[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Bison alticornis
In a message dated 95-10-27 13:09:37 EDT, email@example.com (Nigel Woodger)
>Would I be correct in thinking that this beast was originaly named from a
>single horn which had been disturbed and was found in sediments much younger
>than those in which it had been originaly fossilized-this led Marsh to
>belive it could not be a dinosaur. He identified it as a species of extinct
>bison-hence the name-I belive the animal turned out to be a horned dinosaur.
>Anyone know if this is correct?
The type specimen is a pair of long horn-cores from the Lance Formation,
which was not well dated in those days. Marsh used the horn cores as evidence
for a Pleistocene dating for the formation when he coined _Bison alticornis_
for them. He didn't take long to retract this view, however. By the next
year, he had them in the late Cretaceous and was calling them _Ceratops