Large Bird Humerus From New Zealand

[Dave pom Allen]

Here is a nice bird humerus that i have been working on,i found this a few months ago and put it to one side thinking that it was from an albatross. but after doing some prep on it as it was covered in small barnacle fossils that had to be removed to expose the bone

i dont believe it to be from an albatross as it is far bigger than a humerus of a wandering albatross a photo for comparison , so came to a conclusion that it may be from a bony-toothed bird i think if it was complete it would have an overall length of about 250-260+mm,

i found this pdf pseudodontorn Pelecaniformes hawera.pdf

if anybody has any other suggestions i am always keen to expore

[Boesse]

That is far too dinky to be from a pseudontorn, and it is not a close match in terms of morphology either. Neogene pelagornithids include only one genus - Pelagornis - which is a truly gigantic bird. The smallest Pelagornis humeri are 60+ centimeters in length.

On the contrary, your humerus is not only in the correct size range, but it is also a close morphological match for albatross. Your humerus most closely matches that of the northern Albatross, Phoebastria, labeled as F in this composite photo (bones not to scale): http://coastalpaleo.blogspot.co.nz/2011/07/bony-toothed-bird-from-purisima_16.html

A is a humerus of Pelagornis sp. I collected several years ago from the Purisima Formation and subsequently donated to UCMP and then published on in Journal of Vertebrate Paleo - and is the geochronologically youngest pelagornithid from the Pacific. It had an estimated humeral length of roughly 70 cm, and that fragment was about 30 cm long or so. Unfortunately, McKee never donated his north island pelagornithid bones to any institution, effectively rendering his few publications as totally untestable.

Why oh why did you remove the barnacles? If they were encrusting the bone itself, then that's a lot of taphonomic data that is lost forever. If they were just in the matrix, then it's not as much of a problem.

[Auspex]

Here is a scan from Gilbert's Avian Osteology. It is the wrong side, and almost certainly the wrong species (the only one he illustrates), but serves the purpose of comparison here.

[Terry Dactyll]

Dave.... Very nice find and prepwork...It sounds like another rare' un...

[Dave pom Allen]

Here is a scan from Gilbert's Avian Osteology. It is the wrong side, and almost certainly the wrong species (the only one he illustrates), but serves the purpose of comparison here.

albatross humerus.jpg

Dave.... Very nice find and prepwork...It sounds like another rare' un...

Thanks Chas that looks more like it the size and shape . and Terry thanks for the kind words

[Dave pom Allen]

That is far too dinky to be from a pseudontorn, and it is not a close match in terms of morphology either. Neogene pelagornithids include only one genus - Pelagornis - which is a truly gigantic bird. The smallest Pelagornis humeri are 60+ centimeters in length.

On the contrary, your humerus is not only in the correct size range, but it is also a close morphological match for albatross. Your humerus most closely matches that of the northern Albatross, Phoebastria, labeled as F in this composite photo (bones not to scale): http://coastalpaleo.blogspot.co.nz/2011/07/bony-toothed-bird-from-purisima_16.html

A is a humerus of Pelagornis sp. I collected several years ago from the Purisima Formation and subsequently donated to UCMP and then published on in Journal of Vertebrate Paleo - and is the geochronologically youngest pelagornithid from the Pacific. It had an estimated humeral length of roughly 70 cm, and that fragment was about 30 cm long or so. Unfortunately, McKee never donated his north island pelagornithid bones to any institution, effectively rendering his few publications as totally untestable.

Why oh why did you remove the barnacles? If they were encrusting the bone itself, then that's a lot of taphonomic data that is lost forever. If they were just in the matrix, then it's not as much of a problem.

Thanks for that. You will be happy to now that i only removed the barnacles from only part of the bone to expose it and have not lost any taphonomic data

the barnacles i found on this bone are found on many of the bones i find and to identify the bones under these they have to be removed.

i used the paper published in the New Zealand Journal of Zoology as a good source of information as i assumed it was creditable paper.

I have found other pelagornithid bones from the same site, and just assumed that it may have just been from a smaller variety

as i am just an amateur and not university educated like yourself positive feedback is encouraging

Edited July 1, 2013 by Dave pom Allen

[Plantguy]

Hi Dave, nice find! Interesting to see bird parts of any kind and then you see something that sizeable!

Saw Bobby's comments about barnacles above... another learning moment for me certainly...makes alot of sense but I hadnt really thought about barnacles specifically. Thanks Bobby.

Dave, continue showing us the amazing finds. Seems you always got something interesting that the rest of us havent seen! Regards, Chris

[Boesse]

Thanks for that. You will be happy to now that i only removed the barnacles from only part of the bone to expose it and have not lost any taphonomic data

the barnacles i found on this bone are found on many of the bones i find and to identify the bones under these they have to be removed.

i used the paper published in the New Zealand Journal of Zoology as a good source of information as i assumed it was creditable paper.

I have found other pelagornithid bones from the same site, and just assumed that it may have just been from a smaller variety

as i am just an amateur and not university educated like yourself positive feedback is encouraging

Hi Dave,

Once encrusting invertebrates are removed from the bone, the information regarding their size and distribution on the fossil are indeed permanently lost. I've got a paper coming out in a few days in the Journal of Paleontology which will make some sense out of what you can learn from leaving encrusters on the bone. For example, barnacles, if identified to an extant genus, can give you somewhat accurate estimates of how long the bone sat on the seafloor between death and burial; the distribution of the barnacles can tell you whether or not the bone flipped over multiple times, or just sat on one side. Regarding university education - many professional paleontologists and preparators have needlessly erased significant taphonomy history of fossils by removing encrusting invertebrates - it's nothing to do with 'professional training/education'. I know some amateurs who leave encrusters on, and I know many who remove them to make the fossil more aesthetically pleasing.

The problem with McKee's work is that he published these papers in the 1980's, but since the material was never donated to a museum - his science is effectively not testable or repeatable (...until somebody else goes and digs up similar specimens which are then subsequently placed in museum collections). Which is too bad; his work is probably somewhat accurate, but there's no way to evaluate his work. Bobby

[Plantguy]

Hi Dave,

Once encrusting invertebrates are removed from the bone, the information regarding their size and distribution on the fossil are indeed permanently lost. I've got a paper coming out in a few days in the Journal of Paleontology which will make some sense out of what you can learn from leaving encrusters on the bone. For example, barnacles, if identified to an extant genus, can give you somewhat accurate estimates of how long the bone sat on the seafloor between death and burial; the distribution of the barnacles can tell you whether or not the bone flipped over multiple times, or just sat on one side. Regarding university education - many professional paleontologists and preparators have needlessly erased significant taphonomy history of fossils by removing encrusting invertebrates - it's nothing to do with 'professional training/education'. I know some amateurs who leave encrusters on, and I know many who remove them to make the fossil more aesthetically pleasing.

The problem with McKee's work is that he published these papers in the 1980's, but since the material was never donated to a museum - his science is effectively not testable or repeatable (...until somebody else goes and digs up similar specimens which are then subsequently placed in museum collections). Which is too bad; his work is probably somewhat accurate, but there's no way to evaluate his work. Bobby

Hey Bobby, thanks for the info/education..I saw your website/blog info on this as well. When the article comes out in the journal is that available anywhere for those who dont subscribe? Congrats on getting it published! Regards, Chris

[Boesse]

Just PM me and I can send you a pdf.

[pscofield]

Dave, Nice find -This is a large procellariiform probably an albatross. Unfortunately I think your "Wandering" Albatross humerus is incorrectly identified as exulans average a total length of 425mm with a proximal width of 75mm. I am guessing your Recent humerus is a smaller Thalassarche - your bird is therefore the size of a large Thalassarche such as a White-capped (That has a proximal width of 43mm). Olson and Rasmussen describe several albatross from the Lee Creek mine of a similar date to yours. The length of the projection of the bicipital crest is very similar to that of some of the northern Phoebastria albatross that fossil evidence suggest were once more widespread.

Paul

Edited August 28, 2013 by pscofield

[Dave pom Allen]

Dave, Nice find -This is a large procellariiform probably an albatross. Unfortunately I think your "Wandering" Albatross humerus is incorrectly identified as exulans average a total length of 425mm with a proximal width of 75mm. I am guessing your Recent humerus is a smaller Thalassarche - your bird is therefore the size of a large Thalassarche such as a White-capped (That has a proximal width of 43mm). Olson and Rasmussen describe several albatross from the Lee Creek mine of a similar date to yours. The length of the projection of the bicipital crest is very similar to that of some of the northern Phoebastria albatross that fossil evidence suggest were once more widespread.

Paul

thanks paul very helpful

[Auspex]

Dave, Nice find -This is a large procellariiform probably an albatross. Unfortunately I think your "Wandering" Albatross humerus is incorrectly identified as exulans average a total length of 425mm with a proximal width of 75mm. I am guessing your Recent humerus is a smaller Thalassarche - your bird is therefore the size of a large Thalassarche such as a White-capped (That has a proximal width of 43mm). Olson and Rasmussen describe several albatross from the Lee Creek mine of a similar date to yours. The length of the projection of the bicipital crest is very similar to that of some of the northern Phoebastria albatross that fossil evidence suggest were once more widespread.

Paul

Thanks for your expert observations, and welcome to the Forum!

(Mollymawks rock!)

[NZ_Fossil_Collecta]

wow... where do you find fossils like that in new zealand? all i knew of was port waikato and thats just shells mostly!

[jpc]

NZ_F_C... you should see some of his other posts of NZ birds. Dave's collection is impressive, but I doubt he'll tell you where he gets them. We tend to be a secretive bunch with our good sites.

[NZ_Fossil_Collecta]

heh, dont worry, i looked it up already and most are WAYYY to far from auckland for me to go to. so i think your fossil site is safe