GenusTelmatornisMarsh, 1870
Type-Species.—Telmatornis priscusMarsh, 1870, by subsequent designation (Hay, 1902:528).
Included Species.—Type species only.
Figures5b-j, 6c,e,g, 7a,d,g,j,n
Telmatornis priscusMarsh, 1870:210.Telmatornis affinisMarsh, 1870:211.Graculavus pumilisMarsh, 1872:364.?Palaeotringa vetusMarsh, 1870:209.
Holotype.—Distal end of left humerus (Figure 5e,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 5f,g), YPM 845 (holotype ofTelmatornis affinisMarsh 1870); same data as holotype ofT. priscus.
Proximal end of right humerus (Figure 5b-d), YPM 850, with distal end of right carpometacarpus (Figure 5i) and several fragments of shafts of long bones apparently associated (holotypical material ofGraculavus pumilisMarsh, 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 7n), ANSP 13361 (holotype ofPalaeotringa 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 6c,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 7d,g,j), NJSM 11853; collected 27 March 1975 by David C. Parris from the main fossiliferous layer of the Inversand Company marl pit.
Figure 5.—Wing elements ofBurhinusandTelmatornis.a,Burhinus vermiculatus(USNM 488870), proximal end of right humerus, anconal view,b-d, Telmatornis priscus (holotype ofGraculavus 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 ofTelmatornis 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.)
Figure 5.—Wing elements ofBurhinusandTelmatornis.a,Burhinus vermiculatus(USNM 488870), proximal end of right humerus, anconal view,b-d, Telmatornis priscus (holotype ofGraculavus 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 ofTelmatornis 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.)
Figure 6.—Humeri ofAnatalavis, new genus, andTelmatornis.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.)
Figure 6.—Humeri ofAnatalavis, new genus, andTelmatornis.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.)
Figure 7.—Hindlimb elements.a,b, Right pedal phalanx 1 of digit II (a,Telmatornis priscus, ANSP 15541;b,Presbyornissp., USNM uncatalogued; part of associated foot),c-k, Distal end of left tarsometatarsus, anterior, posterior, and distal views, respectively (c,f,i,Presbyornissp., 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 ofP. vetus, ANSP 13361). (All figures × 2; specimens coated with ammonium chloride to enhance detail.)
Figure 7.—Hindlimb elements.a,b, Right pedal phalanx 1 of digit II (a,Telmatornis priscus, ANSP 15541;b,Presbyornissp., USNM uncatalogued; part of associated foot),c-k, Distal end of left tarsometatarsus, anterior, posterior, and distal views, respectively (c,f,i,Presbyornissp., 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 ofP. vetus, ANSP 13361). (All figures × 2; specimens coated with ammonium chloride to enhance detail.)
Right pedal phalanx 1 of digit II (Figure 7a), ANSP 15541; collected in 1972 by Richard White at the Inversand Company marl pit.
Proximal end of right ulna (Figure 5j), 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 namePalaeotringa 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 ofTelmatornis priscusandT. affinis. Marsh (1870) did not clearly placeTelmatorniswith 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 thatTelmatorniswas 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) maintainedTelmatornisas 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 synonymizedT. affiniswithT. priscusand created a new family, Telmatornithidae, forT. priscusandT. rex.
We concur in synonymizingT. affiniswithT. priscus. The holotypes and the new specimen of humerus (ANSP 15360), which is instructive in that it preserves much more of the shaft (Figure 6c), are indeed very similar to the humeri in the Burhinidae. In size they are closely comparable to the small living speciesBurhinus vermiculatus(cf.Figure 6g,h). The fossils differ fromBurhinusin 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 ofTelmatornisis similar to that inPresbyornisbut 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 ofGraculavus pumiliswas considered by Shufeldt (1915:19) definitely to be from a limicoline charadriiform. It is from a bird exactly the size ofTelmatornis priscusand its coloration and preservation would not be incompatible with its being the opposite end of the same bone as the holotype ofT. affinis(Figure 5b,c,f,g). The following differences between the holotypical humeri ofG. veloxand _"G." pumilisestablish that these belong to different genera: (1) inveloxthe 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 inpumilis; (4) the ventral tubercle in ventral view is much more produced inveloxthan inpumilis.
The holotype ofG. pumilisis very similar to the humerus in the Burhinidae but differs from that family and agrees withGraculavusin 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 fromPresbyornismainly in lacking the excavation to and undercutting the head. Because pumilis is not congeneric withGraculavus veloxand because of its size and similarities with the Burhinidae andPresbyornis, we have no hesitation about considering Graculavus pumilis Marsh, 1872, to be a junior subjective synonym ofTelmatornis priscusMarsh, 1870.
The proximal end of an ulna, NJSM 11900 (Figure 5j), is from a bird the size ofBurhinus vermiculatusand 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 ofG. pumilis(Figure 5i) is slightly larger and more robust than inBurhinus vermiculatus, but notso much as to be incompatible withT. priscus. Compared toBurhinus(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 inPresbyornis.
The three specimens ofPalaeotringaMarsh from the Cretaceous of New Jersey are based on poorly preserved distal ends of tibiotarsi. The holotype ofPalaeotringa vetusMarsh, 1870 (Figure 7n) is similar in size to the comparable element inBurhinus vermiculatus, though with a relatively more slender shaft, and hence is from a bird the size ofT. priscus, being smaller than any of the other species ofPalaeotringa. It is more similar toPresbyornisthan toBurhinus. Because it is from a charadriiform the size ofT. priscus, as first revisers we tentatively considerPalaeotringa vetusMarsh, 1870, to be a subjective synonym ofTelmatornis priscusMarsh, 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 ofPalaeotringa 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 genusScolopax(Charadriiformes: Scolopacidae).
The distal portion of tarsometatarsus NJSM 11853 (Figure 7d,g,f) is unfortunately quite abraded. It is from a small charadriiform and has a shaft width about the same as inBurhinus vermiculatus. If this fossil came from an individual ofTelmatornis priscus, as we assume,T. priscusbeing 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 withPresbyornisin 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 inBurhinusbut (2) not nearly as elevated and retracted as inPresbyornis.
Pedal phalanx ANSP 15541 (Figure 7a) is from a bird the size ofT. priscus. This specimen is much longer and more slender than phalanx 1 of digit II inBurhinus vermiculatusbut has almost exactly the shape and proportions of the same element inPresbyornis(Figure 7b), although being much smaller. Although its assignment toTelmatornisis 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.