Park Paleontology, Winter 1998  Page 1

PARK

PALEONTOLOGY

Volume 4, No. 1 Winter 1998

Badlands National Park is in the

process of coordinating the

Fifth Conference on Fossil Resources to be held in Rapid City, South

Dakota, October 1316, 1998. The

park will be working in partnership

with the United States Forest Service,

the Bureau of Land Management, the

State of South Dakota, the North Dakota Geological Survey and the United

States Geological Survey.

Fossil resource conferences stem

from a tradition which began in the

Park Service in 1986 and has expanded

over the years to include other federal

and state agencies. These conferences

have been a part of a larger picture, promoting increased levels of communication and educating participants to

changes in the management and protection of fossil resources on federal

lands. The lack of adequate and specific federal legislation relating to fossil protection has left land managers

with little guidance and limited sources

of funding to support paleontological

resource programs. We hope to continue these discussions and to encourage the support and participation of interested senior management staff.

The overall goals for the 1998 conference include discussions and presentations involving public outreach

and education, scientific research, the

use of technology in documenting fossil resources, paleontological conservation and interactive discussions on

paleontology and the public trust. We

have learned that the best way to keep

land managers abreast of important paleontological issues is to provide a forum for discussion and the exchange

of ideas.

The final product generated from

the conference will include a set of proceedings published through the South

Dakota School of Mines and Technology, peer reviewed journal: Dakoterra.

The first announcement for the conference was sent out at the end of November, 1997. Please contact Rachel

Benton at Badlands National Park

(605) 433-5261 for more

information.n

1998 Paleontological

Resources Conference

Rachel Benton

Badlands National Monument

NPS

Fossil

Resources

Invitation for

contributions

Park Paleontology newsletter is

back! To keep it fresh and informative we would like to hear

from you. If you have paleontological

news relevant to the national parks

please write a few paragraphs and send

to:

Vince Santucci

Fossil Butte National Monument

P.O. Box 592

Kemmerer, WY 83101

VINCENT_SANTUCCI@nps.gov

Park Paleontologys schedule is

quarterly. The spring issue is planned

for publication in April, 1998. Written opinions regarding the Fossil Forum topic are also welcomed.n

Table of Contents

1998 Paleo Resource Conference ................... 1

Invitation for contributions ............................. 1

Something to whistle about ............................ 2

Hagerman Fossil Beds .................................... 3

New fossil plant localities in Yellowstone ..... 3

Disneyworld displays Grand Canyon fossils .. 4

Colorado NM plans paleo survey ................... 4

Denali terranes ................................................ 4

Fossil flora from Mt. Dall, Denali .................. 4

FOSSIL FORUM ............................................ 5
Page 2  Park Paleontology, Winter 1998

I

n these times of downsizing, it is

hard to find a success story. We

have found not only success, but a

reason to celebrate! This October

marks the passage into the third year

of the Geologist-in-the-Parks Program.

This program is one of the most promising programs in the National Park

Service (NPS). While it will not accomplish all of the geology needs of

the NPS, it is certainly a badly needed

shot in the arm. The

program has experienced an impressive

(some might say explosive) growth rate.

Because of its increasing accomplishments in park geology, the program

appears to have a much greater growth

potential. The following is a quick

overview of the program and how it is

helping accomplish a number of paleontological projects in our national

parks.

The National Park Service has

been noting the need for more geologists for quite some time. Over 200

parks within the National Park Service

are in need of geologic expertise. Currently, the NPS estimates that hundreds

of geologists would be needed to manage its geologic resources, and this

does not include the NPS research and

education needs. The Geologic Resources Division, created in 1996,

searched for innovative ways to start

addressing these geologic needs.

Among other programs, the Division

created the Geologist-in-the-Parks Program (GIP). The Program began with

simply a Web page to advertise the seasonal, temporary, and volunteer positions, where parks identified a desire

to fill these positions with geologists.

Then, we began the work of examining individual park needs, creating

partnerships with professional geology

societies to help fund positions, as well

as searching for matching funds. The

societies are beginning to get on board.

Most of their assistance to date has been

in the form of providing funds for stipends.

Whether we are simply helping a

park to find a qualified geologist or we

are helping fund a stipend, everyone involved is pleased, and the program continues to grow in popularity. In two

years, we have

jumped from placing 6 geologists to

placing 36 geologists. It is highly

likely that the number will be even

greater this year. Part of that is due to

the fulfillment of the needs of all parties. The partners like the recognition

of helping national parks. The program fills a students need for experience and a professionals dream of

someday helping a national park. Parks

proclaim that the greatest benefit to the

NPS is the amount of high quality work

that has been accomplished, including

that in the field of paleontology.

Parks that have used the GIP to accomplish paleontological projects include Denali, Badlands, Fossil Butte,

Florissant Fossil Beds, Pictured Rocks,

and Zion. Park staff were grateful to

the participants and the program and

noted that the work could not have gotten done without this help. Last summer, the eleven GIP participants involved in paleontology were able to do

the following:

 update the organization of museum

fossils;

 perform hundreds of hours of fossil preparation;

 greatly diminish a backlog of museum cataloging work;

 assist in research and resource

management (documentation and

collection) of a rich fossil site,;

 synthesize existing literature and

provide the information necessary

to update park interpretation;

 create interpretive exhibits;

 create interpretive traveling trunks

focused on fossils of the park;

 write audio visual scripts;

 present campfire talks and interpretive walks;

 write handbooks and trail guides,

 assist in research (catalog and photograph sites) to identify fossil locations and age;

 document and mark fossil sites via

global positioning system (GPS);

 create a paleontological database

to help track location and age of

fossils;

 assist in monitoring erosion rates

at sites;

 document which fossils in a

universitys collection originated

in the park;

 interpret a dig site to the public,

thereby freeing the researchers to

continue their work uninterrupted;

 interpret and illustrate geologic

history, allowing visitors to see

that prehistoric ecosystem.

More paleontological work will be

done this year. The Division is currently examining proposals for this

years funding. We will post a parks

ad to the GIP Web site at any time of

the year. You are invited to explore

the Web site, located at http://

www.aqd.nps.gov/natnet/grd/geojob/

geojob.htm . If you have questions,

concerns, or ideas that you would like

to share with the Geologic Resources

Division regarding the GIP Program,

please feel free to contact the program

coordinators:

Judy Geniac

(303) 969-2015

judy_geniac@nps.gov

Diann Gese

(303) 969-2011

diann_gese@nps.gov n

Something to whistle about, while we work

Judy Geniac

NPS - GRD

We have found not

only success, but a

reason to celebrate!
Park Paleontology, Winter 1998  Page 3

After a hiatus of 29 years a new

excavation at the Hagerman

Horse Quarry was initiated in

May 1997 thanks to a grant from

Canon U.S.A. and the National Parks

Foundation through their Expedition

Into the Parks program. Initially

opened in 1929 by crews from the

Smithsonian under the direction of

James W. Gidley and later excavated

by other museums and universities, the

Horse Quarry has proven to be the largest single sample of the earliest species of the modern horse genus Equus,

Equus simplicidens. While previous

research at the quarry has focused on

recovering the remains of the horse

(actually more like a zebra than a

horse) this new excavation was designed to learn more about the sediments, depositional history and

taphonomy of the site, which in turn

can provide more information on the

ecology of this pivotal species in horse

evolution. One of the ultimate goals

of the project is to determine why so

many individuals of this zebra-like

horse are preserved in one spot. Examination of other collections coupled

with the 24 skulls recovered this last

summer puts the minimum number of

individuals at 200. In addition to skulls

and jaws all parts of the rest of the skeleton were also recovered.

Based on their work at the quarry

the Smithsonians interpretation was

that it represented a water hole and the

large number of horse remains represented a long term accumulation.

However, study of skulls and jaws in

the Smithsonian and other collections

indicates a population structure suggestive of a single catastrophic death assemblage. Study of the sediments this

summer indicated not a waterhole but

rather a river system. However, this

was not a river with sufficient depth or

current strength to drown a herd crossing it as first supposed.

In order to accommodate our new

data we now feel

that two separate

events took place.

First, what caused

the death of the

horses? Although we cannot be absolutely sure at this stage we are presently using a drought to account for

this. As this broad shallow river dried,

water would be left in the deeper parts

of the channel. Horses would be drawn

to this remaining water and the high

concentration of individuals would eat

all the surrounding vegetation, eventually starving. The carcasses lay on

the dried bottom of the channel and decomposed. Later, the rains came and

refilled the channel with the water

moving the bones around and burying

them. But the current was not so strong

that it removed any bones from the

death assemblage, it only moved them

about a little.

While we have direct evidence for

the second phase of this scenario, we

need more information to be really sure about

the first. Certainly one can

come up with other explanations to account for a lot of horses of all ages

dying in one spot, such as a disease.

However, getting good evidence out of

the fossil record to support this interpretation or our preferred one is more

challenging and will take more work.

In many ways work at the site is similar to the story of the blind men and

the elephant, the Smithsonian, and

other workers and now Hagerman Fossils Beds have each had a part of the

story, perhaps eventually we will get

enough information to really figure out

what happened.n

Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument

renews excavations at Hagerman Horse Quarry

H. Gregory McDonald

Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument

Two new fossil plant localities

were recently discovered in Late

Cretaceous deposits in

Yellowstone National Park. Preliminary field work at these localities has

revealed fossils of fern, willow (Salix

sp.) and other deciduous broadleaf

plants. Some of the leaves exhibited

plant animal interaction in the form of

possible insect damage.

The sites were discovered in 1997

by Bianca Cortez, a member of the

Yellowstone Paleontological Survey

field crew. The survey team initiated

work in Yellowstone during 1996. Dozens of fossil localities have been recorded within the park. Cambrian trilobites, a Cretaceous marine reptile and

Tertiary plant fossils are some of the

more interesting discoveries. A summary of the work related to the

Yellowstone Paleontological Survey

will be published early in 1998.

The new fossil plant material from

Yellowstone will improve our understanding and ability to interpret the Late

Cretaceous geology and paleoecology

of the area.n

New fossil plant localities discovered in

Yellowstone National Park

staff writer

“First, what caused the

death of the horses?”
Page 4  Park Paleontology, Winter 1998

Colorado National Monument

consists of 32 square miles of

land adjacent to some of the

richest Mesozoic fossil localities in the

United States. The Chinle, Wingate,

Kayenta, Morrison and other formations are well exposed within the

boundaries of the monument. Plans for

initiating a paleontological survey of

Colorado National Monument were developed in 1997.

The Colorado National Monument

Paleontological Survey will assemble

a team of paleontologists from the National Park Service, the Museum of

Western Colorado and Dinamation International Society. Field inventories

are planned for the summer of 1998.n

Disney World displays

Grand Canyon fossils

staff writer

The geology and paleontology of

Grand Canyon National Park are

captured in the design and

exhibitry of the Wilderness Lodge Resort in Walt Disney World, Florida.

Visitors to the rustic resort can search

for fossils in the 82 foot tall stone fireplace. Colorful rock layers reflecting

the strata of the Grand Canyon are incorporated in the three-sided fireplace.

The geologic

tour begins at the

lobby level with a

rich blue-black formation representing

the Vishnu Schist.

The oldest fossils at Grand Canyon are

stromatolites and examples can be seen

in the Bass Limestone layers. The

Redwall and Temple Butte limestones

are exposed at the fifth floor level and

contain a variety of marine fossils. On

the seventh floor, fossil clams are embedded in the Kaibab Limestone strata.

Display cases containing Grand Canyon

fossils can be found in various corridors

of the Wilderness Lodge.n

The geologic history of most of

Alaska has been relegated to the

accretionary terrane model

since the late 1970s, when it was postulated that exotic, or suspect terranes may have been transported from

southerly latitudes by Pacific plate migration to create present-day Alaskan

geography. This plate tectonic model

correlates strata from various locations

of the west coast of North America

with rocks in Denali National Park and

other central Alaskan locations, by

stratigraphic sequence, fossil assemblage, and some paleomagnetic evidence. Over 50 terranes have been described in Alaska, with up to 10 of

those making up Denali, and 7 or 8 of

those suspected of having origins in

more southerly locations, including

portions of Paleozoic and Mesozoic

California, Nevada, Idaho and other

lower 48 states.

Recent paleontological work in

Denali National Park and Preserve, and

adjacent locations in central Alaska

suggest that the southerly tectonic

transport model may not support all the

usual terrane suspects. Early to MidPaleozoic marine invertebrate specimens, including up to 30 species of

brachiopods, 9 corals, 14 conodonts,

and various bivalves, gastropods and

trilobites collected from the Mystic,

and Nixon Fork, (or Farewell) terranes,

imply closer affinities with Siberian

Russia. Other work on biogeographical data along the southern boundary

of the park in the Chulitna terrane preliminarily suggests moderate to high

latitudes in Permian time (possibly

northern Canada), with some possible

southerly migration to tropical climes

by Late Triassic time. The origin of

these terranes was formerly considered

to be in southern equatorial regions,

with all northerly translations having

occurred by the latest Mesozoic or

early Tertiary time.

It is hoped that additional work by

various specialists (brachiopods, Robert Blodgett and Michael Sandy; corals and spongiomorphs, George

Stanley; and bivalves, Chris

McRoberts) will further sort out this

paleogeographic identity crisis of

Denali National Park and Preserve and

surrounding areas.n

The only known Permian flora in

Alaska was identified by Serg

Mamay and Bruce Reed

(USGS) in 1984, from a site located

on Mt. Dall, a 8756 ft. peak in western

Denali National Park and Preserve.

Discovery of the Permian flora was

made during a regional geologic mapping effort of the 1:250,000 Talkeetna

Quadrangle by the USGS, and essentially no stratigraphic detail was recorded regarding the fossil occurrence

during that project.

Those details may now be revealed

by Steve Nelson, University of Alaska,

Denali terranesfrom here, there,

and everywhere

Phil Brease

Denali National Park and Preserve

Fossil flora from Mt. Dall, Denali

Phil Brease

Denali National Park and Preserve

Anchorage, Dwight Bradley, USGS

Anchorage, and Phil Brease, NPS,

Denali Park, in a proposed project

aimed at re-collecting the specimens,

measuring the stratigraphic section(s),

and otherwise determining their stratigraphic distribution.

Interestingly, similar Zamiopterids

are only found in Angaraland, an area

of Precambrian rocks in north central

Siberia. This project, with fieldwork

slated to begin this summer, may further reinforce the notion of a Paleozoic

Russian connection with Alaska.n

Colorado NM plans

 paleo survey

staff writer
Park Paleontology, Winter 1998  Page 5

Paleontology is unquestionably an

established and recognized scientific discipline. Professional

paleontologists have become highly

specialized and employ a wide range of

scientific methodologies in pursuit of

data. Research into the functional morphology of ancient organisms, the physics of tetrapod locomotion, the development of extinction models, the application of molecular biology in systematics, comparative bone histology, and

other practices are certainly based upon

the scientific method.

What common denominator unifies

all of the diverse fields within paleontology? The answer is clearly - FOSSILS. However, a close examination

of the use of the word fossil in modern

society demonstrates that the definition

of a fossil is less than scientific.

As an interpretive theme, What is

a fossil? is commonly presented in museum exhibits, educational activities,

natural history programming, books,

media, and so forth. Each individual

has their own perception of a fossil. To

many children the word fossil means dinosaur. To a ranger at Petrified Forest

National Park, a fossil may be something that visitors occasionally collect

illegally. To a commercial dealer a fossil may mean $$$$. Grandma sometimes even calls grandpa a fossil! What

variables should be included in a scientific definition of a fossil? Likewise,

what variables should be omitted from

the definition?

To begin on some common ground,

it is widely accepted that a fossil is evidence of life. This includes the physical components of the biological organism (e.g., leaves and teeth) or some indication of biological activity (e.g., footprints and burrows).

The term fossil has been inappropriately applied to geologic features

such as fossil sand dunes or fossil

ripple marks. Although these descriptions have become commonly accepted,

this usage adds to the subtle consternation that exists in the use of the word

fossil.

Another area of confusion comes

with the use of the word fossilization.

To some the word fossilization is synonymous with the word petrification.

Both words denote a process. The word

fossilization implies some process, transition or metamorphosis in the development of a fossil. Essentially, if the

definition of the word fossilization is

limited to represent some type of preservation, then, perhaps, the ambiguity

associated with its definition would be

reduced.

The preservation aspect of a fossil

needs further analyzing. Perhaps the

concept, I am, therefore I exist could

be applied directly towards limiting our

definition of a fossil. For a fossil to be

a fossil it must exist, and therefore, it

must be preserved in some form or state.

It should be noted that the use of the

words preserve and preservation does

not necessitate mineral replacement or

chemical alteration.

Does the degree or mode of preservation need to be incorporated into the

definition of a fossil? Do the remains

from the past need to be chemically replaced, recrystallized or turned to stone

(petrified) in order to be accepted as a

fossil? Indeed, we can answer No to

both of these questions. The fossil

record includes many examples of unaltered animal and plant remains. Conversely, are the bones of a coyote that

fell into a Yellowstone hot spring a few

years ago fossils? The mineral-rich waters of the hot spring promote rapid mineralization of recent bones. In some

cases, these recently trapped bones

show a higher degree of mineralization

than do some bones that are millions of

years old. The fact that a fossil simply

exists and is therefore preserved is more

meaningful in defining a fossil than the

degree or mode of preservation.

The word subfossil appears in scientific publications. What does this

mean? Perhaps it means small fossils,

or material incompletely fossilized, or

something beneath/below the fossil.

There are two common uses of the term

subfossil. The first is in reference to

the degree of preservation. It suggests

a low level of mineralization. The second use is common when references

are made to remains of life from the

Holocene. This use of subfossil is related to the acceptance of the idea that

a fossil must be from a previous time

period. Subfossil is a term that is used

inconsistently and its ambiguity hinders

the ability to rigorously define the term

fossil.

Definitions of the term fossil that

incorporate a time reference or date result in interpretations that are unscientific. Many sources have presented a

definition that indicate a specimen must

be older than 10,000 years, or from a

previous geologic time period to qualify

as a fossil. Establishing a boundary or

date may make classification easy, but

do they make real scientific sense?

Shall biological remains that only

date to 9,000 years old be discriminated

against? Are they forbidden space in

the paleo cabinets because they fall short

of the 10,000 year boundary? Haste

should not be taken to replace those remains with fossils, however, because

in a thousand years they will be recognized as a fossil, too.

Likewise, what is significant about

defining a fossil through its occurrence

in a past geologic time period? These

boundaries are drawn by humans. What

intrinsic relationship do these boundaries have with recognizing whether

biological remains are fossils?

Are the Wrangell Island mammoths

Definition of a fossil

Vincent L. Santucci

Fossil Butte National Monument

FOSSIL FORUM
Page 6  Park Paleontology, Winter 1998

to be excluded from being recognized

as fossils? In the late 1980s the remains

of mammoths were discovered in the

Russian Arctic. These mammoths from

the Wrangell Islands underwent exhaustive research. Scientists from St. Petersburg established isotopic dates of

4,000 years B.P. for the mammoth remains. This work was confirmed independently by other researchers. Does

this data support a definition of a fossil

which includes a reference to a particular date or time period?

 If the definition of a fossil is free of

time association, then what are the limits defining a fossil? Is there rational

for including extinction as a criterion

in the definition of a fossil? A cursory

look at the fossil record indicates that

there is no basis for including extinction as a criterion. For example, the

extant genus Lingula extends back to

the Cambrian. Whereas, there are

many species of plants and animals that

have succumbed to extinction within the

last century. There does not seem to be

a unified taxonomic component suitable

for inclusion as a criterion in the definition of a fossil.

What, then, is a scientifically sound

definition for a fossil? Government protocols may be useful. An acronym

could be developed, perhaps

F.O.S.S.I.L. (Fairly Old Stone-like

Specimen Indicating Life). It is apparent, however, that this approach is still

not scientifically sound.

What about this:

Fossil: evidence of life preserved in a geological

context.

Does this definition have a more

rigorous scientific basis? Including

geological context may be the component that helps to resolve some of the

gray areas existing in the current definition. Geological context helps to differentiate a fossil from fresh roadkill

along the highway. Placing biological

remains in a geologic context seems

more congruent with the actual scope

of paleontology than to reference a relative time marker or a degree of preservation.

This topic was not presented to be

dogmatic. Nor was it presented to be

adversarial. On the contrary, FOSSIL

FORUM is designed as a means to generate meaningful discussions between

the few of us that manage and care for

fossils on public lands. Perhaps an underlying question raised here is Does

the National Park Service provide consistency in our interpretation of paleontological resources?

As a final note, we have come to

learn in the science of paleontology that

our knowledge of the history of life is

only as good as our previous field season. Lets work together and discuss

topics such as Definition of a Fossil so

we will be better able to facilitate the

highest level of understanding in our

educational and interpretive

programming.n

Park Paleontology

c/o Fossil Butte NM

P.O. Box 592

Kemmerer, WY 83101