Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:11:01.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A protocetid cetacean from the Eocene of South Carolina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

L. Barry Albright
L. Barry Albright*
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Riverside 92521
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Kellogg (1936, p. 242) described “an imperfectly preserved dorsal vertebra” from Texas, which he assigned to the primitive cetacean genus Protocetus. McLeod and Barnes (1990), however, were the first to report unequivocal protocetid remains from the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Since then, Hulbert and Petkewich (1991) and Hulbert (1993) have noted a well-preserved skeleton of a protocetid cetacean from middle Eocene deposits in Georgia. The purpose of this note is to report the recent discovery of additional protocetid remains from the coastal plain of South Carolina and to discuss their stratigraphic and biostratigraphic context.

Type
Paleontological Notes
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 70 , Issue 3 , May 1996 , pp. 519 - 523
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrews, C. W. 1920. A description of new species of zeuglodont and of leathery turtle from the Eocene of southern Nigeria. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 22:309–319.Google Scholar
Banks, R. S. 1977. Stratigraphy of the Eocene Santee Limestone in three quarries of the Coastal Plain of South Carolina. South Carolina State Development Board, Division of Geology, Geologic Notes, 21:85–149.Google Scholar
Barnes, L. G., and Mitchell, E. 1978. Cetacea, p. 582–602. In Maglio, V. J. and Cooke, H. B. S. (eds.), Evolution of African Mammals. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Baum, G. R., Collins, J. S., Jones, R. M., Madlinger, B. A., and Powell, R. J. 1980. Correlation of the Eocene strata of the Carolinas. South Carolina Geology, 24:19–27.Google Scholar
Berggren, W. A., Kent, D. V., Swisher, C. C., and Aubry, M. P. 1995. A revised Cenozoic geochronology and chronostratigraphy. In Berggren, W. A., Kent, D. V., Aubry, M. P., and Hardenbol, J. (eds.), Geochronology, Time Scales, and Global Stratigraphic Correlation. Society of Economic Mineralogists and Paleontologists Special Publication, 54.Google Scholar
Frass, E. 1904. Neue Zeuglodonten aus dem unteren Mitteleocän vom Mokattam bei Cairo. Geologische und Paleaeontologische Abhandlungen, neue folge, 6:199–220.Google Scholar
Gibbes, R. W. 1845. Description of the teeth of a new fossil animal found in the green-sand of South Carolina. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Science, 2:254–256.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D., and Russell, D. E. 1990. Dentition of early Eocene Pakicetus (Mammalia, Cetacea). Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, 28:1–20.Google Scholar
Haq, B. U., Hardenbol, J., and Vail, P. R. 1988. Mesozoic and Cenozoic chronostratigraphy and cycles of sea-level change, p. 71–108. In Wilgus, C. K., Kendall, C. G., Posamentier, H. W., Ross, C. A., and Van Wagoner, J. C. (eds.), Sea Level Changes—An Integrated Approach. Society of Exploration Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication, 42.Google Scholar
Harris, W. B., and Fullagar, P. D. 1991. Middle Eocene and late Oligocene isotopic dates of glauconitic mica from the Santee River area, South Carolina. Southeastern Geology, 32:1–19.Google Scholar
Harris, W. B., and Zullo, V. A. 1991. Eocene and Oligocene stratigraphy of the outer coastal plain, p. 251–262. In Horton, J. W. and Zullo, V. A. (eds.), The Geology of the Carolinas. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Hazel, J. E., Bybell, L. M., Christopher, R. A., Frederickson, N. O., May, F. E., McLean, D. M., Poore, R. Z., Smith, C. C., Sohl, N. F., Valentine, P. C., and Witmer, R. H. 1977. Biostratigraphy of the deep corehole (Clubhouse Crossroads Corehole 1) near Charleston, South Carolina, p. 71–89. In Rankin, D. W., (ed.), Studies related to the Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake of 1886—A preliminary report. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1028.Google Scholar
Hazel, J. E., Edwards, L. E., and Bybell, L. M. 1984. Significant unconformities and the hiatuses represented by them in the Paleogene of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Province, p. 59–66. In Schlee, J. S. (ed.), Interregional Unconformities and Hydrocarbon Accumulation: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, P. F., Marsalis, W. E., and Pickering, S. M. 1974. Tertiary stratigraphy of the central Georgia Coastal Plain. Geological Society of America Field Trip Guidebook, 12:1–13.Google Scholar
Hulbert, R. C. 1993. Craniodental anatomy and systematics of a middle Eocene protocetid whale from Georgia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Abstracts of Papers, 13:42A.Google Scholar
Hulbert, R. C. 1994. Phylogenetic analysis of Eocene whales (“Archaeoceti”) with a diagnosis of a new North American protocetid genus. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Abstracts of Papers, 14:30A.Google Scholar
Hulbert, R. C., and Petkewich, R. M. 1991. Innominate of a middle Eocene (Lutetian) protocetid whale from Georgia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Abstracts of Papers, 11:36A.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. 1936. A review of the Archaeoceti. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 482:1–366.Google Scholar
Kumar, K., and Sahni, A. 1986. Remingtonocetus harudiensis, new combination, a Middle Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from Western Kutch, India. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 6:326–349.Google Scholar
McLeod, S. A., and Barnes, L. G. 1990. Archaeocete cetaceans from the Atlantic Coastal Plain of the United States, including a new protocetid. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Abstracts of Papers, 10:35A.Google Scholar
Powell, R. J. 1984. Lithostratigraphy, depositional environment, and sequence framework of the middle Eocene Santee Limestone, South Carolina Coastal Plain. Southeastern Geology, 25:79–100.Google Scholar
Powell, R. J., and Baum, G. R. 1982. Eocene biostratigraphy of South Carolina and its relationship to Gulf Coastal Plain zonations and global changes of coastal onlap. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 93:1099–1108.Google Scholar
Sanders, A. E. 1974. A paleontological survey of the Cooper Marl and Santee Limestone near Harleyville, South Carolina: preliminary report. South Carolina State Development Board, Division of Geology, Geologic Notes, 18:4–12.Google Scholar
Ward, L. W., Blackwelder, B. W., Gohn, G. S., and Poore, R. Z. 1979. Stratigraphic revision of Eocene, Oligocene and lower Miocene formations of South Carolina. South Carolina State Development Board, Division of Geology, Geologic Notes, 23:2–32.Google Scholar
Weems, R. E., and Lemon, E. M. 1984. Geologic map of the Mount Holly quadrangle, Berkeley and Charleston Counties, S.C. U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Map GO-1579.Google Scholar
West, R. M. 1980. Middle Eocene large mammal assemblage with Tethyan affinities, Ganda Kas Region, Pakistan. Journal of Paleontology, 54:508–533.Google Scholar
Zullo, V. A., and Harris, W. B. 1987. Sequence stratigraphy, biostratigraphy, and correlation of Eocene through lower Miocene strata in North Carolina. Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research Special Publication, 24:197–214.Google Scholar