DOCSLIB.ORG

Fossils on the Floor: Mosaics in the Rotunda of the Nebraska State Capitol R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fossils on the Floor: Mosaics in the Rotunda of the Nebraska State Capitol R University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Robert F. Diffendal, Jr., Publications Natural Resources, School of 2015 Fossils on the Floor: Mosaics in the Rotunda of the Nebraska State Capitol R. F. Diffendal University of Nebraska-Lincoln, rdiffendal1@unl.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/diffendal Part of the Geology Commons, Geomorphology Commons, Hydrology Commons, and the Stratigraphy Commons Diffendal, R. F., "Fossils on the Floor: Mosaics in the Rotunda of the Nebraska State Capitol" (2015). Robert F. Diffendal, Jr., Publications. 67. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/diffendal/67 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Natural Resources, School of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Robert F. Diffendal, Jr., Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Fossils on the Floor Mosaics in the Rotunda of the Nebraska State Capitol by R. F. Diffendal, Jr. R University of Nebraska–Lincoln University of Nebraska–Lincoln Harvey S. Perlman, J.D., Chancellor, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Ronald D. Green, Ph.D., NU Vice President and IANR Harlan Vice Chancellor John P. Carroll, Ph.D., Director, School of Natural Resources R. M. Joeckel, Ph.D., Associate Director for Conservation and Survey in the School of Natural Resources and State Geologist The Conservation and Survey Division of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln is the agency designated by statute to investigate and interpret the geologically related natural resources of the State, to make available to the public the results of these investigations, and to assist in the development and conservation of these resources. It consists of program areas in geology, water, soils, and remote sensing-geographic information systems. The division is authorized to enter into agreements with federal and state agencies to engage in cooperative surveys and investigations of the State. Publications of the division and the cooperating agencies are available through the Conservation and Survey Division, 101 Hardin Hall, University of Nebraska– Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0961. Contact the address above, phone: (402) 472-3471, or e-mail snrsales@ unl.edu. The Conservation and Survey Division web site is: http://snr.unl.edu/csd/. The University of Nebraska–Lincoln does not discriminate based on gender, age, disability, race, color, religion, marital status, national or ethnic origin or sexual orientation. The University of Nebraska– Lincoln is an equal opportunity educator and employer with a comprehensive plan for diversity. July 2015 About the Author Robert F. Diffendal, Jr. is Professor Emeritus in the Conservation and Survey Division (Nebraska Geological Survey) of the School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska–Lincoln and a volunteer curator of invertebrate fossils for the University of Nebraska State Museum. He has prepared geologic maps of many areas of Nebraska and has written many articles, reports and guidebooks about the geology of Nebraska and adjacent parts of the plains. He has spoken to and led field trips for thousands of school children over the years, showing them the wonderful geologic features of Nebraska and other parts of the world. ISBN 1-56161-046-1 ISBN-13 978-1-56161-046-4 Front Cover – Sabre-Toothed Cat Smilodon (Fossil 38). Composite of a pastel drawing by Erwin H. Barbour and a mosaic by Hildreth Meière. Back Cover – Eurypterid Eurypterus (Fossil 5). Pastel drawing by Erwin H. Barbour. Fossils on the Floor Mosaics in the Rotunda of the Nebraska State Capitol By R. F. Diffendal, Jr., Professor Emeritus Conservation and Survey Division School of Natural Resources University of Nebraska–Lincoln Educational Circular 24 2015 Revised September 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1 Creating the Mosaics.......................................................................................................................... 2 The Main Participants in the Rotunda Floor Project......................................................... 2 Materials Used to Produce the Mosaics............................................................................... 2 Who Chose the Plants and Animals Included in the Mosaics?........................................ 2 How Many Drawings Did Professor Barbour Make?........................................................ 4 Construction of the Mosaics................................................................................................. 4 From Concept to Design........................................................................................................ 5 Tables................................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 1. Reported Materials Used on the Rotunda Floor................................................. 9 Table 2. Identifications of Fossil Types Depicted on the Capitol Rotunda Floor.......... 10 Table 3. Lists of Sets of Colored Barbour Drawings of Fossils Sent to Meière.............. 12 Table 4. Barbour’s drawings and Meière’s Usage................................................................ 14 In the Rotunda.................................................................................................................................... 17 The Drawings and the Mosaics........................................................................................................ 17 The Genius of Water 18 Fossil 1. Crinoid Eupachycrinus............................................................................ 19 Fossils 2. and 4. Sea Urchin....................................................................................... 20 Fossil 3. Starfish......................................................................................................... 21 Fossil 5. Eurypterid Eurypterus............................................................................. 22 Fossil 6. Trilobite....................................................................................................... 23 Fossil 7. Nautiloid Goldringia................................................................................ 24 Fossil 8. Teleost Fish.................................................................................................. 25 Fossil 9. Jawless Fish Cephalaspis.......................................................................... 26 Fossil 10. Ichthyosaur................................................................................................. 27 Fossil 11. Plesiosaur.................................................................................................... 28 Fossil 12. Swimming Bird Hesperornis.................................................................. 29 The Genius of Volcanic Fire 30 Fossil 13. Tree Fern..................................................................................................... 31 Fossil 14. Eurypterid Ctenopterus...........................................................................32 Fossil 15. Onychophoran........................................................................................... 33 Fossil 16. Amphibian Eryops.................................................................................. 34 Fossil 17. Tortoise....................................................................................................... 35 Fossil 18. Mosasaur Tylosaurus.............................................................................. 36 Fossil 19. Dinosaur Diplodocus.............................................................................. 37 Fossil 20. Dinosaur Edmontosaurus....................................................................... 38 Fossil 21. Dinosaur Stegosaurus..............................................................................39 Fossil 22. Dinosaur Triceratops............................................................................... 40 ii The Genius of Air 41 Fossil 23. Magnolia..................................................................................................... 42 Fossil 24. Butterfly Prodryas................................................................................... 43 Fossil 25. Dragonfly.................................................................................................... 44 Fossil 26. Pterosaur Pteranodon............................................................................. 45 Fossil 27. Diving Bird and Egg Ichthyornis............................................................ 46 Fossil 28. Flightless Bird Gastornis........................................................................ 47 Fossil 29. Songbird - Meadowlark............................................................................ 48 Fossil 30. Falcon......................................................................................................... 49 Fossil 31. Owl.............................................................................................................. 50 Fossil 32. Bat................................................................................................................ 51 The Genius of Earth 52 Fossil 33. Deciduous Tree Liquidambar................................................................. 53 Fossil 34. Glyptodont................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hyracodons and Subhyracodons Early Rhinoceros by Ryan C
    The Fossils of the White River Badlands http://whiteriver.weebly.com/hyracodons.html Hyracodons and Subhyracodons Early rhinoceros by Ryan C. The discovery of rhinoceros in the Badlands of the American West was very exciting, most people never suspecting that such primitive forms of rhinoceros existed in North America. Today, living rhinoceroses consist of four genera that contain five species. Two are found in Africa; three others are restricted to Asia. Most are browsing animals but the largest species, the white rhinoceros of Africa, is a grazer. All living species possess "horns" that are composed of keratinized hair which decomposes at death and are not normally preserved in the fossil record. Although most New World rhinoceroses did not have horns, the widely distributed, males of the pig-sized Menoceros of the early Miocene had a lateral pair of horns. In North America, "rhinoceroses" of three similar lineages appeared from Asia during the Middle Eocene. Consisting of hippo-like Amynodontidae, "running rhinos" or Hyracodontidae, and true rhinoceroses, Rhinocerotidae, only true rhinoceroses adapted and diversified enough to survive into the early Pliocene. Amynodontids entered North America during the Bridgerian NALMA. Apparently adapted for a warm humid environment typified by lush forests, most amynodontids physically and ecologically resembled the hippopotamus of Africa. Remaining undiversified, only four genera are recognized and three of them contain but a single species. The massive and best known species is Metamynodon planifrons, a form characterized by having massive teeth with large tusks that give it the appearance of a hippopotamus. Some skeletons were 10 ft in length. Due to their skull structure, some believe this group supported a proboscis similar to that of a modern tapir.
    [Show full text]
  • Categorical Versus Geometric Morphometric Approaches To
    [Palaeontology, 2020, pp. 1–16] CATEGORICAL VERSUS GEOMETRIC MORPHOMETRIC APPROACHES TO CHARACTERIZING THE EVOLUTION OF MORPHOLOGICAL DISPARITY IN OSTEOSTRACI (VERTEBRATA, STEM GNATHOSTOMATA) by HUMBERTO G. FERRON 1,2* , JENNY M. GREENWOOD1, BRADLEY DELINE3,CARLOSMARTINEZ-PEREZ 1,2,HECTOR BOTELLA2, ROBERT S. SANSOM4,MARCELLORUTA5 and PHILIP C. J. DONOGHUE1,* 1School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Life Sciences Building, Tyndall Avenue, Bristol, BS8 1TQ, UK; humberto.ferron@bristol.ac.uk, carlos.martinez-perez@bristol.ac.uk, phil.donoghue@bristol.ac.uk 2Institut Cavanilles de Biodiversitat i Biologia Evolutiva, Universitat de Valencia, C/ Catedratic Jose Beltran Martınez 2, 46980, Paterna, Valencia, Spain; hector.botella@uv.es, carlos.martinez-perez@uv.es 3Department of Geosciences, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA 30118, USA; bdeline@westga.edu 4School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK; robert.sansom@manchester.ac.uk 5School of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, Riseholme Hall, Lincoln, LN2 2LG, UK; mruta@lincoln.ac.uk *Corresponding authors Typescript received 2 October 2019; accepted in revised form 27 February 2020 Abstract: Morphological variation (disparity) is almost aspects of morphology. Phylomorphospaces reveal conver- invariably characterized by two non-mutually exclusive gence towards a generalized ‘horseshoe’-shaped cranial mor- approaches: (1) quantitatively, through geometric morpho- phology and two strong trends involving major groups of metrics;
    [Show full text]
  • St. Bartholomew's Church and Community House: Draft Nomination
    NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK NOMINATION NPS Form 10-900 USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) OMB No. 1024-0018 ST. BARTHOLOMEW’S CHURCH AND COMMUNITY HOUSE Page 1 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 1. NAME OF PROPERTY Historic Name: St. Bartholomew’s Church and Community House Other Name/Site Number: 2. LOCATION Street & Number: 325 Park Avenue (previous mailing address: 109 East 50th Street) Not for publication: City/Town: New York Vicinity: State: New York County: New York Code: 061 Zip Code: 10022 3. CLASSIFICATION Ownership of Property Category of Property Private: X Building(s): _X_ Public-Local: District: Public-State: Site: Public-Federal: Structure: Object: Number of Resources within Property Contributing Noncontributing 1 buildings sites structures objects 1 Total Number of Contributing Resources Previously Listed in the National Register: 2 Name of Related Multiple Property Listing: DRAFT NPS Form 10-900 USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) OMB No. 1024-0018 ST. BARTHOLOMEW’S CHURCH AND COMMUNITY HOUSE Page 2 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 4. STATE/FEDERAL AGENCY CERTIFICATION As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this ____ nomination ____ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property ____ meets ____ does not meet the National Register Criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • GEOL 204 the Fossil Record Spring 2020 Section 0109 Luke Buczynski, Eamon, Doolan, Emmy Hudak, and Shutian Wang
    ENTELODONT: The Hellacious Pigs of the Cenozoic GEOL 204 The Fossil Record Spring 2020 Section 0109 Luke Buczynski, Eamon, Doolan, Emmy Hudak, and Shutian Wang Entelodont Overview: From the family Entelodontidae, these omnivorous mammals had a wide geographic variety, as seen in image B. They first inhabited Mongolia then spread into Eurasia and North America, while in North America they preferred flood plains and woodlands. Entelodont were fairly aggressive and would fight with their own kind, using their strong jaws and large heads. They survived from the middle of Eocene to the middle of Miocene. Size and Diet: Skull Features: Figure D shows one of the largest Entelodont, Daedon, compared to an As seen on Figure C, the skull of the Entelodont is massive. They all 1.8 meter tall human, illustrating how immense they really were. contained large Neural Spines, most likely to hold up their huge head, Entelodont weighed from 150 kg on the small size, up to 900 kg (330 to which in turn created a hump. Entelodont contained a pretty small 2,000 pounds) and 1 to 2 meters in height. They had teeth that made them brain, but large olfactory lobes, giving them an acute sense of smell. capable of consuming meat, but the overall structure and wear on the the They held sturdy canines, long incisors, sharp serrated premolars, and suggest the consumption of plant matter as well. Although these large blunt square molars (a sign of omnivory), all of which were covered in a animals might not look it, their limbs were fully terrestrial and adept for very thick layer of enamel.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CLASSIFICATION and EVOLUTION of the HETEROSTRACI Since 1858, When Huxley Demonstrated That in the Histological Struc
    ACTA PALAEONT OLOGICA POLONICA Vol. VII 1 9 6 2 N os. 1-2 L. BEVERLY TARLO THE CLASSIFICATION AND EVOLUTION OF THE HETEROSTRACI Abstract. - An outline classification is given of the Hetero straci, with diagnoses . of th e following orders and suborders: Astraspidiformes, Eriptychiiformes, Cya­ thaspidiformes (Cyathaspidida, Poraspidida, Ctenaspidida), Psammosteiformes (Tes­ seraspidida, Psarnmosteida) , Traquairaspidiformes, Pteraspidiformes (Pte ras pidida, Doryaspidida), Cardipeltiformes and Amphiaspidiformes (Amphiaspidida, Hiber­ naspidida, Eglonaspidida). It is show n that the various orders fall into four m ain evolutionary lineages ~ cyathaspid, psammosteid, pteraspid and amphiaspid, and these are traced from primitive te ssellated forms. A tentative phylogeny is pro­ posed and alternatives are discussed. INTRODUCTION Since 1858, when Huxley demonstrated that in the histological struc­ ture of their dermal bone Cephalaspis and Pteraspis were quite different from one another, it has been recognized that there were two distinct groups of ostracoderms for which Lankester (1868-70) proposed the names Osteostraci and Heterostraci respectively. Although these groups are generally considered to be related to on e another, Lankester belie­ ved that "the Heterostraci are at present associated with the Osteostraci because they are found in the same beds, because they have, like Cepha­ laspis, a large head shield, and because there is nothing else with which to associate them". In 1889, Cop e united these two groups in the Ostracodermi which, together with the modern cyclostomes, he placed in the Class Agnatha, and although this proposal was at first opposed by Traquair (1899) and Woodward (1891b), subsequent work has shown that it was correct as both the Osteostraci and the Heterostraci were agnathous.
    [Show full text]
  • The Facial Skeleton of the Early Oligocene Colodon (Perissodactyla, Tapiroidea)
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by RERO DOC Digital Library Palaeontologia Electronica http://palaeo-electronica.org THE FACIAL SKELETON OF THE EARLY OLIGOCENE COLODON (PERISSODACTYLA, TAPIROIDEA) Matthew W. Colbert ABSTRACT Two skulls of the early Oligocene Colodon from the White River Group in South Dakota are much more derived than previously reported. In particular, morphologies of the facial skeleton and narial region are surprisingly modern, including a deeply retracted nasoincisive incisure, and other indicators of prehensile proboscis develop- ment. High-resolution X-ray computed tomography was used to explore the internal anatomy of these tapiroids, and revealed frontal sinuses, and an internal facial skele- ton approaching that of modern tapirs. This not only indicates an earlier origin for these anatomical conditions than previously recorded, but in a phylogenetic context indicates that Colodon is more closely related to Tapirus than is Protapirus. Matthew W. Colbert. The Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Geological Sciences Department, 1 University Station C1100, Austin, Texas 78712-0254 USA col- bert@mail.utexas.edu KEY WORDS: Tapiroidea; Colodon; anatomy, cranial; computed tomography; phylogeny PE Article Number: 8.1.12 Copyright: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology May 2005 Submission: 20 December 2004. Acceptance: 24 March 2005 INTRODUCTION attachment of proboscis musculature (Witmer et al. 1999); and a posterior displacement of the dorsal Perhaps the most extraordinary feature of the facial skeleton (i.e., telescoping; see Colbert 1999). living tapirs is their prehensile proboscis. It is Further conditions correlated with the telescoping derived from modified muscles of the face and of the skull are the development of frontal sinuses upper lip, and its presence is indicated by several overlying the anterior cranial cavity, the loss of con- osteological features (Witmer et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Hypothesis of Eurypterid Palaeoecology
    Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 311 (2011) 63–73 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/palaeo Testing the ‘mass-moult-mate’ hypothesis of eurypterid palaeoecology Matthew B. Vrazo ⁎, Simon J. Braddy Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queen's Road, Bristol, BS8 1RJ, UK article info abstract Article history: The eurypterids (Arthropoda: Chelicerata), some of the earliest arthropods to undertake amphibious Received 6 May 2011 excursions onto land, are generally rare in the fossil record, but are sometimes found in great abundance, for Received in revised form 16 July 2011 example in the Late Silurian Bertie Group of New York State. The mass-moult-mate hypothesis has been Accepted 29 July 2011 proposed to explain such occurrences, whereby eurypterids undertook mass migrations into near shore Available online 5 August 2011 settings and lagoons to moult, mate and spawn, similar to the behaviour of living horseshoe crabs. This hypothesis is tested using measurements from over 600 Eurypterus specimens from three localities in the Keywords: Arthropod Bertie Group; Eurypterus remipes, from the Fiddlers Green Formation, and the slightly larger Eurypterus Exuvia lacustris, from the overlying Williamsville Formation. Disarticulation patterns support previous evidence for Taphonomy moulted assemblages. A significant predominance of female exuviae is noted at each locality, unlike studies on Biofacies modern Limulus populations. Therefore, a modified mass-mate-spawn-moult hypothesis is proposed here: Silurian males returned to deeper waters after mating, whereas females, having mated, remained at the breeding sites Eurypterus to deposit their eggs before moulting. After hatching, eurypterid larvae and juveniles remained in these spawning grounds until they matured and could move to deeper water, in comparison with Limulus.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing the Dinosaur: Richard Owen's Response to Robert Edmond Grant Author(S): Adrian J
    Designing the Dinosaur: Richard Owen's Response to Robert Edmond Grant Author(s): Adrian J. Desmond Source: Isis, Vol. 70, No. 2 (Jun., 1979), pp. 224-234 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/230789 . Accessed: 16/10/2013 13:00 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . 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 support@jstor.org. The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Isis. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 150.135.115.18 on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:00:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Designing the Dinosaur: Richard Owen's Response to Robert Edmond Grant By Adrian J. Desmond* I N THEIR PAPER on "The Earliest Discoveries of Dinosaurs" Justin Delair and William Sarjeant permit Richard Owen to step in at the last moment and cap two decades of frenzied fossil collecting with the word "dinosaur."' This approach, I believe, denies Owen's real achievement while leaving a less than fair impression of the creative aspect of science.
    [Show full text]
  • John Day Fossil Beds NM: Geology and Paleoenvironments of the Clarno Unit
    John Day Fossil Beds NM: Geology and Paleoenvironments of the Clarno Unit JOHN DAY FOSSIL BEDS Geology and Paleoenvironments of the Clarno Unit John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, Oregon GEOLOGY AND PALEOENVIRONMENTS OF THE CLARNO UNIT John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, Oregon By Erick A. Bestland, PhD Erick Bestland and Associates, 1010 Monroe St., Eugene, OR 97402 Gregory J. Retallack, PhD Department of Geological Sciences University of Oregon Eugene, OR 7403-1272 June 28, 1994 Final Report NPS Contract CX-9000-1-10009 TABLE OF CONTENTS joda/bestland-retallack1/index.htm Last Updated: 21-Aug-2007 http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/joda/bestland-retallack1/index.htm[4/18/2014 12:20:25 PM] John Day Fossil Beds NM: Geology and Paleoenvironments of the Clarno Unit (Table of Contents) JOHN DAY FOSSIL BEDS Geology and Paleoenvironments of the Clarno Unit John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, Oregon TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION AND REGIONAL GEOLOGY INTRODUCTION PREVIOUS WORK AND REGIONAL GEOLOGY Basement rocks Clarno Formation John Day Formation CHAPTER II: GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK INTRODUCTION Stratigraphic nomenclature Radiometric age determinations CLARNO FORMATION LITHOSTRATIGRAPHIC UNITS Lower Clarno Formation units Main section JOHN DAY FORMATION LITHOSTRATIGRAPHIC UNITS Lower Big Basin Member Middle and upper Big Basin Member Turtle Cove Member GEOCHEMISTRY OF LAVA FLOW AND TUFF UNITS Basaltic lava flows Geochemistry of andesitic units Geochemistry of tuffs STRUCTURE OF CLARNO
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to Mojo-Animal Planet 2018 Sizes
    WELCOME TO MOJO-ANIMAL PLANET 2018 We are proud to present the 2018 Rightly we feel this has been Please enjoy the 2018 Animal Planet- Animal Planet range by Mojo. achieved with our latest product Mojo collection. Featuring original model designs from offering, however our passion to To find out more about us and what the UK and utilising the expertise of be the best is still the major driving we’re up to follow us on: force behind the business. Obsessed our manufacturing partners in China Facebook: and Portugal, Mojo has pursued a with perfection is probably an http://www.facebook.com/mojofuneu “can do better” attitude relentlessly apt description and one we feel and will continue to do so. encompasses the Company values. Instagram: As with previous years, 2018 is From the original handmade sculpture http://www.instagram.com/mojofuneu strongly focused on improving and to the final hand painted brush stroke strengthening the existing range whilst on the production line, each Mojo raising the bar in terms of quality for model is made with love. We hope any new additions. you love them too! SIZES Small Medium Large Extra large XXL Deluxe I Deluxe II POS & CONTENTS Accessories 04 10 FARMLAND 12 PREHISTORIC & EXTINCT 32 WOODLAND 48 WILDLIFE 56 SEALIFE 74 FANTASY 84 POS & ACCESSORIES 387517 Animal Planet 3 Tier Cardboard Display with reversible Dinosaur/Wildlife header Size CM 47 x 37 x 35 Size IN 18.50 x 14.57 x 13.78 4 387509 68cm Wooden Display Size CM 68 x 45 x153 Size IN 26.77 x 17.72 x 60.24 387511 1m Wooden Display Size CM 100 x 45 x 153 Size IN 39.38 x 17.72 x 60.24 387515 Animal Planet 1 Meter LED Light up Display Size CM 100 x 45 x 154 Size IN 39.38 x 17.72 x 60.63 5 387256P Golden Dragon 387212P Brachiosaurus 387191P Single item packaging Unicorn Modular packaging design with an open platformstyle showcases the Animal Planet branding element to best effect whilst preserving the products quality and its tactile nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Trip A2 Paleoecology and Taphonomy of Some Eurypterid-Bearing
    Trip A2 Paleoecology and Taphonomy of Some Eurypterid-Bearing Horizons in the Finger Lakes Region of New York State STEPHEN M. MAYER 5475 East Lake Road, Romulus, NY 14541, USA INTRODUCTION The Upper Silurian Bertie Group in western and central New York State is famous for its eurypterid (Arthropoda: Chelicerata) Lagerstätten. From the earliest recognition of the genus Eurypterus by American zoologist James Ellsworth Dekay (1825), studies have concentrated on eurypterid growth and variation (see Andrews et al., 1974; Cuggy, 1994). More recent works have focused on ecdysis (Tetlie et al., 2008), and mating (Braddy, 2001; Vrazo and Braddy, 2011), as well as trace fossils and taphonomy (Vrazo et al., 2014, 2016, 2017, and Vrazo and Ciurca, 2018). Recurrent taphonomic patterns are recognized regardless of species with various hypotheses proposed to explain these occurrences. The purpose of this investigation is to provide an overview of the preservation patterns observed in the fossil record. The contortion of Eurypterus remipes and Erieopterus microphthalmus exuviae collected from different Finger Lake sites, as well as specimens held in the Samuel J. Ciurca Eurypterid Collection at Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History are interpreted to be the result of flexure of eurypterid exoskeletons by submarine paleocurrents. The present contribution and accompanying field guide review the facies and geological settings of the Bertie Group with an emphasis on eurypterid-bearing horizons in west central New York as well as a discussion of specific aspects of the preservation of these fossils. PALEOGEOGRAPHY AND PALEOENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS Silurian stratigraphy and paleoenvironmental conditions of western and central New York State have been studied extensively by Rickard (1969, 1975), Ciurca (1973), Belak (1980), Hamell and Ciurca (1986), Brett et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Hildreth Meière: Connections to Spain Before and During the Spanish Civil War
    REDEN Revista Española de Estudios Norteamericanos / Noviembre 2019. Volumen 1 Hildreth Meière: Connections to Spain Before and During the Spanish Civil War Mónica Orduña Prada Universidad Internacional de La Rioja 75 Mónica Orduña Prada Hildreth Meière: Universidad Connections to Spain Internacional de La Rioja Before and During the Spanish Civil War he prestigious American Art Deco artist Hildreth Meière provided Thumanitarian assistance to the victims of the Spanish Civil War and in the Second World War. Acting as the vice-president of the American Spanish Relief Fund created in 1937 and run by P. Francis X. Talbot, S. J. with the goal of helping people affected by the war in the Franco zone, and to also deliver medicine and medical supplies from the United States ABSTRACT through diplomatic channels. She visited Spain in 1925, 1938 and 1961. On the first trip she came to see the works of Spanish painters and made contact with important aristocratic families of the time (the Duke of Sotomayor, the Marquises of La Romana and Arcos, the Duchess of Vistahermosa, etc.). In 1938 she started humanitarian aid, collecting money and donations from New York society for orphans of the civil war and acted as a propaganda distributor for the Francoist cause in the United States. On this occasion she met with people familiar with the situation in Spain to solve the problems of humanitarian aid: Luis Bolín, Pablo Merry del Val, Cardenal Gomá, Carmen de Icaza, and Mercedes Sanz Bachiller. Meière actively participated in providing humanitarian aid in the Franco zone during the years of the civil war while also acting as a staunch supporter of the Francoist cause.
    [Show full text]