A New Middle Eocene Protocetid Whale (Mammalia: Cetacea: Archaeoceti) and Associated Biota from Georgia Author(S): Richard C
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A New Middle Eocene Protocetid Whale (Mammalia: Cetacea: Archaeoceti) and Associated Biota from Georgia Author(s): Richard C. Hulbert, Jr., Richard M. Petkewich, Gale A. Bishop, David Bukry and David P. Aleshire Source: Journal of Paleontology , Sep., 1998, Vol. 72, No. 5 (Sep., 1998), pp. 907-927 Published by: Paleontological Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1306667 REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1306667?seq=1&cid=pdf- reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms SEPM Society for Sedimentary Geology and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Paleontology This content downloaded from 131.204.154.192 on Thu, 08 Apr 2021 18:43:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms J. Paleont., 72(5), 1998, pp. 907-927 Copyright ? 1998, The Paleontological Society 0022-3360/98/0072-0907$03.00 A NEW MIDDLE EOCENE PROTOCETID WHALE (MAMMALIA: CETACEA: ARCHAEOCETI) AND ASSOCIATED BIOTA FROM GEORGIA RICHARD C. HULBERT, JR.,1 RICHARD M. PETKEWICH,"4 GALE A. BISHOP,' DAVID BUKRY,2 AND DAVID P. ALESHIRE3'5 1 Department of Geology and Geography, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro 30460-8149 <[email protected]>, 2 United States Geological Survey, MS-915, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California 94025, and 3 Department of Biology, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro 30460-8042. 4 Deceased. 5 Present address: 269 Hanover Street, Meriden, Connecticut 06451. ABSTRACT-A shallow-marine fossil biota was recovered from the Blue Bluff unit (formerly part of the McBean Formation) in the Upper Coastal Plain of eastern Georgia. Biochronologically significant mollusks (e.g., Turritella nasuta, Cubitostrea sellaeformis, Pteropsella lapidosa) and calcareous nannoplankton (e.g., Chiasmolithus solitus, Reticulofenestra umbilica, Cribocentrum reticulatum) indicate a latest Lutetian-earliest Bartonian age, or about 40 to 41 Ma. Georgiacetus vogtlensis new genus and species is described from a well-preserved, partial skeleton. Georgiacetus is the oldest known whale with a true pterygoid sinus fossa in its basicranium and a pelvis that did not articulate directly with the sacral vertebrae, two features whose acquisitions were important steps toward adaptation to a fully marine existence. The posterior four cheek teeth of G. vogtlensis form a series of carnassial-like shearing blades. These teeth also bear small, blunt accessory cusps, which are regarded as being homologous with the larger, sharper accessory cusps of basilosaurid cheek teeth. INTRODUCTION Protocetidae known from associated cranial, dental, and post- IN THE early 1980s, a nuclear-powered electricity cranial generating elements (Hulbert, 1994; Uhen, in press). Therefore, it facility (Plant Vogtle) was built along the Savannah has the River potential in for playing a major role in understanding the Burke County, Georgia, about 40 km southeast of phylogenetic Augusta (Fig. relationships of late Eocene and younger whales. The purposes of this study are: 1) to describe the general 1). In late May of 1983 a construction crew digging a waterway morphology of the Georgia cetacean, and formally name it as a between the reactor and the river exposed fossil bones of a whale embedded in limestone about 10 m below the ground new genussurface. and species; 2) to compare and contrast its mor- phology with those of other protocetids; and 3) to discuss the Fortunately, further excavations were quickly halted, and an ex- stratigraphic, chronologic, and paleoecologic context of the pert opinion was sought from E. A. Shapiro of the Georgia Geo- specimen. A detailed description of the new whale's postcranial logical Survey, who recognized their scientific importance. Of- anatomy appeared elsewhere (Hulbert, 1998), along with an as- ficials of the Georgia Power Company delayed activities around sessment of its phylogenetic relationships with other archaeoce- the specimen and provided equipment and manpower to aid its tes. The responsibilities of the co-authors were as follows: Pet- recovery. The skeleton was collected by a field crew led by kewich and Bishop directed the collection of the specimens, Georgia Southern University paleontologists Petkewich and gathered basic geologic data, conducted preliminary analyses Bishop. They also studied the local stratigraphy and collected (some in collaboration with W. C. Lancaster), and provided in- matrix from the fossil-bearing stratum. Two additional fossil ce- formation about the whale's discovery and collection; Bukry taceans were recovered during the construction of Plant Vogtle, was responsible for the identification of the calcareous nanno- although neither was as complete as the first specimen, nor were plankton; Aleshire studied the whale's postcranial anatomy and they collected in situ. functional morphology; and Hulbert was responsible for the The importance of a middle Eocene whale skeleton morphologic from descriptions, comparisons with other archaeocetes, North America was quickly realized (late Eocene cetaceans and stratigraphic are interpretation. Abbreviations used in the study well known from the southeastern U.S., but at the timeare listed the in onlyTable 1. report of a North American middle Eocene whale was a single vertebra from Texas; Kellogg, 1936), and so reported at scien- STRATIGRAPHIC SETTING tific meetings in 1984 and 1986 (Petkewich and Lancaster, Paleogene depositional sequences in eastern Georgia are ba- 1984). In the ensuing decade, the specimen was completely pre- sically wedge-shaped, thickening to the southeast, and separated pared, and its morphology was compared with those of related by widespread disconformities. Each sequence contains a silici- early cetaceans such as Protocetus from Egypt (Fraas, 1904a). clastic facies that grades downdip into a calcareous facies. Car- During the last 15 years, the state of knowledge concerning bonate deposition moved northwest during the Bartonian and middle Eocene archaeocete whales has improved greatly. Nu- early Priabonian because of decreasing input of terrigenous clas- merous new genera have been described from India and Paki- tics from the Piedmont (Huddlestun and Hetrick, 1978; Gohn, stan, including Ambulocetus, Babiacetus, Dalanistes, and Rod- 1988). In the SRS/VEGP region of the Coastal Plain this meant hocetus (Trivedy and Satsangi, 1984; Thewissen et al., 1994; a change in the late middle Eocene from primarily clastic sedi- Gingerich et al., 1994; 1995a). Other specimens have been re- mentation (which had dominated in the area since the late Cre- ported from elsewhere in North America (McLeod and Barnes, taceous) to primarily carbonate or mixed carbonate-clastic sed- 1990, 1996; Albright, 1996; Geisler et al., 1996; Uhen, 1996, imentation. 1998, in press). In terms of overall completeness, the Georgia Lithology of the Blue Bluff unit.-All strata in the SRS/VEGP specimen is exceeded among protocetids only by the holotype region biostratigraphically equivalent to the upper Lisbon For- of Rodhocetus kasrani (Gingerich et al., 1994). The Georgia mation of the Gulf Coastal Plain were traditionally referred to protocetid is more closely related to later cetaceans (basilosaur- the McBean Formation (e.g., Veatch and Stephenson, 1911; ids, odontocetes, and mysticetes) than any other member of the Cooke, 1943; Nystrom et al., 1991). Huddlestun and Hetrick 907 This content downloaded from 131.204.154.192 on Thu, 08 Apr 2021 18:43:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 908 JOURNAL OF PALEONTOLOGY, V. 72, NO. 5, 1998 GULF VEGP/SRS REGION, COASTAL COAST GEORGIA & SC GA & SC I I 1 I Figure 1-County map of Georgia showing general location of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, the type locality of Georgiacetus vogtlensis new genus and species, in Burke County. Shaded counties approximate the Georgia Coastal Plain. (1986) greatly restricted the McBean geographically and consid- ered it a member of the Lisbon Formation. They also recognized a second stratigraphic unit in the region, informally named the Blue Bluff unit, that was a lateral equivalent of their restricted McBean. Fallow and Price (1995) subdivided the traditional McBean into three formations, the Blue Bluff, Tinker, and San- tee (Fig. 2). The Blue Bluff unit is present in the vicinity of the VEGP and produced the fossils described in this study. FIGURE 2-Generalized stratigraphic column of middle and late Eocene strata in the Upper Coastal Plain of Georgia and South Carolina in the vicinity of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant and Savannah River TABLE 1-Abbreviations used in this study. Site (primarily after Fallaw and Price, 1995; additional sources are Huddlestun and Hetrick, 1986; Gohn, 1988; and Nystrom et al., 1991). Institutions Also shown are correlations of stratigraphic units from this region with those from the central Gulf Coast (Siesser et al., 1985; Galloway et al., AMNH American Museum of Natural History, New York ANSP Academy of Natural