horizon.--Collected from the main fossiliferous layer of -the Inversand Company marl pit, Sewell, Gloucester County, New Jersey; -Hornerstown Formation, latest Cretaceous (Maastrichtian); collected 25 -February 1976 by David C. Parris. - -Measurements (in mm).--Length 51.0. - -Comparisons.--Nothing can be said about this very poor specimen except -that it came from a bird with a carpometacarpus slightly larger than -that of a modern specimen of the burhinid _Esacus magnirostris_. -Because _Graculavus velox_ is the only bird yet known in the New Jersey -fossil fauna that was of this same size, the present specimen may -possibly be referable to that species. - - - - -=Genus _Telmatornis_ Marsh, 1870= - - -Type-Species.--_Telmatornis priscus_ Marsh, 1870, by subsequent -designation (Hay, 1902:528). - -Included Species.--Type species only. - - -=_Telmatornis priscus_ Marsh, 1870= - -Figures 5_b-j_, 6_c,e,g_, 7_a,d,g,j,n_ - - - _Telmatornis priscus_ Marsh, 1870:210. - - _Telmatornis affinis_ Marsh, 1870:211. - - _Graculavus pumilis_ Marsh, 1872:364. - - _?Palaeotringa vetus_ Marsh, 1870:209. - -Holotype.--Distal end of left humerus (Figure 5_e,h_), YPM 840; -collected in pits of the Cream Ridge Marl Company, near Hornerstown, -New Jersey by J.G. Meirs. Navesink Formation, Maastrichtian, Late -Cretaceous (Baird, 1967). - -Referred Specimens.--Distal end of right humerus (Figure 5_f,g_), -YPM 845 (holotype of _Telmatornis affinis_ Marsh 1870); same data as -holotype of _T. priscus_. - -Proximal end of right humerus (Figure 5_b-d_), YPM 850, with distal -end of right carpometacarpus (Figure 5_i_) and several fragments of -shafts of long bones apparently associated (holotypical material of -_Graculavus pumilis_ Marsh, 1872); collected near Hornerstown, New -Jersey, by J.G. Meirs; probably from the basal Hornerstown Formation, -Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous. - -Distal end of left tibiotarsus (Figure 7_n_), ANSP 13361 (holotype -of _Palaeotringa vetus_), collected near Arneytown, on the -Monmouth-Burlington county boundary, New Jersey; Basal Hornerstown -Formation, Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous (Baird, 1967). - -Left humerus lacking proximal end (Figure 6_c,e,g_), ANSP 15360; -collected in 1971 from the Inversand Company marl pit, Sewell, -Gloucester County, New Jersey, by Keith Madden. Basal Hornerstown -Formation, Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous. - -Distal end of left tarsometatarsus (Figure 7_d,g,j_), NJSM 11853; -collected 27 March 1975 by David C. Parris from the main fossiliferous -layer of the Inversand Company marl pit. - -[Illustration: Figure 5.--Wing elements of _Burhinus_ and -_Telmatornis_. _a_, _Burhinus vermiculatus_ (USNM 488870), proximal end -of right humerus, anconal view, _b-d_, Telmatornis priscus (holotype -of _Graculavus pumilis_, YPM 850), proximal end of right humerus -(_b_, anconal view; _c_, palmar view; _d_, proximal view), _e,h_, _T. -priscus_ (holotype, YPM 840), distal end of left humerus (_e_, anconal -view; _h_, palmar view), _f,g_, _T. priscus_ (holotype of _Telmatornis -affinis_, YPM 845), distal end of right humerus (_f_, aconal view; _g_, -palmar view), _i_, _T. priscus_ (associated with YPM 850), distal end -of left carpometacarpus, dorsal view; _j_, _T. priscus_ (NJSM 11900), -proximal end of right ulna. (All figures x 2; specimens coated with -ammonium chloride to enhance detail.)] - -[Illustration: Figure 6.--Humeri of _Anatalavis_, new genus, and -_Telmatornis_. _a_, _Anatalavis rex_ (holotype, YPM 902), right -humerus, palmar view; × 1.5. _b,d,f_, _A. rex_, (YPM 948), left -humerus (_b_, palmar view, × 1.5; _d_, enlarged, anconal view, × 2; -_f_, enlarged, palmar view, × 2). _c,e,g_, _Telmatornis priscus_, -(ANSP 15360), left humerus (_c_, palmar view, × 1.5; _e_, enlarged, -anconal view, × 2; _g_, enlarged, palmar view, × 2); _h_, _Burhinus -vermiculatus_ (USNM 430630), left humerus, palmar view, × 2. (Specimens -coated with ammonium chloride to enhance detail.)] - -[Illustration: Figure 7.--Hindlimb elements. _a,b_, Right pedal -phalanx 1 of digit II (_a_, _Telmatornis priscus_, ANSP 15541; _b_, -_Presbyornis_ sp., USNM uncatalogued; part of associated foot), _c-k_, -Distal end of left tarsometatarsus, anterior, posterior, and distal -views, respectively (_c,f,i_, _Presbyornis_ sp., UCMP 126178; _d,g,j_, -_T. priscus_, NJSM 11853; _e,h,k_, _Burhinus vermiculalus_, USNM -488870). _l-n_, Distal portions of left tibiotarsi (_l_, _Palaeotringa -littoralis_, holotype, YPM 830; _m_, _P. vagans_, holotype, YPM 835; -_n_, _T. priscus_, holotype of _P. vetus_, ANSP 13361). (All figures × -2; specimens coated with ammonium chloride to enhance detail.)] - -Right pedal phalanx 1 of digit II (Figure 7_a_), ANSP 15541; collected -in 1972 by Richard White at the Inversand Company marl pit. - -Proximal end of right ulna (Figure 5_j_), NJSM 11900; collected 14 -July 1978 from spoil piles near junction of Routes 537 and 539, near -Hornerstown, Upper Freehold Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey, by -Gerard R. Case; presumably from the Hornerstown Formation but whether -from Cretaceous or Tertiary sediments is not known. - -Miller (1955) lists an additional specimen from near Arneytown under -the name _Palaeotringa vetus_ (YPM 2808). This was cataloged in 1937 -as “part of a tibia” of “Eocene” age but the specimen cannot now be -located in the Yale collections and its age and identity must be -considered very doubtful. - -Measurements (in mm).--Distal ends of humeri (YPM 840, YPM 845, ANSP -15360, respectively): distal width 10.9, 10.1, 11.3; depth through -dorsal condyle 5.7, 5.2, 5.5; width of shaft at proximal extent of -brachial fossa 6.3, 5.5,6.4; length from distal end of pectoral crest -to ventral condyle (ANSP 15360 only) 45.1; shaft width at midpoint -(ANSP 15360 only) 4.7. - -Proximal end of humerus YPM 850: proximal width through dorsal and -ventral tubercles 13.1; depth through bicipital surface and ventral -condyle 7.5, depth of head approximately 3.5. - -Proximal end of ulna NJSM 11900: depth through dorsal cotyla 7.0. - -Distal end of carpometacarpus YPM 840: depth at distal end 5.3; shaft -width 2.9. - -Distal end of tibiotarsus ANSP 13361: shaft width 3.5, approximate -depth through medial condyle 6.9. - -Distal end of tarsometatarsus NJSM 11853: distal width 6.1+; shaft -width 2.7. - -Pedal phalanx 1 of digit II: length 14.6; proximal width 3.0. - -Comparisons.--This is evidently the most abundant bird in the -New Jersey Cretaceous deposits. Hitherto it had been known only -from the two distal ends of humeri that are the holotypes of -_Telmatornis priscus_ and _T. affinis_. Marsh (1870) did not clearly -place _Telmatornis_ with any living family but mentioned species -of Rallidae, Scolopacidae, and Ardeidae in his comparisons. Hay -(1902:528) listed the genus under the Rallidae. Shufeldt (1915:26) -considered that _Telmatornis_ was not a heron but might be related -either to rail-like or charadriiform birds, the material, according -to him, being insufficient for positive determination. He (1915:27) -also described a larger species, _Telmatornis rex_, which we have -removed to a new genus. Lambrecht (1933:489) maintained _Telmatornis_ -as a genus incertae sedis in his order Ralliformes. Brodkorb (1967) -placed the genus in the family Rallidae, subfamily Rallinae, without -comment. Cracraft (1972) established that Telmatornis did not belong -in the Rallidae but was instead very similar to the Burhinidae. He -synonymized _T. affinis_ with _T. priscus_ and created a new family, -Telmatornithidae, for _T. priscus_ and _T. rex_. - -We concur in synonymizing _T. affinis_ with _T. priscus_. The holotypes -and the new specimen of humerus (ANSP 15360), which is instructive in -that it preserves much more of the shaft (Figure 6_c_), are indeed -very similar to the humeri in the Burhinidae. In size they are closely -comparable to the small living species _Burhinus vermiculatus_ (cf. -Figure 6_g,h_). The fossils differ from _Burhinus_ in having (1) the -shaft less curved, both in dorsal and in lateral views; (2) brachial -depression shorter, wider, and slightly more distally located; in -distal view (3) the ventral condyle smaller and less rounded; and (4) -the dorsal tricipital groove shallower. - -The distal portion of the humerus of _Telmatornis_ is similar to that -in _Presbyornis_ but differs in having (1) the dorsal condyle decidedly -more elongate; (2) olecranal fossa much shallower; (3) ventral -epicondyle in ventral view less distinctly demarcated but (4) more -protrudent in lateral or medial view. - -The proximal end of humerus (YPM 850) that is the holotype of -_Graculavus pumilis_ was considered by Shufeldt (1915:19) definitely -to be from a limicoline charadriiform. It is from a bird exactly the -size of _Telmatornis priscus_ and its coloration and preservation would -not be incompatible with its being the opposite end of the same bone -as the holotype of _T. affinis_ (Figure 5_b,c,f,g_). The following -differences between the holotypical humeri of _G. velox_ and _“G.” -pumilis_ establish that these belong to different genera: (1) in -_velox_ the area dorsal to the ventral tubercle and distal to the head -is much more excavated, undercutting the head; (2) the dorsal tubercle -is more pronounced; (3) there is a distinct excavation distomedial to -the ventral tubercle, lacking in _pumilis_; (4) the ventral tubercle in -ventral view is much more produced in _velox_ than in _pumilis_. - -The holotype of _G. pumilis_ is very similar to the humerus in the -Burhinidae but differs from that family and agrees with _Graculavus_ -in characters 8, 9, and 10 (p. 6). It differs further from the -Burhinidae in having the area for the attachment of M. scapulohumeralis -caudalis extending farther distally in ventral view. It differs from -_Presbyornis_ mainly in lacking the excavation to and undercutting -the head. Because pumilis is not congeneric with _Graculavus velox_ -and because of its size and similarities with the Burhinidae and -_Presbyornis_, we have no hesitation about considering Graculavus -pumilis Marsh, 1872, to be a junior subjective synonym of _Telmatornis -priscus_ Marsh, 1870. - -The proximal end of an ulna, NJSM 11900 (Figure 5_j_), is from a bird -the size of _Burhinus vermiculatus_ and not too dissimilar to it -except that the shaft is more robust in the fossil. The specimen is -too imperfect to merit detailed study and is referred to Telmatornis -priscus only on size and probability. - -The very fragmentary distal end of carpometacarpus associated with the -type of _G. pumilis_ (Figure 5_i_) is slightly larger and more robust -than in _Burhinus vermiculatus_, but not so much as to be incompatible -with _T. priscus_. Compared to _Burhinus_ (1) the symphysial area -is deeper and (2) the articular surface for the major digit is -proportionately larger, the specimen being somewhat more similar to the -carpometacarpus in _Presbyornis_. - -The three specimens of _Palaeotringa_ Marsh from the Cretaceous of New -Jersey are based on poorly preserved distal ends of tibiotarsi. The -holotype of _Palaeotringa vetus_ Marsh, 1870 (Figure 7_n_) is similar -in size to the comparable element in _Burhinus vermiculatus_, though -with a relatively more slender shaft, and hence is from a bird the -size of _T. priscus_, being smaller than any of the other species of -_Palaeotringa_. It is more similar to _Presbyornis_ than to _Burhinus_. -Because it is from a charadriiform the size of _T. priscus_, as first -revisers we tentatively consider _Palaeotringa vetus_ Marsh, 1870, -to be a subjective synonym of _Telmatornis priscus_ Marsh, 1870. The -only alternative would be to consign it to Aves incertae sedis. It is -of passing historical interest to recall Marsh's (1870:209) comment -that the type of _Palaeotringa vetus_ “apparently was the first fossil -bird-bone discovered in this country,” having been mentioned both by -Morton (1834) and Harlan (1835) as belonging to the genus _Scolopax_ -(Charadriiformes: Scolopacidae). - -The distal portion of tarsometatarsus NJSM 11853 (Figure 7_d,g,f_) -is unfortunately quite abraded. It is from a small charadriiform and -has a shaft width about the same as in _Burhinus vermiculatus_. If -this fossil came from an individual of _Telmatornis priscus_, as we -assume, _T. priscus_ being the smallest and most abundant “graculavid” -in the New Jersey Cretaceous deposits, then it is a very instructive -specimen, for it differs much more from Burhinus than does the humerus -of Telmatornis. NJSM 11853 differs from the Burhinidae and agrees with -_Presbyornis_ in having (1) the distal foramen proportionately large -and oval, not very small and circular; (2) a large, well-developed scar -for the hallux (hallux absent in Burhinidae); (3) external trochlea -proximodistally more elongate. That which remains of the inner trochlea -indicates that it was (1) somewhat more posteriorly retracted than -in _Burhinus_ but (2) not nearly as elevated and retracted as in -_Presbyornis_. - -Pedal phalanx ANSP 15541 (Figure 7_a_) is from a bird the size of _T. -priscus_. This specimen is much longer and more slender than phalanx 1 -of digit II in _Burhinus vermiculatus_ but has almost exactly the shape -and proportions of the same element in _Presbyornis_ (Figure 7_b_), -although being much smaller. Although its assignment to _Telmatornis_ -is very tentative, the length of this element seems to indicate a -wading bird as opposed to one with the terrestrially adapted shorter -toes of the Burhinidae. - - - - -=Genus _Anatalavis_, new genus= - - -Type-Species.--Telmatornis rex Shufeldt, 1915. - -Included Species.--Type-species only. - -Diagnosis.--Differs from _Telmatornis_ and _Presbyornis_ in (1) having -the shaft very short, stout, and much more curved, both in dorsoventral -and lateromedial views. Differs from _Telmatornis_ and agrees with -_Presbyornis_ in (2) having the distal end in distal view deeper, with -(3) a narrower and much deeper olecranal fossa. Also, (4) the brachial -depression is smaller and narrower than in _Telmatornis_ but not as -deep, nor as proximally situated as in _Presbyornis_. - -Etymology.--“Duck-winged bird,” from Latin _anas_, duck, _ala_, wing, -and _avis_, bird. The gender is feminine. - - -=_Anatalavis rex_ (Shufeldt, 1915), new combination= - -Figure 6_a,b,d_J - - - Telmatornis rex Shufeldt, 1915:27, fig. 101. - -Holotype.--Right humerus lacking proximal end, YPM 902 (Figure 6_a_). - -Locality and Horizon.--From Hornerstown, Upper Freehold Township, -Monmouth County, New Jersey; collected by W. Ross in 1878; probably -Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian), basal Hornerstown Formation. - -Referred Specimen.--Paratypical left humerus lacking proximal end, -YPM 948 (Figure 6_b,d,f_). From Hornerstown, Upper Freehold Township, -Monmouth County, New Jersey; collected by J.G. Meirs in 1869; probably -Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian), basal Hornerstown Formation. - -Measurements (in mm).--Humeri (YPM 902, YPM 948, respectively): distal -width 13.6, 13.2; depth through dorsal condyle 7.3, 7.5; width of shaft -at proximal extent of brachial fossa 7.2,7.5; length from distal end of -pectoral crest to ventral condyle 49.1, 50.7; shaft width at midpoint -5.4, 5.6. - -Remarks.--Shufeldt (1915:27) described this species in the same genus -as _T. priscus_ and _T. affinis_ but correctly noted that the humerus -“is a short one ... its sigmoid curve very pronounced.” Cracraft -(1972:41) considered that “except for its decidedly larger size, _T. -rex_ does not differ from _T. priscus_ in any significant features.” -In fairness to these authors, it should be noted that the great -differences between Anatalavis and Telmatornis are much more apparent -in comparisons with the new humerus of _T. priscus_ (ANSP 15360), which -preserves much more of the shaft than the previously known specimens. -Both Shufeldt and Cracraft considered YPM 948 to belong to the same -species as the holotype of _T. rex_, and we concur. - -The specimens of _A. rex_ are not comparable with the type of -_Graculavus velox_, which was from a larger bird. _Anatalavis rex_ -was a larger, heavier bird than _Telmatornis priscus_, with the -humerus remarkably short and robust, so that the overall length of the -humerus in _A. rex_ would scarcely have exceeded that of _T. priscus_. -_Anatalavis_ must have been a bird of considerably different flight -habits from _Telmatornis_ or _Presbyornis_. The overall appearance of -its humerus is in fact rather duck-like, except for the more expanded -distal end. It is still quite short and stout even for a duck. - - -=Genus _Laornis_ Marsh, 1870= - - -Type-Species.--_Laornis edvardsianus_ Marsh, 1870, by monotypy. - -Included Species.--Type species only. - - -=_Laornis edvardsianus_ Marsh, 1870= - -Figure 8_a,c,e_ - - - _Laornis edvardsianus_ Marsh, 1870:206. - -Holotype.--Distal end of right tibiotarsus, YPM 820. - -Locality and Horizon.--From pits of the Pemberton Marl Company at -Birmingham, Burlington County, New Jersey; collected by J.C. Gaskill; -Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian), basal Hornerstown Formation. - -Measurements (in mm).--Distal end of tibiotarsus, YPM 820: distal width -across condyles 22.6, depth of external condyle 19.3, depth of internal -condyle 21.1, least shaft width 11.7, least shaft depth 9.6. - -Comparisons.--The very large size of this specimen has undoubtedly -been a factor in misleading those who have attempted to identify -it, as it came from a bird the size of a swan or a large crane. -The affinities of this fossil have long been questioned and the -species has for most of its history been in limbo. Marsh (1870:207) -concluded only that _Laornis_ “shows a strong resemblance in several -respects to the _Lamellirostres_ [Anseriformes], and also to the -_Longipennes_ [Charadriiformes (Lari) and Procellariiformes], but -differs essentially from the typical forms of both of these groups.” In -its own nebulous way, this assessment is concordant with our placement -of _Laornis_ in a charadriiform group that was near the ancestry of -the Anseriformes. Doubtless only on the strength of Marsh's comments. -Cope (1869-1870:237) placed _Laornis_ in the “Lamellirostres.” Hay -(1902:531) included _Laornis_ in the Anatidae. Shufeldt (1915:23) -hardly clarified matters when he characterized _Laornis_ as “at least -one of the generalized types of waders,” being a “remarkable type, -which seems to have, judging from this piece of the tibiotarsus, -Turkey, Swan, Crane, and even other groups all combined in it.” -Lambrecht (1933:526) included _Laornis_ as a genus incertae sedis in -his “Telmatoformes,” between the Aramidae and Otididae. - -The type was restudied by Cracraft (1973:46) who put _Laornis_ in the -Gruiformes and created a new family (Laornithidae) and superfamily -(Laornithoidea) for it. He included it in his suborder Ralli, the only -other member of which was the Rallidae. After preliminary comparisons, -Olson (1974) ventured that _Laornis_ belonged in the suborder Lari -of the Charadriiformes. Brodkorb (1978:214) listed _Laornis_ under -Aves incertae sedis and guessed that it might be related to the -Pelecaniformes. - -Except for the extreme difference in size, the tibiotarsus of _Laornis_ -is in many respects similar to that of _Presbyornis_ (Figure 8), -especially in (1) the shape and position of the tubercle proximal to -the external condyle; (2) the transverse pit in the intercondylar -sulcus; and (3) the broad, shallow intercondylar sulcus as seen in -distal view. It differs in a seemingly minor but quite characteristic -feature, the large nutrient foramen situated in the groove for M. -peroneus brevis (Figure 8_c_). This is absent in _Presbyornis_ but is -present in both of the tibiotarsi from the Cretaceous of New Jersey -in which that portion of the bone is preserved (the holotypes of -Palaeotringa littoralis and _P. vagans_), as well as in a tibiotarsus -(Science Museum of Minnesota P75.22.25) from the type-locality of -_Dakotornis cooperi_ Erickson, 1975, that may be referable to that -graculavid-like species. The foramen in the peroneus brevis groove -may also be found in at least some specimens of Stercorariidae, which -is partly what led Olson (1974) to suggest a relationship between -_Laornis_ and the Lari. _Laornis_ appears to have been an extremely -large member of the “transitional Charadriiformes,” though where its -relationships may lie within that group cannot be determined. - - - - -=Genus _Palaeotringa_ Marsh, 1870= - - -Type-Species.--_Palaeotringa littoralis_ Marsh, 1870; by subsequent -designation (Hay, 1902:527). - -Included Species.--_Palaeotringa littoralis_ Marsh, 1870, and -_Palaeotringa vagans_ Marsh, 1872. - - -=_Palaeotringa littoralis_ Marsh, 1870= - -Figure 7_l_ - - - _Palaeotringa littoralis_ Marsh, 1870:208. - -Holotype.--Distal portion of left tibiotarsus lacking most of the inner -condyle, YPM 830. - -Locality and Horizon.--Collected in the “middle marl beds” by Nicolas -Wain from his marl pits near Hornerstown, New Jersey; Late Cretaceous -(Maastrichtian), either basal Hornerstown Formation or Navesink -Formation. - -Measurements (in mm).--Depth through outer condyle 8.2; width of shaft -just proximal to outer condyle 7.0. - -Comparisons.--This specimen and that of _P. vagans_ are too fragmentary -for useful comparison. Both have the foramen in the groove for -M. peroneus brevis, mentioned above. Their overall similarity to -_Presbyornis_ and to charadriiform birds in general justifies retaining -them with the other “graculavids” but other than this little else can -be said. In size, _Palaeotringa littoralis_ would have been about -equal to _Burhinus bistriatus vocifer_ and smaller than _Esacus -magnirostris_. Hence it would seem to be too small to belong to the -same species as _Graculavus velox_ and is definitely too large to be -referable to _Telmatornis priscus_. - -[Illustration: Figure 8.--Distal end of right tibiotarsus of (_a,c,e_) -_Laornis edvardsianus_, holotype, YPM 820, compared with (_b,d,f_) the -same element enlarged in _Presbyornis_ sp., UW BQ305: _a,b_, anterior -views; _c,d_, lateral views (note large foramen in peroneus brevis -groove of _Laornis_); _e,f_, distal views. (_a,c,e_, × 1.5, _b,d,f_, × -4; specimens coated with ammonium chloride to enhance detail.)] - - -=_Palaeotringa littoralis?_= - -Figure 9_a_ - - -Referred Material.--Distal portion of a left humerus, NJSM 11303. - -Locality and Horizon.--Collected from the main fossiliferous layer of -the Inversand Company marl pit, Sewell, Gloucester County, New Jersey; -Hornerstown Formation, latest Cretaceous (Maastrichtian); collected 27 -September 1972 by David C. Parris. - -Measurements (in mm).--Distal width 12.8, depth through dorsal condyle -6.9, width of shaft at proximal extent of brachial fossa 8.2. - -Comparisons.--This interesting specimen, although considerably worn, -clearly has the overall “graculavid” morphology but shows sufficient -differences from the humeri of _Telmatornis_ or _Anatalavis_ to warrant -its generic separation from them. In size it is about equal to the -modern form _Burhinus bistriatus vocifer_ and hence would be compatible -with _P. littoralis_. It differs from _Telmatornis_, _Anatalavis_, or -_Presbyornis_, and is more similar to _Burhinus_ in having (1) the -brachial depression wider, shallower, and more proximally situated. -Although affected by wear, (2) the dorsal condyle is nevertheless -considerably smaller and not produced as far proximally as in any of -the preceding genera, although _Presbyornis_ is more similar in this -respect than the others. In distal view the specimen is more similar -to _Presbyornis_ than to the other Cretaceous humeri, although (3) the -olecranal fossa is shallower. If this specimen is correctly referred -to _Palaeotringa_, it shows that genus to be distinct from any of the -others yet known in the fauna except possibly _Graculavus_, for which -the distal end of the humerus is unknown. - - -=_Palaeotringa vagans_ Marsh, 1872= - -Figure 7_m_ - - - _Palaeotringa vagans_ Marsh, 1872:365. - -Holotype.--Fragmented distal two-thirds of a left tibiotarsus lacking -the external condyle and the anterior portion of the internal condyle, -YPM 835. - -Locality and Horizon.--From Hornerstown, Upper Freehold Township, -Monmouth County, New Jersey; collected by J.G. Meirs; Late Cretaceous -(Maastrichtian), “about ten feet below the surface of the marl” (Marsh, -1872:365), either basal Hornerstown Formation or Navesink Formation. - -Measurements (in mm).--Width of shaft just proximal to external condyle -5.8. - -Comparisons.--This very unsatisfactory specimen comes from a species -smaller than _P. littoralis_ and larger than _P. vetus_ (= _Telmatornis -priscus_). It differs from the latter and agrees with _P. littoralis_ -in having the distal tendinal opening of a flattened oval shape, rather -than decidedly rounded. If we have correctly referred _P. vetus_ to -_Telmatornis priscus_, then it is certain that neither of the other -two species of _Palaeotringa_ can be referred to _Telmatornis_. In _P. -vagans_ the tendinal groove appears to be much narrower and the bridge -much deeper than in _P. littoralis_, but this is in part due to damage -and possible immaturity in the latter specimen, so it remains possible -that these species are in fact congeneric. The species _P. vagans_ can -be retained as it is smaller than any of the other graculavids in the -fauna except _T. priscus_, from which it is generically distinct. - - -=Graculavidae, Genus and Species Indeterminate= - -Figure 9_b,c_ - - -Referred Material.--Abraded distal end of left humerus and associated -proximal portion of humeral shaft, proximal end of radius, and fragment -of shaft of ulna, NJSM 11302. - -Locality and Horizon.--Collected from the main fossiliferous layer of -the Inversand Company marl pit, Sewell, Gloucester County, New Jersey; -Hornerstown Formation, latest Cretaceous (Maastrichtian); collected 15 -August 1972 by David C. Parris. - -Measurements (in mm).--Humerus: distal width 19 mm, depth through -dorsal condyle 9.7, width of shaft at proximal extent of brachial fossa -11.0; greatest proximal diameter of radius 7.0. - -Comparisons.--The distal end of the humerus is the only reasonably -diagnostic element in this assortment and indicates a large, robust -species that would have exceeded in size any of the others known in -this Cretaceous avifauna except _Laornis edvardsianus_, which was -much larger still. In size this bird would have approximated the -modern flamingo _Phoeniconaias minor_, which it somewhat resembles in -morphology as well. The humerus is not greatly different from that -of other Graculavidae in general aspect but is distinct in having a -larger, much deeper, and more proximally situated brachial depression. -It represents a species distinct from any of the others yet known -in the fauna and is certainly generically distinct from all except -possibly _Graculavus_, for which comparable elements are unknown. - - - - -=Order Procellariiformes?= - - -Among the newly collected material from the Inversand pit is a singular -avian humerus that cannot be assigned to the Graculavidae or to -any other known family, fossil or modern. Although it is generally -inadvisable to name even Paleogene birds on single elements, to say -nothing of Cretaceous ones, the specimen under consideration here is -superior to any of the other avian fossils yet collected from the -Cretaceous of New Jersey, both in preservation and in diagnostic -qualities, and it would seem incongruous to leave it innominate when -practically all the other fragments from the same deposits have -received names. - -[Illustration: Figure 9.--Miscellaneous elements, _a_, _Palaeotringa -littoralis?_ (NJSM 11303), distal end of left humerus, palmar view; -_b_, Graculavidae, genus and species indeterminate (NJSM 11302), -distal end of left humerus, palmar view; _c_, proximal end of -radius associated with _b_; _d_, _Graculavus velox?_ (NJSM 11854), -right carpometacarpus; _e,f_, Procellariiformes?, genus and species -indeterminate (ANSP 15713), distal end of left ulna (_e_, external -view;/dorsal view); _g_, Aves, incertae sedis (NJSM 12119), distal end -of left femur, posterior view. (_a,b,c,d_, × 2; _e,f,g_, × 5; specimens -coated with ammonium chloride to enhance detail.)] - -The most distinctive features of this specimen are the deep brachial -depression and the incipient ectepicondylar spur, thus calling to mind -both the Lari (Charadriiformes) and the Procellariiformes among modern -birds. Among the Pelecaniformes it also bears a resemblance to the -Phaethontidae and especially to the Eocene frigatebird _Limnofregata_ -(Fregatidae) (Olson, 1977). - - - - -=Family Tytthostonychidae, new family= - - -Type Genus.--_Tytthostonyx_, new genus. - -Included Genera.--Type genus only. - -Diagnosis.--Differs from the Lari and other Charadriiformes in (1) -the low, narrow head; (2) the very large, long pectoral crest; (3) -the virtual absence of the incisura capitis or any excavation for M. -coracobrachialis cranialis; and (4) the shallow, indistinct tricipital -grooves. It agrees with the Procellariiformes and differs from -_Phaethon_ and _Limnofregata_ in characters 2 and 4, and in the large, -deeply excavated brachial depression. The ectepicondylar spur is better -developed than in any of the Pelecaniformes but not as well developed -as in the Procellariiformes. The apparently very broad pectoral crest -extends much farther distally than in any of the Procellariiformes or -even in _Limnofregata_, to which the fossil is somewhat more similar -in this respect. Tytthostonyx differs from any of the taxa compared in -having the ventral condyle very rounded, extending distally well past -the dorsal condyle. - - - - -=Genus _Tytthostonyx_, new genus= - - -Type-Species.--_Tytthostonyx glauconiticus_, new species. - -Included Species.--Type species only. - -Diagnosis.--As for the family. - -Etymology.--Greek, _tytthos_, little, plus _stonyx_, any sharp point. -The name is masculine in gender and refers to the small, presumably -rudimentary, ectepicondylar spur. It should not be confused with the -coleopteran genus _Tytthonyx_, based on _onyx_, claw. - - -=_Tytthostonyx glauconiticus_, new species= - -Figures 10, 11 - - -Holotype.--Right humerus lacking the ventral tubercle, portions of the -pectoral crest, and other parts of the proximal end, where partially -reconstructed, NJSM 11341. - -Locality and Horizon.--Main fossiliferous layer of the Inversand -Company marl pit, Sewell, Gloucester County, New Jersey; basal portion -of the Hornerstown Formation, latest Cretaceous (Maastrichtian); -collected 11 October 1973 by David C. Parris. - -Measurements of Holotype (in mm).--Length as reconstructed, 110; width -and depth of shaft at midpoint 7.0 × 5.6; distal width 14.8; depth -through dorsal condyle 8.7. - -Etymology.--From Latin, _glaucus_ (Greek, _glaukos_), bluish green -or gray, sea-colored, applied to greensands because of their color, -although appropriate because of their marine origins as well; in -reference to the holotype having been recovered from beds of glauconite. - -Remarks.--A possible relationship between the Procellariiformes and -Pelecaniformes has been previously suggested (Sibley and Ahlquist, -1972:70; Olson, 1985:142), and among the pelecaniform taxa most often -mentioned as being procellariiform-like are the Fregatidae. It is -tempting to regard the humerus of _Tytthostonyx_ as being similar -to that possessed by the ancestral stock that gave rise to the -Procellariiformes. Its similarities also to the Eocene frigatebird -_Limnofregata_ would thus be seen as corroborating the primitiveness -of the Fregatidae within the Pelecaniformes. Whereas _Tytthostonyx_ -definitely has not achieved the highly distinctive and presumably -derived morphology of the humerus of modern Procellariiformes, the -incipient development of the ectepicondylar spur and deep brachial -depression could be interpreted as tending in that direction. - -On the other hand, we must admit that we are dealing with only a -single bone and one of very great age at that, so that the risk of -overinterpreting the fossil is correspondingly great. We can only -discern the overall similarities of the specimen and phylogenetic -inferences can therefore be only tentative at best. - - - - -=Family and Genus Indeterminate= - -Figure 9_e,f_ - - -Referred Material.--Distal portion of left ulna ANSP 15713. - -Locality and Horizon.--Inversand Company marl pit, near Sewell, -Gloucester County, New Jersey; Hornerstown Formation, Late Cretaceous -(Maastrichtian); not found in situ, collected on shelf formed by “blue -bed”; collected 31 August 1977 by Richard S. White. - -Measurements (in mm).--Distal width 2.6, distal depth 3.1, width and -depth of shaft near point of break 1.8 × 1.9. - -Comparisons.--This specimen comes from a very small bird. The only -modern pelagic birds in this size range are the storm-petrels of -the family Oceanitidae and the fossil resembles this family in the -extremely straight shaft of the ulna, the shape and depth of the -tendinal grooves, and the relatively well-developed scars for the -attachment of the secondaries. It differs from the Oceanitidae in -having the ventral lip of the external condyle much more rounded and -protrudent past the plane of the shaft, whereas the carpal tubercle in -dorsal view is markedly smaller. On this basis, the fossil certainly -could not be referred to the Oceanitidae and that it should be -associated with the Procellariiformes may be doubted as well. - -[Illustration: Figure 10.--_Tytthostonyx glauconiticus_, new genus -and species (holotype, NJSM 11341), right humerus: _a,b_, anconal and -palmar views of uncoated specimen to show reconstructed areas, × 0.8; -_c,d_, stereophotographs of coated specimen in anconal and palmar -views, × 1.3.] - -[Illustration: Figure 11.--_Tytthostonyx glauconiticus_, new genus and -species (holotype, NJSM 11341), stereophotographs of distal end of -right humerus: _a_, anconal view; _b_, palmar view; _c_, ventral view; -_d_, dorsal view; _e_, distal view. (All figures × 2; specimens coated -with ammonium chloride to enhance detail.)] - - - - -=Aves, incertae sedis= - -Figure 9_g_ - - -Referred Material.--Distal end of left femur, NJSM 12119. - -Locality and Horizon.--Inversand Company marl pit, Sewell, Gloucester -County, New Jersey; from processed spoil piles, precise stratum -unknown; collected 12 December 1981 by Cynthia Miller. Presumably -from the Hornerstown Formation but could be either Late Cretaceous or -Paleocene. - -Measurements (in mm).--Distal width 4.3, distal depth 3.8. - -Comparisons.--This is also from a very small bird, possibly the same -size as the species represented by the preceding ulna (ANSP 15713; -Figure 9_e,f_) but probably somewhat larger. It is characterized -by an extremely well-developed tubercle for the attachment of M. -gastrocnemius lateralis. A perfunctory perusal of modern taxa revealed -nothing similar. - - - - -=Discussion= - - -Because the specimens treated here are avian and of Mesozoic age, it is -almost certain that too much importance will be made of them by some -future authors. Indeed, it will probably be years before the literature -can be expunged of the records of presumed occurrences that arose from -previous misidentifications of these fossils. Therefore, in an effort -to forestall overenthusiasm for these fragments we shall present our -own brief assessment of their significance. - -Unlike most other Cretaceous birds, such as the Hesperornithiformes, -Ichthyornithiformes, and Enantiornithiformes, which represent totally -extinct lineages (Olson, 1985), the Cretaceous birds of New Jersey are -of essentially modern aspect. However, there are no modern families -of birds represented in the fauna. The differences among the fossils -suggest that at least two orders are represented, but whether any or -all of the species can be placed in modern orders is more difficult -to say. This stems as much from the unsatisfactory state of the -ordinal classification of modern birds (Olson, 1981, 1985), as from -the incompleteness of the fossils. There are certain modern birds, for -example the Burhinidae, with sufficient similarities to some of the -Cretaceous fossils that there would be no problem with associating them -in the same ordinal-level taxon, though it would be more difficult to -say which other modern families should also be included. - -The material is too poor to state how many families are represented -in the fauna, although if the various members of the “form-family” -Graculavidae were better known there can scarcely be any doubt that -more than one family would be recognized in this group. Within -the Graculavidae from New Jersey there appear to be six genera -(_Graculavus_, _Telmatornis_, _Palaeotringa_, _Laornis_, _Anatalavis_, -and an unnamed genus). These are diverse, ranging in size from the -smallest of the modern Burhinidae to that of a large crane. The very -short, robust, curved humeri of _Anatalavis_ indicate some diversity in -mode of flight as well. The greatest similarity of most of these forms -is to the early Paleogene bird _Presbyornis_, and then to the modern -family Burhinidae. Because these two groups are very different in their -habits and feeding adaptations we may expect that the various members -of the Graculavidae were probably as divergent from one another as are -_Presbyornis_ and _Burhinus_, their similarities being almost certainly -due to the retention of primitive characters. - -Including the two genera and species that show some similarities to the -Procellariiformes, along with the small indeterminate femur, the total -avifauna from the New Jersey greensands comprises 8 or 9 genera and 9 -or 10 species. As far as can be determined, all of the birds in this -assemblage were probably marine or littoral in habits. We certainly -would not interpret this as indicating that waterbirds are primitive -and that they gave rise to land birds, as suggested by Thulborn and -Hamley (1985) in their fantastic and highly improbable conjectures as -to the mode of life of _Archaeopteryx_. Indeed, just the opposite is -probably the case (Olson, 1985), the lack of Late Cretaceous fossils of -truly terrestrial or arboreal birds most likely being due to sampling -bias. - - - - -Appendix - - -The nonavian megafauna of the main fossiliferous layer (Basal -Hornerstown Formation), at the Inversand Company marl pit, Sewell, -Gloucester County, New Jersey is listed below. Also found in the -deposits were numerous coprolites of sharks and crocodilians, some -amber, phosphatized wood, and a few seeds. Voucher specimens are in the -collections of the New Jersey State Museum, Academy of Natural Sciences -of Philadelphia, and Yale University (Princeton University collections). - - -Brachiopoda - - _Terebratulina atlantica_ (Morton) - - -Gastropoda - - _Gyrodes abyssinus_ (Morton) - _Acteon cretacea_ Gabb - _Anchura abrupta_ Conrad - _Turbinella parva_ Gabb - _Lunatia halli_ Gabb - _Pyropsis trochiformis_ (Tuomey) - _Volutoderma ovata_ Whitfield - _Turbinella subconica_ Gabb - _Turritella vertebroides_ Morton - - -Pelecypoda - - _Cardium tenuistriatum_ Whitfield - _Glycymeris mortoni_ (Conrad) - _Gryphaea convexa_ (Say) - _Gervilliopsis ensiformis_ (Conrad) - _Panopea decisa_ Conrad - _Veniella conradi_ Morton - _Crassatella vadosa_ Morton - _Cucullaea vulgaris_ Morton - _Lithophaga ripleyana_ Gabb - _Xylophagella irregularis_ (Gabb) - _Nuculana stephensoni_ Richards - _Etea delawarensis_ (Gabb) - - -Nautiloidea - - _Eutrephoceras dekayi_ (Morton) - - -Ammonoidea - - _Baculites ovatus_ Say - _Sphenodiscus lobatus_ (Tuomey) - _Pachydiscus_ (_Neodesmoceras_) sp. - - -Crustacea - - cf. _Hoploparia_ sp. - - -Chondrichthyes - - _Lamma appendiculata_ (Agassiz) - _Odontaspis cuspidata_ (Agassiz) - _Squalicorax pristodontus_ (Morton) - _Hexanchus_ sp. - _Edaphodon stenobryus_ (Cope) - _Edaphodon mirificus_ Leidy - _Ischyodus_ cf. _I. thurmanni_ Pictet and Campiche - _Squatina_ sp. - _Myliobatis_ cf. _M. leidyi_ Hay - _Ischyrhiza mira_ Leidy - _Rhinoptera_ sp. - cf. _Rhombodus levis_ Cappetta and Case - - -Osteichthyes - - _Enchodus_ cf. _E. ferox_ Leidy - _Enchodus_ cf. _E. serrulalus_ Fowler - _Paralbula casei_ Estes - - -Chelonia - - _Adocus beatus_ Leidy - _Osteopygis emarginatus_ Cope - _Taphrospys sulcatus_ (Leidy) - _Dollochelys atlantica_ (Zangerl) - - -Crocodilia - - cf. _Procaimanoidea_ sp. - _Hyposaurus rogersii_ Owen - _Thoracosaurus_ sp. - _Bottosaurus harlani_ Meyer - _Diplocynodon_ sp. - - -Lacertilia - - _Mosasaurus_ sp. - _Plioplatecarpus_ sp. - - - - -Literature Cited - - -Baird, Donald - - 1967. Age of Fossil Birds from the Greensands of New Jersey. _Auk_, - 84:260-262. - -Brodkorb, Pierce - - 1963a. Birds from the Upper Cretaceous of Wyoming. _Proceedings - of the XIIIth International Ornithological Congress_, pages - 55-70, 10 figures. - - 1963b. Catalogue of Fossil Birds, Part 1 (Archaeopterygiformes - through Ardeiformes). _Bulletin of the Florida Slate Museum_, - _Biological Sciences_, 7(4):179-293. - - 1967. Catalogue of Fossil Birds, Part 3 (Ralliformes, - Ichthyornithiformes, Charadriiformes). _Bulletin of the - Florida Slate Museum_, _Biological Sciences_, 11(3):99-220. - - 1978. Catalogue of Fossil Birds, Part 5 (Passeriformes). _Bulletin - of the Florida Stale Museum_, _Biological Sciences_, - 23(3):140-228. - -Conrad, Timothy A. - - 1869. Notes on American Fossiliferous Strata. _American Journal of - Science_, series 2, 47:358-364. - -Cope, Edward Drinker - - 1869-1870. Synopsis of the Extinct Batrachia, Reptilia and Aves of - North America. _Transactions of the American Philosophical - Society_ [for 1871], new series, 14:252 pages, 55 figures, 14 - plates. - -Cracraft, Joel - - 1972. A New Cretaceous Charadriiform Family. _Auk_, 89:36-46, 3 - figures, 2 tables. - - 1973. Systematics and Evolution of the Gruiformes (Class Aves), 3: - Phylogeny of the Suborder Grues. _Bulletin of the American - Museum of Natural History_, 151:1-128, 51 figures, 49 tables. - -Erickson, Bruce R. - - 1975. _Dakotornis cooperi_, a New Paleocene Bird from North Dakota. - _Scientific Publications of the Science Museum of Minnesota_, - new series, 3(1):7 pages, 3 figures. - -Fürbringer, Max - - 1888. _Untersuchungen zur Morphologie und Systematik der - Vögel, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Anatomie der Stütz- und - Bewegungsorgane._ 2 volumes, 1751 pages, 30 plates. Amsterdam: - Von Holkema. [Issued as _Koninklijk Zoölogisch Genootschap - "Natura Artis Magistra," Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde_ - (Amsterdam), 15.] - -Gaffney, Eugene - - 1975. A Revision of the Side-necked Turtle _Taphrosphys sulcatus_ - (Leidy) from the Cretaceous of New Jersey. _American Museum - Novitates_, 2751:24 pages. - -Harlan, Richard - - 1835. _Medical and Physical Researches: or Original Memoirs - in Medicine, Surgery, Physiology, Geology, Zoology, and - Comparative Anatomy,_ xxxix + 9-653 pages, illustrated. - Philadelphia: L.R. Bailey. - -Hay, Oliver P. - - 1902. Bibliography and Catalogue of the Fossil Vertebrata of North - America. _Bulletin of the United States Geological Survey_, - 179:868 pages. - -Howard, Hildegarde - - 1955. A New Wading Bird from the Eocene of Patagonia. _American - Museum Novitates_, 1710:25 pages, 8 figures, 3 tables. - -Koch, Robert C., and Richard K. Olsson - - 1977. Dinoflagellate and Planktonic Foraminiferal Biostratigraphy - of the Uppermost Cretaceous of New Jersey. _Journal of - Paleontology_, 51:480-491, 4 figures. - -Lambrecht, Kalman - - 1933. _Handbuch der Palaeornithologie._ 1024 pages, 209 figures, 4 - plates. Berlin: Gebrüder Borntraeger. - -Marsh, O.C. - - 1870. Notice of Some Fossil Birds from the Cretaceous and Tertiary - Formations of the United States. _American Journal of - Science_, series 2, 49:205-217. - - 1872. Preliminary Description of _Hesperornis regalis_, with - Notices of Four Other New Species of Cretaceous Birds. - _American Journal of Science_, series 3, 3:360-365. - - 1880. Odontornithes: A Monograph on the Extinct Toothed Birds of - North America. _Report of the Geological Exploration of the - Fortieth Parallel_, volume 7: xv + 201 pages, 40 figures, 34 - plates. - -Miller, Halsey W., Jr. - - 1955. A Check-list of the Cretaceous and Tertiary Vertebrates of - New Jersey. _Journal of Paleontology_, 29(5):903-914. - -Minard, J.P., W.J. Perry, E.G.A. Weed, E.C. Rhodehamel, E.I. Robbins, -and R.B. Mixon - - 1974. Preliminary Report on Geology along Atlantic Coastal Margin - of Northeastern United States. _American Association of - Petroleum Geologists Bulletin_, 58(6):1169-1178, 7 figures. - -Moore, Raymond C. - - 1958. _Introduction to Historical Geology._ 2nd edition, 656 pages, - 593 figures. New York: McGraw Hill. - -Morton, Samuel G. - - 1829. Description of the Fossil Shells Which Characterize the - Atlantic Secondary Formation of New Jersey and Delaware, - Including Four New Species. _Journal of the Academy of Natural - Sciences of Philadelphia_, series 1, 6:72-100. - - 1834. _Synopsis of the Organic Remains of the Cretaceous Group of - the United States._ 96 pages, 19 plates. Philadelphia: Key and - Biddle. - -Olson, Storrs L. - - 1974. [Review of] Joel Cracraft. Systematics and Evolution of the - Gruiformes (Class Aves), 3: Phylogeny of the Suborder Grues. - _Auk_, 91(4):862-865. - - 1977. A Lower Eocene Frigatebird from the Green River Formation - of Wyoming (Pelecaniformes: Fregatidae). _Smithsonian - Contributions to Paleobiology_, 35:33 pages, 31 figures. - - 1981. The Museum Tradition in Ornithology--A Response to Ricklefs. - _Auk_, 98(1):193-195. - - 1985. The Fossil Record of Birds. In Donald S. Farner, James - R. King, and Kenneth C. Parkes, editors. _Avian Biology_, - 8:79-238, 11 figures. New York: Academic Press. - -Olson, Storrs L., and Alan Feduccia - - 1980a. Relationships and Evolution of Flamingos (Aves: - Phoenicopteridae). _Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology_, - 316:73 pages, 40 figures, 2 tables. - - 1980b. Presbyornis and the Origin of the Anseriformes (Aves: - Charadriomorphae). _Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology_, - 323:24 pages, 15 figures. - -Perry, W.J., Jr, J.P. Minard, E.G.A. Weed, S.L. Robbins, and E.C. -Rhodehamel - - 1975. Stratigraphy of Atlantic Coastal Margin of United States - North of Cape Hatteras--Brief Survey. _American Association of - Petroleum Geologists Bulletin_, 59(9):1529-1548, 12 figures. - -Petters, Sunday W. - - 1976. Upper Cretaceous Subsurface Stratigraphy of Atlantic Coastal - Plain of New Jersey. _American Association of Petroleum - Geologists Bulletin_, 60(1):87-107, 7 figures. - -Rapp, William F., Jr. - - 1943. List of the Fossil Birds of New Jersey. _Journal of - Paleontology_, 17(1):124. - -Shufeldt, R.W. - - 1915. Fossil Birds in the Marsh Collection of Yale University. - _Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and - Sciences_, 19:1-109, 15 plates. - -Sibley, Charles G., and Jon E. Ahlquist - - 1972. A Comparative Study of the Egg White Proteins of - Non-Passerine Birds. _Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale - University, Bulletin_, 39:276 pages, 37 figures. - -Stephenson, L.W., P.B. King, W.H. Monroe, and R.W. Imlay - - 1942. Correlation of the Outcropping Cretaceous Formations of - the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain and Trans-Pecos, Texas. - _Geological Society of America Bulletin_, 53:435-448, 1 plate. - -Thulborn, Richard A., and Tim L. Hamley - - 1985. A New Palaeoecological Role for _Archaeopteryx_. _In_ M.K. - Hecht, J.H. Ostrom, G. Viohl, and P. Wellnhofer, editors, - _The Beginnings of Birds: Proceedings of the International - Archaeopteryx Conference Eichstätt 1984_, pages 81-89, 2 - figures. Eichstätt: Freunde des Jura-Museums. - -Vanuxem, Lardner - - 1829. Remark on the Characters and Classification of Certain Rock - Formations. _American Journal of Science_, 16:254-256. - -Wetmore, Alexander - - 1926. Fossil Birds from the Green River Deposits of Eastern Utah. - _Annals of the Carnegie Museum_, 16(3-4):391-402, plates 36-37. - - 1930. The Age of the Supposed Cretaceous Birds from New Jersey. - _Auk_, 47(2):186-188. - - 1940. A Check-list of the Fossil Birds of North America. - _Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections_, 99(4):1-81. - -☆ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1987-181-717/60004 - - - - -=REQUIREMENTS FOR SMITHSONIAN SERIES PUBLICATION= - - -=Manuscripts= intended for series publication receive substantive -review (conducted by their originating Smithsonian museums or offices) -and are submitted to the Smithsonian Institution Press with Form SI-36, -which must show the approval of the appropriate authority designated by -the sponsoring organizational unit. Requests for special treatment--use -of color, foldouts, case-bound covers, etc.--require, on the same form, -the added approval of the sponsoring authority. - -=Review= of manuscripts and art by the Press for requirements of series -format and style, completeness and clarity of copy, and arrangement of -all material, as outlined below, will govern, within the judgment of -the Press, acceptance or rejection of manuscripts and art. - -=Copy= must be prepared on typewriter or word processor, double-spaced, -on one side of standard white bond paper (not erasable), with 1¼" -margins, submitted as ribbon copy (not carbon or xerox), in loose -sheets (not stapled or bound), and accompanied by original art. Minimum -acceptable length is 30 pages. - -=Front matter= (preceding the text) should include: =title page= with -only title and author and no other information, =abstract page= with -author, title, series, etc., following the established format; table of -=contents= with indents reflecting the hierarchy of heads in the paper; -also, =foreword= and/or =preface=, if appropriate. - -=First page of text= should carry the title and author at the top -of the page; =second page= should have only the author's name and -professional mailing address, to be used as an unnumbered footnote on -the first page of printed text. - -=Center heads= of whatever level should be typed with initial caps of -major words, with extra space above and below the head, but no other -preparation (such as all caps or underline, except for the underline -necessary for generic and specific epithets). Run-in paragraph heads -should use period/dashes or colons as necessary. - -=Tabulations= within text (lists of data, often in parallel columns) -can be typed on the text page where they occur, but they should not -contain rules or numbered table captions. - -=Formal tables= (numbered, with captions, boxheads, stubs, rules) -should be submitted as carefully typed, double-spaced copy separate -from the text; they will be typeset unless otherwise requested. If -camera-copy use is anticipated, do not draw rules on manuscript copy. - -=Taxonomic keys= in natural history papers should use the -aligned-couplet form for zoology and may use the multi-level indent -form for botany. If cross referencing is required between key and text, -do not include page references within the key, but number the keyed-out -taxa, using the same numbers with their corresponding heads in the text. - -=Synonymy= in zoology must use the short form (taxon, author, -year:page), with full reference at the end of the paper under -“Literature Cited.” For botany, the long form (taxon, author, -abbreviated journal or book title, volume, page, year, with no -reference in “Literature Cited”) is optional. - -=Text-reference system= (author, year: page used within the text, with -full citation in “Literature Cited” at the end of the text) must be -used in place of bibliographic footnotes in all Contributions Series -and is strongly recommended in the Studies Series: “(Jones, 1910:122)" -or “...Jones (1910:122)." If bibliographic footnotes are required, use -the short form (author, brief title, page) with the full citation in -the bibliography. - -=Footnotes=, when few in number, whether annotative or bibliographic, -should be typed on separate sheets and inserted immediately after the -text pages on which the references occur. Extensive notes must be -gathered together and placed at the end of the text in a notes section. - -=Bibliography=, depending upon use, is termed “Literature Cited,” -"References," or "Bibliography.” Spell out titles of books, articles, -journals, and monographic series. For book and article titles use -sentence-style capitalization according to the rules of the language -employed (exception: capitalize all major words in English). For -journal and series titles, capitalize the initial word and all -subsequent words except articles, conjunctions, and prepositions. -Transliterate languages that use a non-Roman alphabet according to the -Library of Congress system. Underline (for italics) titles of journals -and series and titles of books that are not part of a series. Use the -parentheses/colon system for volume (number): pagination: “10(2):5-9,” -For alignment and arrangement of elements, follow the format of recent -publications in the series for which the manuscript is intended. -Guidelines for preparing bibliography may be secured from Series -Section, SI Press. - -=Legends= for illustrations must be submitted at the end of the -manuscript, with as many legends typed, double-spaced, to a page as -convenient. - -=Illustrations= must be submitted as original art (not copies) -accompanying, but separate from, the manuscript. Guidelines for -preparing art may be secured from Series Section, SI Press. Ail -types of illustrations (photographs, line drawings, maps, etc.) may -be intermixed throughout the printed text. They should be termed -=Figures= and should be numbered consecutively as they will appear in -the monograph. If several illustrations are treated as components of a -single composite figure, they should be designated by lowercase italic -letters on the illustration; also, in the legend and in text references -the italic letters (underlined in copy) should be used: “Figure 9b.” -Illustrations that are intended to follow the printed text may be -termed =Plates=, and any components should be similarly lettered and -referenced: “Plate 9b ” Keys to any symbols within an illustration -should appear on the art rather than in the legend. - -=Some points of style:= Do not use periods after such abbreviations -as “mm, ft, USNM, NNE.” Spell out numbers "one” through “nine” in -expository text, but use digits in all other cases if possible. -Use of the metric system of measurement is preferable; where use -of the English system is unavoidable, supply metric equivalents in -parentheses. Use the decimal system for precise measurements and -relationships, common fractions for approximations. Use day/month/year -sequence for dates: “9 April 1976." For months in tabular listings or -data sections, use three-letter abbreviations with no periods: “Jan, -Mar, Jun,” etc. Omit space between initials of a personal name: “J.B. -Jones.” - -=Arrange and paginate sequentially every sheet of manuscript= in the -following order: (1) title page, (2) abstract, (3) contents, (4) -foreword and/or preface, (5) text, (6) appendixes, (7) notes section, -(8) glossary, (9) bibliography, (10) legends, (11) tables. Index copy -may be submitted at page proof stage, but plans for an index should be -indicated when manuscript is submitted. - - - * * * * * - - - -Transcriber Note - -The caption for Figure 4 was moved to the page that the figure is on. -The species _Graculavus pumilis_ appears to have been mistyped in three -locations as _Graculavus pumilus_ and were corrected. - - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CRETACEOUS BIRDS OF NEW -JERSEY *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |