In detail:1) How do Fossils Superpose?, 2) Searching for the Cretaceous Fauna (with appendix on Karoo, Beaufort), 3) What I think I have refuted, 4) Glenn Morton caught abusing words other people were taught as very small children
In debate or otherwise on Assorted Retorts: 1) ... on How Fossils Matter , 2) ... on Steno and Lifespan and Fossil Finds, 3) Geological Column NOT Palaeontolical [Censored by CMI-Creation-Station? Or just by the Library I am in?], 4) Same Debate Uncensored, One Step Further, 5) Continuing debate with Howard F on Geology / Palaeontology, 6) Howard F tries twice again ... , 7) Is Howard F getting tired? Because up to now, he has failed., 8) Resuming Debate with Howard F
On Correspondence blog: Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils
- Howard F
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl You said " never ever did I find Permian holotypes under Triassic or Lower Jurassic ones.
Now, I did write the South African Geological association to ask them if I got anything wrong, but have so far got no answer."
There are very few holotypes. Each species has one, but there may be many more thousands of fossils of that species, so searching for holotype examples is not very useful. And writing anyone is a waste of their time since all the data you want is in the journals. Just pay the $25 to download the article (or whatever it costs) or pay the subscription, or find a university library with a subscription.
The Karoo is, indeed, a very large area, but the contact between the Perm and Triassic occurs over a small area. I don't know why 45 degrees is important to you. Even the Grand Canyon is less steep (on average) than that. There are very few places on earth where that angle is maintained for any more than about 500 ft vertical. The Karoo is a fine example of where Dinos are stratigraphically and vertically above Pelycosaurs.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Just pay the $25 to download the article (or whatever it costs) or pay the subscription, or find a university library with a subscription."
Sorry, broke and homeless.
"The Karoo is, indeed, a very large area, but the contact between the Perm and Triassic occurs over a small area."
THEN it should be a piece of cake for you to tell me exactly what if not holotype at least referred specimen of a pelycosaur (ideally as distinctive as Dimetrodon, I think I found only Varanops there, and I haven't yet been able to check whether Varanops could feasably be - with Six Day Creation and Flood Geology as opposed to evolutionary scenario - simply a Varan) directly under if not a holotype at least a referred specimen of a dinosaur.
[Underlined because he will answer the sentence in a truncated form which disfigures its grammatical structure. The both pieces will be underlined below as well.]
So far you have not done so.
"I don't know why 45 degrees is important to you. Even the Grand Canyon is less steep (on average) than that. There are very few places on earth where that angle is maintained for any more than about 500 ft vertical."
Because for me two places below and above near surface of a very steep hill do NOT count.
What counts is same hole dug deeper.
If both finds are near surface and the "verticality" refers to the vertical dimension of the rock's steepness, rather than to a vertical only - or perhaps slightly displaced (hence 45°) - relation, then the relation is topologically speaking horizontal and could go back to a horizontal relation between them at Flood event.
"The Karoo is a fine example of where Dinos are stratigraphically and vertically above Pelycosaurs."
As you describe it, sounds too little vertical for me.
But if this were so, and the area where Permian and Triassic overlap - Beaufort, right? - is small, why not show an example where same assemblage zone and same hole in it yielded a Triassic but not Permian animal on top and a Permian but not Triassic animal further down?
Thing as, these assemblage zones are even smaller areas than Beaufort. Now, I have found NO assemblage zone which was BOTH Permian AND Triassic.
If you mean that there is a local place where one of the Permian assemblage zones goes down under one of the Triassic ones, so that two actual palaeontological assemblage zones of fossils rather than just two rock layers are physically overlapping - where?
And what two critters?
Take a look at the pelycosaur of Karoo:
Palaeocritti : Heleosaurus scholtzi
"Synapsida Eupelycosauria Varanopseidae"
Eupelycosaur, should be very clear it's a pelycosaur and nothing else, right?
Well, take another look at how obvious this is:
"Originally thought to be a diapsid reptile."
When was reclassification made?
"Reisz, R. R. & Modesto, S. P. 2007. Heleosaurus scholtzi from the Permian of South Africa: a varanopid synapsid, not a diapsid reptile. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 27 (3): 734-739."
Oh, as late as 2007? Maybe need to find pelycosaurs under dinos or sth?
But of course the fossil should remain every doubt, shouldn't it?
"Remains Partial skeleton missing tail and most of the limbs."
NOTE, this is NOT about JUST the Heleosaurus of Karoo, it mean this Heleosaurus of Karoo is the ONLY Heleosaurus (at least at present so classified right now) in the world. It's the holotype, if you can have a holotype without referred specimens.
Because, in the case when there are more than one skeleton palaeocritti says so.
Palaeocritti : Antetonitrus ingenipes
Antetonitrus ingenipes has TWO skeletons. One holotype and one referred specimen:
"Holotype (BP/1/4952): partially articulated skeleton (vertebrae, ribs, partial forelimbs and hindlimbs) Referred specimens: BP/1/4952b (some isolated bones)."
And neither of these is from above the Heleosaurus, which, as you will have seen was from Abrahamskraal. Instead they are from:
"Locality: farms Welbedacht-Edelweiss, Ladybrand district, Free State, South Africa."
Now, I go back to Abrahamskraal by doing a search on palaeocritti.
I find five items, five pages listing it, two of which are South Africa (where some critters come from Abrahamskraal) and Capitanian, which is Mid Permian.
The other three are: Heleosaurus scholtzi, Hipposaurus boonstrai, Styracocephalus platyrhynchus.
The first was already mentioned and linked to.
The other two are not exactly pelycosaurs, but have a look:
Palaeocritti : Hipposaurus boonstrai
Hipposaurus is a small primitive biarmosuchian therapsid from the Middle Permian of South Africa which was originally thought to be a gorgonopsid.
This one has THREE specimens:
Holotype (SAM 8950): Complete skeleton.
Referred materials: SAM 9081 (distorted skull and postcranial elements, type of H. major); CGP/1/66 (Skull).
And yes, this is Horizon: Tapinocephalus zone, Abrahamskraal Fm, Beaufort Group, Middle Permian (Capitanian). Type locality: Klein-Koedoeskops in the Beaufort West district, South Africa.
How many Triassic fossils have you come across in Klein-Koedoeskops? I'll search palaeocritti: 1 hit, ONLY hipposaurus is mentioned. But OK, to give you some leeway, there might just theoretically be a layer of Triassic fossils in Klein-Koedoeskops above the Permian ones or Permian one, just that all specimens there are referred specimens. Palaeocritti only lists locality of holotype, so called type locality.
Now, there was another little fellow from Abrahamskraal too. Also no pelycosaur, but ...
Palaeocritti : Styracocephalus platyrhynchus
"Originally described based on a badly preserved skull, the exact affinities of this South African therapsid was unclear until new materials were found. It is now thought to be an unusual primitive tapinocephalian."
Hence perhaps Tapinocaphalus assemblage zone, right?
Now, the Styracocephalus has a few more specimens. Not all from Abrahamskraal.
But none of them a complete skeleton, by the way.
Holotype (SAM 8936): dorsoventrally compressed skull with greater portion of left ramus of lower jaw.
Referred specimens: SAM K8071 (occiput with portions of skull roof and basicranium); SAM 9346 (Posterior portion of skull roof and separate portion with heeled incisor teeth); SAM K364 (Posterior portion of skull roof); SAM 12201 (Portion of skull roof); SAM 12187 (Posterior portion of skull roof); SAM 12181 (Posterior portion of skull roof with right ‘horn’); SAM 12215 (skull roof with horns preserved, and other skull fragments); BP/1/5433 (Posterior portion of skull roof with left ‘horn’); BP/1/5428 (Fragmentary pieces of skull roof); BP/1/5485 (Portion of skull roof).
11 witnesses to the skull form. Everything below neck reconstructed by comparison with better preserved critters of similar but not identical skull shape. What are the localities?
Horizon: Tapinocephalus assemblage zone, Middle Permian (Capitanian). Type locality: Beaufort West, Fraserburg, Laingsburg, Murraysburg, and Abrahamskraal, Prince Albert, South Africa.
Abrahamskraal was already taken account of.
1 result for Fraserburg, 2 results for Laingsburg ... yes, there is another fossil in Laingsburg:
Palaeocritti : Bullacephalus jacksoni
How much will you bet before looking its an overlying Triassic one?
You have lost whatever you were betting!
Holotype (BP/1/5387): Nearly complete skull and lower jaw. (Yes, these very well defined kinds, we can all be so reassured that each species and genus is a welldefined kind, can't we?)
Horizon: Lowermost Tapinocephalus assemblage zone, beaufort Group, Middle Permian (Capitanian). Type locality: Middlevlei farm, Laingsburg, Western Cape Province, South Africa.
Do you start to see my point?
A bonus for me : I found again the creature where the remains are so close to the sculptured woodheads of the drakkar of the Vikings. Or perhaps there was another one which was even closer. Wonder if there were any Bullacephalus jacksoni around after flood and if they were classified as dragons by Beowulf or Sigurd? If so, they seem mercifully extinct by now.
No, seriously, I think the one I saw as similar to dragon heads on drakkar was some other more menacing Biarmosuchian.
So, back to the Rhynchus (Styracorhynchus, wasn't it?):
Murraysburg was also a place where it had been found. There are actually two hits for Murraysburg, AND the other one is not Capitanian. You might be having it.
Palaeocritti : Cyonosaurus
Well, there is just one little problem, if you look at the text.
Locality: Toverwater farm and few miles southeast of Murraysburg, South Africa.
So, the Cyanosaurus which is Upper Permian was not found on top of Styrachorhynchus, but a few miles away. See what I mean by horizontal versus vertical relation?
Holotype (WMUC 1515): skull of an immature individual Referred specimens: RC 75, BPI 254, BPI 254, BPI 294.
How luxurious, by the way! A full FOUR referred specimens. And holotype is a skull.
Now, shall we see if Toverwater farm - other locality mentioned for Cyanosaurus - has other periods than Upper Permian Wuchiapingian?
1 result for Toverwater farm. It spells Cyonosaurus.
So, has Capitanian been overlaid or underlaid by another epoch in Prince Albert?
Yes. Prince Albert ALSO shows hits with Wordian - which is also counted as Middle Permian.
The other four creatures are:
Palaeocritti : Tapinocaninus pamelae
Modderdrift farm, prince Albert, South Africa.
Palaeocritti : Patranomodon nyaphulii
Type locality: Combrinkskraal farm, Prince Albert district, South Africa.
Oh, Prince Albert is a whole district? Perhaps that means Abrahamskraal locality, where we started our survey, is one locality on Prince Albert. And distinct from these two Wordian ones!
Palaeocritti : Australosyodon nyaphuli
Type locality: Tuinkraal farm, Prince Albert Road, South Africa.
Palaeocritti : Glanosuchus macrops
Type locality: Knoflok's Fontein, near Van der Byl's Kraal, and farm Modderdrift, near Prince Albert, western Cape Province, South Africa.
"Farm Modderdrift" already mentioned as "Modderdrift Farm." The best place for a South African Dr Dino Adventureland. They even have TWO fossil critters found on their locality!
Let's look at the documentation of each of these Wordian and Capitanian critters:
"Holotype (NMQR 2987): Skull and mandible. Paratypes: NMQR 2985 (skull and mandible); NMQR 2986 (skull and mandible), ROZ K95 (skull and mandible)."
Tapinocaninus pamelae, all four specimens, make a bow with the three meters of body which have never been found.
"Holotype (NMQR 3000): Skull with lower jaw and postcranial elements"
Patranomodon nyaphulii bows as courteously as Ripicheep with the 30 cm body lenth that was only reconstructed from the 5 cm skull length.
"Holotype (NMQR 3152): Skull and mandible, left side well preserved, right side crushed."
Australosyodon nyaphuli takes a bow with the ? [thanks for that!] 1.8 meter body length reconstructed either from the 26 cm skull length or from the Russian (Perm district!) cousins that are called Syodon, without the Australo.
"Holotype (GS M 796): partial skull
Referred specimen: NM QR 2908 (snout)"
Both specimens curtsey in a wolfish manner, like Maugrim, if you know what novel I refer to, with the 1.8 m body length which has also never been found.
If Walt Disney wanted to make another Fantasia, he could choose worse places than Karoo for inspiration. Especially Karoo as seen by palaeontological artists. But to this, he might take other music than Pastoral Symphony. Like Danse Macabre? Camille Saint-Saëns goes spooky enough for some of these shapes and if Satan is considered to have led the dance in that symphony, his demons might have done some dancing of destruction over God's creatures (and perhaps a few transgenics products as well, Permian gives me that impression at times) during Flood.
Oh, the music could ALSO be the other Danse macabre, by Liszt, where the theme is Dies Irae.
Because, the Flood WAS a "day of wrath", precisely as the judgement day.
- Howard F
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl You said: "THEN it should be a piece of cake for you to tell me exactly what if not holotype at least referred specimen of a pelycosaur (ideally as distinctive as Dimetrodon,"
There are lots of synapsids from the Karoo area, and I found one basal synapsid (pelycosaur) with the holotype from that area. Not sure why you think this is important, since there is only one holotype per species, but Elliotsmithia longiceps should do for now. If you want there are many papers that detail the stratigraphic zonation of the fossil vertebrates across the Permian/Triassic boundary, ending with dinosaurs.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Why exactly did you cut off the sentence?
It continues: ... I think I found only Varanops there, and I haven't yet been able to check whether Varanops could feasably be - with Six Day Creation and Flood Geology as opposed to evolutionary scenario - simply a Varan) directly under if not a holotype at least a referred specimen of a dinosaur.
I am in the habit of finishing my sentences, even if I take some time, and if you had read it to the end you would have known what I was talking about and why I thought it important.
And no, I was NOT limiting myself to only holotypes, referred specimens would do as well. Not that there are all that many in the fauna mostly concerned with Karoo.
Palaeocritti has no special page for Eliotsmithia, but it is enumerated among eupelycosauria.
The important thing is WHERE was Elliotsmithia found, and was any Jurassic creature found straight above it?
If you do hand me the locality for Elliotsmithia, I can search on palaeocritti if same locality also has something from Jurassic.
By the way, "many papers" is not an answer, especially not so to a homeless guy who cannot afford to buy them.
And "stratigraphic zonation" is still not exactly what I am looking for. Have you still not grasped it?
I mean lower down vs high up in the same hole dug down into the ground.
That would be something which could not possibly be two neighbouring biotopes that had been classified only this lately as being different eras.
That is what you still have not proven.
Besides, since Elliotsmithia is under Varanodontinae, I would like to know the details (apart from Evolutionist ideiology that Varanes developed millions of years later) why it cannot be simply a Varane of some sort.
It's not as if it were a very distinctly well marked creature like the dimetrodon (which perhaps may have been how Medieval dragons really looked like, the one sail mistaken for two batwings).
Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals
By Group > Eupelycosauria
"Not sure why you think this is important, since there is only one holotype per species"
For many species in Karoo there is exactly one holotype and no referred specimens.
For others there are one or two referred specimens. In the above search, which you perhaps did not even read due to your eagerness to answer an unfinished sentence, there was, very luxuriously as per my experience with Karoo, one where there were a full eleven specimens, the holotype and ten more. None of them containing post-cranial material.
As as geologist, you may be thinking of marine invertebrate holotypes where one holotype for such and such an Ammonite is peanuts compared with the millions of ammonites found. For land vertebrate fossils, the story is very different.
In palaeocritti site, the finding place of the holotype is invariably mentioned, whereas with referred specimens, it is more fickle.
And if you are a geologist and have read lots of papers about "that detail the stratigraphic zonation of the fossil vertebrates across the Permian/Triassic boundary, ending with dinosaurs." why do you not tell me which exact place (and remember Karoo is not a place) you find clearly Triassic creatures like dinosaurs straight under clearly Permian ones, like Pelycosaurs.
Schliemann could not have made a relative dating of his Troys, if the different layers with distinctive cultural material had been on different hills instead of straight above and straight below.