GenusPalaeotringaMarsh, 1870

Type-Species.—Palaeotringa littoralisMarsh, 1870; by subsequent designation (Hay, 1902:527).

Included Species.—Palaeotringa littoralisMarsh, 1870, andPalaeotringa vagansMarsh, 1872.

Figure7l

Palaeotringa littoralisMarsh, 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 ofP. vagansare too fragmentary for useful comparison. Both have the foramen in the groove for M. peroneus brevis, mentioned above. Their overall similarity toPresbyornisand to charadriiform birds in general justifies retaining them with the other "graculavids" but other than this little else can be said. In size,Palaeotringa littoraliswould have been about equal toBurhinus bistriatus vociferand smaller thanEsacus magnirostris. Hence it would seem to be too small to belong to the same species asGraculavus veloxand is definitely too large to be referable toTelmatornis priscus.

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 inPresbyornissp., UW BQ305:a,b, anterior views;c,d, lateral views (note large foramen in peroneus brevis groove ofLaornis);e,f, distal views. (a,c,e, × 1.5,b,d,f, × 4; specimens coated with ammonium chloride to enhance detail.)

Figure9a

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 ofTelmatornisorAnatalavisto warrant its generic separation from them. In size it is about equal to the modern formBurhinus bistriatus vociferand hence would be compatible withP. littoralis. It differs fromTelmatornis,Anatalavis, orPresbyornis, and is more similar toBurhinusin 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, althoughPresbyornisis more similar in this respect than the others. In distal view the specimen is more similar toPresbyornisthan to the other Cretaceous humeri, although (3) the olecranal fossa is shallower. If this specimen is correctly referred toPalaeotringa, it shows that genus to be distinct from any of the others yet known in the fauna except possiblyGraculavus, for which the distal end of the humerus is unknown.

Figure7m

Palaeotringa vagansMarsh, 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 thanP. littoralisand larger thanP. vetus(=Telmatornis priscus). It differs from the latter and agrees withP. littoralisin having the distal tendinal opening of a flattened oval shape, rather than decidedly rounded. If we have correctly referredP. vetustoTelmatornis priscus, then it is certain that neither of the other two species ofPalaeotringacan be referred toTelmatornis. InP. vagansthe tendinal groove appears to be much narrower and the bridge much deeper than inP. 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 speciesP. vaganscan be retained as it is smaller than any of the other graculavids in the fauna exceptT. priscus, from which it is generically distinct.

Figure9b,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.

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 exceptLaornis edvardsianus, which was much larger still. In size this bird would have approximated the modern flamingoPhoeniconaias 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 possiblyGraculavus, for which comparable elements are unknown.

Back to Index Next