Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Preservation Of Fossil Fish In The Miocene Monterey Formation Of Southern California
(USC Thesis Other)
Preservation Of Fossil Fish In The Miocene Monterey Formation Of Southern California
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type o f computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality o f the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Aitoor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 PRESERVATION OF FOSSIL FISH IN THE MIOCENE MONTEREY FORMATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA by Sanford Lloyd Britt A Thesis Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE (Geological Sciences) December 1995 Copyright 1995 Sanford Lloyd Britt UMI Number: 1379574 Copyright 1995 by Britt, Sanford Lloyd All rights reserved. UMI Microform 1379574 Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 UNIVERSITY O F SO UTHERN CALIFORNIA TH E GRADUATE SC H O O L U N IV ER SITY PARK LOS A N G ELE S. C A LIFO R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 This thesis, written by Sanford Lloyd B ritt under the direction of h.is Thesis Committee, and approved by all its members, has been pre sented to and accepted by the Dean of The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Dtan D a te ..JfeySBbg£..28a„19§5.. THESIS COMMITTEE Chairman ABSTRACT Three sources of data were chosen for a taphonomic examination of fossil fish in the upper Miocene upper Monterey Formation and its equivalents--1) the Miocene fish collection at the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History; 2) Monterey strata and fish from Grefco quarry, near Lompoc, California; and 3) Monterey strata and fish from Newport Lagoon, Orange County, California. A semi-quantitative index system was created and used to compare taphonomic parameters preserved in fossil occurrences at each study location. Relationships between preservational trends, taxonomic groups, depositional mode, bioturbation, rock type, and vertebral arching were considered, and trends in these parameters were analyzed. Teleost fish in the diatomites of the upper Monterey and related rocks appear to show preservational trends caused by a variety of factors. These include: most complete preservation in laminated, non-bioturbated rocks; fragmentary preservation within event layers; dorsally arched vertebral columns, especially in certain taxa, possibly related to exposure time prior to burial, but probably controlled by taxonomic grouping; preferential disarticulation of body parts, especially in certain taxa; and variability of diagenetic alteration or dissolution probably most controlled by paleoenvironmental and geologic history of the specific field location. Interpreted low-oxygen- induced exclusion of macrobenthos is thought to be one of the main factors that led to the high preservation quality of fish in the upper Monterey, rather than rapid burial. Further study is recommended to see multivariate associations not elucidated by the present study method. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank all those who kept telling me to just keep moving along and it will be done before you know it. The people who helped me get involved in this wonderful fossil deposit and provided counsel, suggestions, not to mention motivation, deserve at least equal thanks--Dr. David Bottjer and Dr. J.D. Stewart. My friends to whom I owe many a Newcastle brown for their support I can't thank enough. I won't list them all because I am bound to forget somebody. I would like to thank Law/Crandall and Dan Elliott for giving me some time off work during the final push to get this completed. And finally, I thank the Geological Society of America, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Sigma Xi, and the Paleontological Society for their financial contributions to this endeavor. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT............................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................. iv CHAPTER I--INTRODUCTION ............................. 1 CHAPTER II--BACKGROUND ............................. 5 THE MONTEREY FORMATION AND ITS EQUIVALENTS . . . 6 Geography .................................. 8 Facies and Depositional Environments . . . 12 TAPHONOMY...................................... 22 CHAPTER III--METHODS AND RESULTS ................... 31 INTRODUCTION .................................... 31 Why the Diatomites of the Upper Monterey? . 3 2 Field Work Localities..................... 33 METHODS FOR LACMNH STUDY ....................... 3 3 Introduction ............................. 33 Taphonomic Parameters 3 5 Overall Preservation Quality Index (OPQI) 36 Dissolution Index (DI) ............... 41 Arched Vertebral Columns (AVC) .... 45 Preferred Disarticulation (PD) .... 49 Ichnofabric Index (II) ............... 53 Rock Type (RT)....................... 54 Depositional Mode (DM)............... 57 Taxonomic Grouping ................... 59 Discussion on Museum Specimen Bias .... 60 Database and Data Reduction............... 62 LACMNH RESULTS .................................. 66 Observational Results ..................... 66 Comparative Results ....................... 69 Synopsis.................................. 84 METHODS FOR GREFCO QUARRY STUDY ............... 84 Introduction ............................. 84 Square Meter Section ..................... 87 GREFCO RESULTS .................................. 92 Observational Results ..................... 92 General............................. 92 Square Meter Section ................. 95 Comparative Results ....................... 99 METHODS FOR NEWPORT LAGOON STUDY ............... 112 NEWPORT LAGOON RESULTS ......................... 113 Observational Results ..................... 114 CARBON/CARBONATE ANALYSES ..................... 123 v CHAPTER IV--DISCUSSION ............................. 125 COMPARISON AMONG FIELD LOCATIONS AND MUSEUM STUDIES......................................125 Measured Indices ......................... 125 Raw index count comparison .......... 125 Index relationship (data plots) comparison....................... 128 Observational Comparisons ................. 13 0 Problems with Data Analysis.................132 TAPHONOMIC AND PALEOBIOLOGIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MONTEREY LAGERSTATTE ................. 133 CHAPTER V--CONCLUSIONS ............................. 139 REFERENCES............................................ 143 APPENDIX A. LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION DATABASE 151 APPENDIX B. LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION FILTERED DATABASE......................... 167 APPENDIX C. LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY DATA P L O T S ...............174 APPENDIX D. GREFCO MICROSTRATIGRAPHIC SECTION . . 188 APPENDIX E. GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATABASE . 193 APPENDIX F. GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION FILTERED DATABASE......................... 199 APPENDIX G. GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS............................. 203 APPENDIX H. NEWPORT LAGOON MICROSTRATIGRAPHIC SECTION........................... 223 APPENDIX I. NEWPORT LAGOON SECTION DATABASE . . . 227 APPENDIX J. CARBON/CARBONATE DATABASE ........... 228 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Monterey and other Neogene siliceous rock distribution in California...................... 9 Figure 2. GREFCO Quarry Field Locality............. 10 Figure 3. Newport Lagoon Field Locality............ 11 Figure 4. Generalized California Coast Ranges upper Tertiary depositional system........... 14 Figure 5. Relation of silica diagenesis and clastic content to rock type in Monterey-type rocks. . . 16 Figure 6. Photo of banded deposit showing laminated and event deposits............................... 18 Figure 7. Relation of oxygen minimum zone to Monterey type rock depocenters.................. 21 Figure 8. Ternary diagram of types of conservation traps in fossil lagerstatten.................... 24 Figure 9. Decay stages of Myoxocephalus scorpius. . 28 Figure 10. Overall preservation quality index (OPQI) examples.................................. 3 8 Figure 11. Dissolution index (DI) examples............. 42 Figure 12. Arched vertebral column examples......... 46 Figure 13. Preferred disarticulation examples. . . . 50 Figure 14. Ichnofabric indices....................... 55 Figure 15. X-radiographs of laminated and event deposits......................................... 58 Figure 16. How to read plots......................... 65 Figure 17. LACMNH data plots of OPQI and DI...... 71 Figure 18. LACMNH data plots of OPQI, DM and genera........................................... 73 Figure 19. LACMNH data plots of DI and genera. . . . 75 Figure 20. LACMNH data plots of AVC and genera. . . 76 Figure 21. LACMNH data plots of PD, genera, and RT. 78 Figure 22. LACMNH data plots of DM, genera, DI, and RT................................................ 80 Figure 23. LACMNH data plots of AVC, RT, and DM. . . 81 Figure 24. LACMNH data plots of OPQI and PD...... 83 Figure 25. Photo looking east along East Brush Ridge quarry roadcut............................. 88 Figure 26. Photo of dissection operation in progress. Note debris pile..................... 89 Figure 27. Photo of and line drawing of pseudoburrow at GREFCO.......................... 94 Figure 28. GREFCO data plots of OPQI vs. AVC. . . . 101 Figure 29. GREFCO data plots of AVC vs. OPQI. . . . 103 Figure 30. GREFCO data plots of OPQI vs. DM.......104 Figure 31. GREFCO data plots of DM vs. OPQI.......105 Figure 32. GREFCO data plots of DI vs. PD.........107 Figure 33. GREFCO data plots of PD vs. DI.........108 Figure 34. GREFCO data plots of AVC vs. DM........109 Figure 35. GREFCO data plots of DM vs. AVC........110 vii Figure 35. GREFCO data plots of DM vs. AVC........... 110 Figure 36. X-radiographs of vertical and horizontal intervals at Newport Lagoon.......................115 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY INDEX TOTALS ............... TABLE 2 GREFCO QUARRY SQUARE METER SECTION STUDY INDEX TOTALS ............... CHAPTER I--INTRODUCTION This basic research project was performed to fulfill, in part, the requirements of the University of Southern California Department of Earth Sciences for the Master of Science Degree in Geological Sciences. Many of the topics covered in this thesis have been investigated in other areas at earlier times but, for the most part, they cover new ground. Though the upper Monterey Formation and its equivalents have been studied thoroughly, the aspect of taphonomy of fish in these rocks has not been widely examined. This work attempts to demonstrate some basic principles and ideas which should be further studied in the future. Included in this discussion are specific areas where further research is recommended. The Monterey has long been studied for its economic value as a petroleum resource. The California Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines discussed the Monterey in 1940 in its historical review of the petroleum industry in California. The first oil well was drilled in California in 1865 by the Union Mattole Oil Company (Stalder, 1941) . Before the end of the 19th century, several oil fields were discovered which were sourced from Monterey Rocks (Pemberton, 1940). Since 1 that time the Monterey has been utilized economically for its petroleum potential as well as for another, less well publicized, resource--diatomite. This thesis focuses on the diatomite deposits primarily because some of the most readily available occurrences of fossil fish are found in these deposits. In part because of its economic importance, but also because of its geologic significance as a fine-grained active margin marine deposit, the Monterey has been studied extensively. The geographic location, various lithologies, diagenetic history, modes of deposition, paleogoegraphy, stratigraphy and biostratigraphy are relatively well sorted out, although consensus on some of these topics has yet to be achieved. In the background portion of this thesis the different theories of Monterey genesis are discussed as they relate to the current research. This study focuses not on the Monterey and its equivalents per se, but on the taphonomy of the fish found with such abundance within these rocks. The Monterey is a fossil lagerstatte. While the Monterey has not been termed as such in the literature reviewed for this project, it should be considered so. Taxonomically, the macrofossils in the Monterey lagerstatte have been rigorously examined earlier in this 2 century (e.g. Jordan 1907, 1921, 1924, 1925, 1927; Jordan and Gilbert, 1919, 1920; David, 1943), but not to a large degree taphonomically. The aim of this research is to discuss the current thought on taphonomy (background section) and apply simple statistical methods to help determine relations between potential causal factors and their results with respect to fossils of the Monterey. Taphonomic study in general seems at this point to be at middle maturity where a sizable literature base exists, but far from all aspects of taphonomic study have been pursued. This research attempts to add to the database of taphonomic research and of fossil lagerstatten. The primary area of field investigation discussed in this thesis is in Santa Barbara County, California, about 7 miles southeast of Lompoc. A good part of the upper Monterey stratigraphic section is exposed at the GREFCO diatomite quarry southeast of Lompoc. Several sections of the quarry were investigated for fossil occurrence and taphonomic significance. The bulk of the field data gathered for this investigation came from diatomite exposures in the GREFCO quarry and a smaller portion came from other Monterey outcrops at Newport Lagoon, Orange County, California. 3 In addition to the field investigation, a sizable portion of the data used in this investigation came from the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History (LACMNH). The fossil fish collection at LACMNH is extensive. From this collection, data were gathered to assess the simple statistical relationships among preservational attributes of the preserved fossils. This data allowed a quantitative rather than only a qualitative description of the modes and trends of preservation in the Monterey and its equivalents. From the literature search, and field and museum research, several conclusions and recommendations were drawn. These conclusions and recommendations follow the background discussion, methods and results of this research. 4 CHAPTER II--BACKGROUND The Monterey is probably one of the most studied formations in the world because of its various lithologies, diagenetic history, geographic location, and, of course, its economic value in terms of oil production. Many workers have sorted out modes of deposition, paleogeography, tectonic regime (Bramlette, 1946; Pisciotto and Garrison, 1981; Barron, 1986, and many others), source and reservoir rock potential (Isaacs and Garrison, eds., 1983, and many others), diagenesis (Kruge, 1983, Isaacs, 1981a, and others), biostratigraphy (Kleinpell, 1938, 1980, and others), and teleost faunal diversity (David, 1943, and others). Less well sorted out are the taphonomic trends of the fossil fish found in these rocks. This thesis focuses on the taphonomic trends of the fossil fish found both in the field and at the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History. Taphonomy is the study of modes of fossil preservation (Allison and Briggs, 1991a). Fossils are not found in every rock formation. Fossils are the result of several unique and necessary environmental conditions which, in combination, at the time of the preserved animal's (or plant's) death, form a protective barrier to the destructive forces which normally 5 obliterate most dead things in a relatively short period of time. Fossils are not rare, however, as it may be conventionally thought. Rare only are those fossils that are exceptionally well-preserved. Taphonomy is the study of fossils' state of preservation and the determination of the paleoenvironmental conditions which preserved them. Rock formations which contain numerous exceptionally well-preserved fossils are called fossil lagerstatten (Seilacher, et al., 1985). The term is a German mining term which means approximately ore deposit, or "mother lode" (Seilacher, personal communication, 1993) . The Monterey contains numerous localities where fossil fish are exceptionally well-preserved and thus the Monterey deserves this designation. In this section, a short background on taphonomic study is considered. Before delving into taphonomy in general, and later into the taphonomic aspects of the fish in the Monterey, a short background section on the depositional environments and history of study of Monterey rocks will be pursued. THE MONTEREY FORMATION AND ITS EQUIVALENTS The Monterey and its equivalents have long been studied for their petroleum potential, as mentioned 6 previously. Other studies have led to a fairly good understanding of Monterey depositional systems. This section presents a brief look at the Monterey and its equivalents as they relate to the present work. The first comprehensive study of the siliceous rocks of the Monterey was by Bramlette (1946), and considered geographic occurrence, lithology, stratigraphic relations, paleogeography, rhythmicity in bedding, and petroleum occurrence, among other topics. This paper was the first to pull together current thinking on the formation. A later Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists symposium covered much of the current thought at that time. The proceedings were published in Garrison and Douglas (1981). Most recently, Isaacs and others (in prep) have revisited the previous work on the Monterey. These works form a backbone of sorts for Monterey study. This research touches only on a part of the Monterey, the upper diatomaceous facies. Portions of the diatomaceous facies examined in the field at the GREFCO quarry and at the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History in fact have been considered part of the Sisquoc Formation (e.g. Dibblee, 1950; and various fossil collectors). Many however consider the rocks at GREFCO to be upper Monterey to the point where chert disappears 7 (Chris Hood, personal communication, 1991). In this thesis, all the diatomaceous rocks are considered upper Monterey for ease and clarity. Since this thesis considers only the basic depositional regime of upper Monterey rocks as they relate to fossil preservation, please refer to works cited in the previous paragraph and citations therein for more detail on the Monterey depositional system. Geography The Monterey was deposited in numerous, usually small, basins primarily along coastal central and southern California. Figure 1 shows locations of Monterey outcrops. The geographic distribution of the Monterey is guided primarily by tectonism (basin creation) and infilling by pelagic and hemipelagic deposition during the Miocene (Pisciotto and Garrison, 1981) and erosion since. The two field localities examined in the present work are located southeast of Lompoc, Santa Barbara County, California and at Newport Lagoon, Orange County, California. Figures 2 and 3 show the locations and the local geology. The museum study specimens were collected from numerous localities shown on Figure 1. 8 14. A M M l'R M f Rtop* O N IB. A ntefeoe V allay area 16. Pao RoWm 17. S ant* M arparlta 16. Indian Croak 10. Chleo M artina* Craak 2 0 . T em blor R an * i 2 1 . San Lula OM apo araa 22. C altenta Ran#* 2 3 . Muaaal Rock 24 . U o n 't Haad 25. S anta Marla 26. Lom poc 27. S anta Vn*> Mtna. 2 8 . G aviota 2 0 . S anta Oartoara 3 0 . Saapa Craak 31. Flru>FNmora araa 3 2 . Grime* C anyon 33 . No. Santa M onica Mtna. 34. V antura 35. San Miauai id an d 36. S anta Roaa Id an d 37. S an ta Crux id an d 3 6 . Ft. Dum a 3 0 . Fuanto Htti* 4 0 . Faloa Varda* Fonlnaula 41 . N ew port Lapocn 4 2 . O ana Ft. 4 3 . S anta C atalina Id and 4 4 . San Clam ant* Id an d LACMNH SITES FIELD AREA LACMNH SITES FIELD AREA Figure 1. Monterey and other Neogene siliceous rock distribution in California. Number 26 is the location of GREFCO, the quarry field section of this investigation. Number 41 is the location of the Newport Lagoon field section of this field investigation. Numerous localities are sources of the LACMNH Miocene fish collection including, for example, 26--Lompoc; 33--Santa Monica Mountains; 40--Palos Verdes; and 39--Puente Hills. Adapted from Pisciotto and Garrison (1981). 0. M um boldt-6el River 6 a d n 1. Ft. Arana 2. F t. Raya* 3. Barfcdy HHI* 4. Mt. HamMtan k m 6. S an ta Crux Men*. 6. Ft. A no Noavp 7. M ontaray>C«’ m at Vafiay araa 6. FMnaeta* 9. A rroyo Saeo 10. Raltx C anyon 11. Indiana Ranch 12. L o c k w o e M M 13. S an Slm aon Fo 9 p a e / f / e GREFCO PLANT . LOM POC EXPLAN ATIO N Alluvium, I t r r o c t d a p o i i t l , t o n d t l i d a t m c tu d aa M i n i u p p a r P h o c a n a o n d P l a t t i o c t n t f o rm a tio n * ZQuarnes'T LOw# Phoctnt S i t q u o c f o r m a tio n ( d 'o lo m ita ) J O H N 5 - M A N V I L L E -------------------------GREFCO r- _ ;_H M on t# r« v f o r m a t i o n . ( S i l i c a o u i A f i o c a n a f ^ - T m - H « h o la . d io io m it# l a n a a a ) '-■V Ouarncs FIELD AREA U n d i f f a r a n t i a t a d E o c a n a a n d C r a t a c a o u t f o r m o f 'o n t ICALI G a o i o q y q a n a r o l i r a d fro m P l a ta I ,B ull 130 C alifornio D iv m o n of Minas Figure 2. GREFCO Quarry Field Locality. Geology of GREFCO area shown as Sisquoc Formation--see text for explanation. Adapted from Taylor (1981); Geology after Dibblee (1950). 10 - Qu*4*r f>O irv| a l \ GK_ " 0 ______________- t t r t Q c t " L»vir NEWPORT LAQOON SECTIO N •as k j r Figure 3. Newport Lagoon Field Locality. Physiography adapted from USGS (1981). Geology adapted from Poland and Piper (1956). 11 Both field locations and a majority of the museum specimens' host rocks were upper Monterey or its equivalents. Museum specimens were collected mostly in the Los Angeles area when not from the Lompoc area. Monterey equivalents in the Los Angeles area include: Modelo Formation, located in many parts of the Santa Monica Mountains (Hoots, 1931; Yerkes et al., 1965; Jahns, 1954; Neuerburg, 1953) and Puente Formation, located in the Elysian Hills, San Jose Hills and Puente Hills (Yerkes et al., 1965; Jahns, 1954; Durham and Yerkes, 1964; Yerkes, 1972; Lamar, 1970). Monterey also outcrops in the Palos Verdes Hills (Woodring et al. , 1946) where numerous fossil specimens were collected for LACMNH. Facies and Depositional Environments For the purposes of this report, only generalizations about the hypothesized depositional environments are considered. Continuing arguments for or against specifics in a particular area are unimportant here and are glossed over for the broad brush view. The generalizations are considered to illustrate the backdrop for this taphonomic study. The Monterey Formation has three basic facies. The lower calcareous, middle phosphatic, and upper 12 siliceous facies are part of a basinal marine depositional system which is bracketed above and below by shallower marine units in most locations (Pisciotto and Garrison, 1981). Figure 4 shows the generalized depositional system of the Monterey in relation to sedimentation, paleobathymetry, and other upper Tertiary Coast Ranges facies of California. The lower calcareous facies are comprised of foraminiferal and coccolith shales, siltstones and mudstones with diagenetic carbonates including limestones and dolomites (Pisciotto and Garrison, 1981). Bedding ranges from several centimeters to about a meter (Bramlette, 1946; Dibblee, 1950; Pisciotto and Garrison, 1981). The depositional environment is of basinal character where hemipelagic deposits accumulate by settling of weakly held together fecal pellets with some terrigenous debris (Pisciotto and Garrison, 1981). The middle phosphatic facies is composed of phosphatic shales and mudstones and is commonly grouped with the lower facies because it is typically poorly developed or missing (Woodring and Bramlette, 1950; Durham, 1974). Bedding and depositional environment is similar to the lower calcareous facies. 13 APPROXIMATE RATES OF SEDIMENTATION AND SUBSIDENCE I my my) GENERALIZED UPPER TERTIARY FACIES, COAST RANGES, CALIFORNIA GENERALIZED BASINAL FACIES O F THE MONTEREY FORMATION APPROXIMATE PALEOBATHYMETRY (METERS) 2000 0 400 1000 200 Shallow Marina Facial ISadimantation FIELD AND LACMNH SECTIONS — p p -------- Shallow Manna Facias Figure 4. Generalized California Coast Ranges upper Tertiary depositional system. Adapted from Pisciotto and Garrison (1981); bathymetry, sedimentation rates, and subsidence rates generalized from Graham (1976) and Ingle (1980) . 14 Since this investigation focuses on the upper siliceous facies, no further specific attention is paid to the lower calcareous and middle phosphatic members. The upper siliceous facies is unique in that it contains an unusual abundance of biogenic silica. There are three basic types of upper Monterey siliceous rocks: porcelanite, cherty shale and diatomite. Each of these types was likely originally deposited as diatomite and then altered through diagenesis to its present form (Isaacs, 1981b, Pisciotto and Garrison, 1981). Figure 5 shows the association of silica diagenesis to rock type. Deeper burial typically led to higher degrees of silica diagenesis (Isaacs, 1981b). The upper facies was also deposited in a basinal environment, however probably at shallower depth than the lower and middle facies. There was a higher proportion of diatomaceous pelagic input resulting in the cleaner, more siliceous nature of the upper facies in many locations. Terrigenous input was reduced significantly and coastal upwelling increased, leading to purer diatomaceous rocks (Pisciotto and Garrison, 1981; Govean and Garrison, 1981; Barron, 1986). The upper Monterey is characterized by banded and massive diatomites and porcelaineous shales with varying degrees of clastic input (Bramlette, 1946). At GREFCO, 15 D ECR EA SIN G SIL IC A CO NTEN T X RD PA TTERN O F DOM IN A N T S IL IC A M IN ERA L S IL IC A M IN ERA LO G Y LITH OLOGY IN CREA SIN G D IA G EN ETIC G R A O E OPAL-A M uddy D ietom ite D iatom ite O PA L-A OPAL-CT 20 OPAL-CT QUARTZ Q U A R T Z D EG R EES 2d GREFCO QUARRY NEWPORT LAGOON LACMNH LOCALITIES Figure 5. Relation of silica diagenesis and clastic content to rock type in Monterey-type rocks. Range of rock type for GREFCO quarry, Newport Lagoon and LACMNH shown with shading patterns. Adapted from Pisciotto and Garrison (1981) . 16 terrigenous input was virtually non-existent and at Newport Lagoon it was slight. Both field localities contain almost no porcelaineous rocks and at GREFCO, only some chert is present along certain bedding planes. Samples from LACMNH are typically highly diatomaceous but some show slight degrees of alteration toward porcelanite and others contain varying amounts of clastic material. Banding, along with the high silica content are the most distinguishing characteristics of upper Monterey rocks (Bramlette, 1946; Pisciotto and Garrison, 1981; Govean and Garrison, 1981). Laminations observed during this investigation ranged from submillimeter scale to at most 1-2 millimeters. "Laminations" greater in thickness than this are commonly considered event deposits in this investigation in that they are typically graded to some degree. Furthermore, they do not appear to be deposited slowly as background sedimentation--seasonally, on El Nino-type cycles, or otherwise in a varve-like manner. In this thesis, only layers which are very thin (less than 1-2 mm) and show no apparent grading are called "laminations." Rock sections (i.e. outcrop scale exposures) which are combinations of laminations and thin event deposits are called "banded" here instead of "laminated," as would be conventional. Figure 6 shows a photograph of a "banded" deposit with laminated layers 17 event vtfM Figure 6. Photo of banded deposit showing laminated and event deposits. 18 and event layers as defined herein. Other workers have not thus far considered such minutiae of considerable importance, but the distinction between truly laminated deposits and more event-like deposits is important for this study. Banding, as defined here, is an indicator of two important factors in the consideration of fish taphonomy. One is rapidity of burial and another is oxygenation. Rapidity of burial is considered to assess the sea floor conditions in terms of exposure time of potential fossils to disruption by epibenthos and current action. Oxygenation is addressed for the potential presence of scavengers. Oxygenation in relation to scavenger-driven destruction is discussed further in the following section but oxygenation and the preservation of banding is considered here. Much of the rock examined in this research was banded. The origin of these banded rocks and reasons why banding has been preserved are due to depositional environment and paleoceanographic conditions at the time of, and soon after, deposition. The simplest analog of Monterey deposition is the modern California continental borderland. While it is debated whether this is a good analog because of significant differences between sediments of the modern offshore basins and Monterey 19 rocks (Isaacs et al. , in prep), it is basically acceptable for the purposes of this investigation and for readers' general understanding. The modern California Continental Borderland is a system of relatively small basins separated by banks which may or may not rise above the water surface (Gorsline and Emery, 1959; Gorsline, 1978). The near shore basins are sites of detrital sedimentation, whereas those farther from land tend to collect relatively more pelagic deposition. These outer basins are probably more analogous to Monterey depocenters because the separating ridges are more deeply submerged. Thus Monterey basins were more like broad depressions rather than well defined basins (Isaacs et al., in prep). It is thought that much of the reason for preserved banding in upper Monterey rocks is low oxygen levels which help to exclude macrobenthos (e.g. Govean and Garrison, 1981). Low oxygen conditions may have been the result of impingement of the oxygen minimum zone onto slope or basin bank tops which in effect eliminated, to a large degree, the presence of macrobenthos (Pisciotto and Garrison, 1981; Govean and Garrison, 1981). Figure 7 shows the hypothesized relation between the non- bioturbated rock depocenters and the oxygen minimum zone. 20 MIN. ZONE A. O U T E R SH ELF - UPPER SLO PE B. ISOLA TED BANK TO P SL- SL M IN .- ZONE C. A E R A T E D BASIN (BASIN FLO O R A N D LOW ER SLOPE) D. AN OXIC BASIN (BASIN FLO O R A N D LOWER SLO PE) Figure 7. Relation of oxygen minimum zone to Monterey type rock depocenters. Adapted from Pisciotto and Garrison (1981). 21 A depositional environment low in oxygen and without macrobenthos is one step toward the ideal preservational conditions for animals or plants introduced into it. Another step is protective burial (e.g. Seilacher et al. , 1985). Whether a potential fossil is swept away and disarticulated in a current deposit, buried by a current deposit, or slowly buried by gradual sedimentation is a key factor in its overall potential for quality preservation. Another factor is geochemical change, either early or late post-burial, which includes, for example, hard or soft part replacement, dissolution or encapsulation in pyrite or a concretion (e.g. Allison, 1988) . Other factors related to fossil preservation are more a combination of what individual organisms experience after death than just their geological environment. Thus the following section addresses, among other things, decomposition and disarticulation processes tested by other workers. TAPHONOMY As stated previously, the Monterey and its equivalents should be considered a fossil lagerstatte because of the extraordinary preservation of fish in many sections of the formation. This section describes what 22 constitutes a fossil lagerstatte, the causes and characteristics of extraordinary preservation, and sets the background for the taphonomic study of this investigation. Fossil lagerstatten have been the focus of innumerable research papers in the geologic and paleobiologic literature. Their extremely well preserved fossil contents have commonly provided us with unique records of ancient life. They are essentially a snapshot of ancient ecosystems and their depositional environments. Several different types of fossil lagerstatten exist, and according to Seilacher et al. (1985), these include: obrution--rapid burial; stagnation--oxygen deficiency, reducing conditions; bacterial sealing--protection against decay; and other "conservation traps-amber and permafrost, for example. Figure 8 shows the most geologically significant modes of lagerstatten formation in a ternary-type diagram. Several real lagerstatten are plotted showing the relative degrees of importance of the three end-members in the genesis of these units. The upper Monterey was added here based on interpretation of results of this work. Any lagerstatte may have components of each of these end-members as well as other factors which may influence 23 stagnation (hydrographic regime) Holzmaden Monterey lolnhofen Bundenbach ? Hvar Gmiind Ediacara obrution (sedimentational regime) bacterial sealing (early diagenetic regime) Figure 8. Ternary diagram of types of conservation traps in fossil lagerstatten. Adapted from Seilacher et al. (1985) . 24 preservation. Fish preserved in many parts of the Monterey appear to be a combination of stagnation from low oxygen levels as evidenced by the lack of bioturbation and lack of benthic macrofossils; and, to varying degrees, rapid burial. Some influence of bacterial sealing could be important (Seilacher, 1985; Grant, 1991), however, this author could not detect microbial mat presence in the rocks studied in this investigation. There have been almost no studies on Monterey preservational trends. A brief UCLA biology masters thesis discusses mass kill horizons at two Monterey equivalent outcrops (Zawacki, 1974), but this is the only Monterey-specific work discovered. Since almost no work has been done on these rocks in terms of taphonomy, much of the work cited here deals with work in other areas and with results of other worker's decomposition experiments. Results of others, in combination with work performed here, shed some light on the different modes of preservation of fish in the Monterey. Fish, like all vertebrates, are comprised of large numbers of skeletal elements connected to each other by several types of connective tissue (Romer and Parsons, 1986). Fish are particularly delicate and critically balanced conditions are required to preserve whole fish 25 remains. Usually this means one of a narrow range of circumstances creating fossil lagerstatten discussed in brief above. Some of the earliest examinations of vertebrate biostratinomy were done by Weigelt in 1927 (translated 1989) and Hecht in 1933 (english discussion in Zangerl and Richardson, 1963). These studies and other experimental data (Schafer, 1972; Elder, 1985) form much of the knowledge base of pre-burial disarticulation processes for fish. While these studies are very informative, they, with the exception of Elder's (1985) work, are mostly anecdotal and are only partially applicable to this study. Hecht's (1933) experiments consisted of placing young dead Gadidae in seawater aquaria (salinity 2.87%, temperature not recorded) and allowing the specimens to decompose (Zangerl and Richardson, 1963). After 4-6 days, carcasses floated with abdomens facing upward. After 2 weeks, soft parts had badly decomposed and the skeleton had sunk to the bottom and skull bones were disarticulated. Hecht (1933) tried the same experiment with very concentrated salinity (34.4%) and decay processes were considerably slowed. There were no differences in decay process--disintegration simply took 26 more time. No consideration was taken of aerobic vs. anaerobic decay or of temperature differences. Schafer (1972) was more systematic in his experimental methods in that he recorded temperatures and documented more stages of disarticulation of the eight species in his experiments. Several of his species floated with decay gasses bulging from different portions of the body cavity. Figure 9 shows results of one of Schafer's (1972) decomposition experiments. Schafer (1972) found that carcasses which floated (and sometimes sank and re-floated) tended to disarticulate more readily. Those that sink and do not float at all decompose leaving the most orderly set of skeletal remains. Interestingly, size of specimens and water temperature were strong factors in whether a carcass floated. Larger carcasses tended not to float as readily even in well aerated waters because sheer body size kept oxygen from much of the inner decaying body. This effectively prevented production of many of the decay gases required for floatation. Temperature likewise affected floatation regardless of body size. Warm temperatures forced rapid production of decay gases causing floatation while cool temperatures slowed production so that those species which normally float at relatively warm temperatures (15°C) did not float. Thus 27 • " .V v j'.'jW 'f Figure 9. Decay stages of Myoxocephalus scorpius. Diagram shows decay gas formation, floatation, and some disarticulation. View of four day decay process. Note arching of vertebral column and ventral body disarticulation. Drawing from Schafer (1972). 28 low temperatures or anoxia would (or could) prevent floatation of fish carcasses. Floatation causes fish to disarticulate and fall to the bottom in disarray-- analogous processes would presumably occur in open ocean water. Those carcasses which do not float would therefore tend to disarticulate less than those that do float. Factors other than floatation are important in the preservation of whole, articulated fish. Scavengers, wave action, and bottom currents could disturb a decaying carcass prior to burial on the sea floor. Wave action at least can be disregarded here because the presumed water depth of upper Monterey deposition is well below wave base. Bottom currents alone, however, do not explain poor fossilization. Allison (1986, 1990) and Kidwell and Baumiller (1990) showed that freshly killed echinoderms tend to stay articulated even with significant agitation. Thus transport may not necessarily be an important consideration for fish freshly killed. Some intervals in the Monterey contain mass kill beds which relate more to an oceanographic phenomenon than a geologic one. Events leading to mass death of fish are numerous. Brongersma-Sanders (1957) discusses several modes of death which may lead to mass mortality beds. The most plausible of the suggestions are death by 29 noxious waterbloom and by deoxygenation events. High numbers of fish can be killed by red tide events either as decomposition by the phytoplankton removes oxygen from the water column or by the poisonous nature of some phytoplankton. While a wide combination of factors undoubtedly led to the final nature of fossil occurrence in the Monterey, it appeared, after preliminary evaluation, that mode of burial (i.e. laminated vs. event), bioturbation and scavenging disruption (or lack thereof, due to oxygen content of bottom water, presumably), and condition of fossil material prior to final rest on the sea floor were most important in the preservation of fossil fish in the Monterey. Mode of burial, oxygenation, bioturbation, and scavenging are geologic and paleoceanographic while disarticulation after death (discounting scavenging) is primarily biologic. All of these factors are considered in taphonomy and specifics thereto in this study. How each of these relates to the fossil fish of the upper Monterey is studied and discussed in this investigation in the following chapters. 30 CHAPTER III--METHODS AND RESULTS INTRODUCTION This section presents the plans, procedures, and methods used in gathering data from the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History (LACMNH) fossil fish collection, GREFCO quarry stratigraphic section, and Newport Lagoon stratigraphic section. It also presents the results of the analyses performed with the data gathered from these sources. At the inception of this project a set of factors was selected which was thought would be useful in creating a sizable database which could be used to run statistical comparisons on related taphonomic factors which were probably involved in fossil fish preservation in the Monterey Formation of California. Starting in November, 1991, a systematic review of the LACMNH Miocene fossil fish collection, under the helpful guidance of Dr. J. D. Stewart of LACMNH, was started. In total, 691 individual specimens in the museum collection were studied. All specimens were in what is believed to be Monterey and Monterey equivalent rocks. In the collection many specimens were not labeled with a formation origin, so much of this was inferred from rock type. Most specimens were in diatomite and diatomaceous 31 rocks with varying degrees of diagenetic alteration. As discussed shortly, this is not a critical factor for this study. Why the Diatomites of the Upper Monterey? The Monterey diatomaceous rocks were chosen for a variety of reasons not completely related to availability of fossil specimens at LACMNH, although the size of the collection makes the research more thorough. Diatomite is a very convenient rock type to work with because of its fissility, weight, and clearly the most important factor, the abundance of fossils in the diatomites of the upper Monterey Formation and its equivalents. Diatomite is usually a white to off-white punky, fissile, dusty rock that has variable clastic content. Diatomite is used in industry for a variety of purposes, including filtering agents and abrasives (Taylor, 1981; Burnett, 1991). It is mined fairly extensively in California. In particular, it is mined at two quarries just south of Lompoc, Santa Barbara County. These quarries are the Johns Mansville quarry and the GREFCO quarry. 32 Field Work Localities Most of the field work done for this research project was done at the GREFCO quarry, which is about 7 miles southeast of Lompoc just east of California Highway 1. Figure 2 shows the general location of the GREFCO quarry in relation to local geology and physiographic features. In addition to field work done at the GREFCO quarry, less intensive field study, as well as rock and fossil collecting was done at Newport Lagoon near Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Figure 3 shows the general location of the study area at Newport Lagoon in relation to local geology and physiographic features. METHODS FOR LACMNH STUDY Introduction First, a discussion of the methods and reasoning employed during the LACMNH fossil data collection, as well as the advantages and drawbacks of working with a large collection obtained over time with all the inherent biases included in a museum collection will be pursued. Second, a discussion of the advantages and drawbacks of choosing a relatively arbitrary section at the GREFCO Quarry to systematically work though in search of useful taphonomic data will be made. Many of the methods 33 employed during the section study at GREFCO were similar to those at the museum. At LACMNH an extensive collection of Miocene- Pliocene teleost fish, which are stored taxonomically rather than by location or rock formation (which, understandably, would have been preferable), is available for study. As such, care had to be taken not to mix formations as interest is primarily in the Monterey Formation and its local equivalents. This generally was not difficult as Monterey rocks are fairly easy to identify. In addition, many of the taxa are found only in Monterey type/age rocks from California. Prior to data collection and tabulation procedures, decisions about what features, parameters, and factors were made regarding what should (and could) be measured. What was decided to be taken into account during the museum study were several factors that were determined useful and practical in terms of both measuring, when looking at the specimens themselves, and analyzing, laoer, when looking for relations between the measured factors. In terms of measuring, the parameters were mostly quantifiable, although during the course of investigation some had to be modified. For relationships among parameters, results were mixed. The results for the museum study are discussed following the explanation 34 of the factors/parameters measured during the data collection phase of the museum study. Taphonomic Parameters There were seven factors reviewed during this investigation. Each of the factors was measured on an index basis, meaning each factor was rated on a number scale. Some of these indices were semi-quantitative. They are semi-quantitative because these factors fall on a continuum whereby, for example, preservation quality is rated from 1 to 5, with 1 a well preserved specimen and 5 fossil hash (but still recognizable as an individual). Some of the factor indices are not quantitative at all. An example of this would be interpreted depositional mode (e.g. a fossil within thin laminated sediments or part of a thicker depositional event), an either/or type of factor which is given an arbitrary number for later determination of associations. All but one of the indices were created by the author. The seven factors used were the "overall preservation quality index" (OPQI), "dissolution index" (DI), "ichnofabric index" (II), "arched vertebral column" (AVC), "rock type" (RT), "depositional mode" (DM), and "preferred disarticulation" (PD). In addition to these 35 indices, museum specimen number and lowest taxonomic level identification were recorded. Overall Preservation Quality Index (OPQI) The "overall preservation quality index," or OPQI, is a semi-quantitative description of an individual fossil's degree of articulation. The rating ranges from 1 to 5. The description of the rating levels is as follows: 1) a whole specimen with articulated head and body; no missing parts; 2) a whole specimen with some disarticulation or minor missing parts; 3) a whole specimen with significant disarticulation; 4) a mostly whole specimen with separated, partly coherent, body parts; 5) specimen not whole, mostly disarticulated, difficult to recognize individual, some parts articulated/recognizable. Figure 10 shows examples of the five OPQI states. The index, while only semi-quantitative, is easy to use when dividing a specimen's preservational quality. Through experimentation with greater and fewer divisions, five was determined to be the optimal choice for number of index levels. More divisions created difficulty because deciding between two divisions in a 36 seven point scale was harder to do at the more- disarticulated end of the scale. It became a decision based more on specific body part disarticulation (or articulation). As a result, in the seven-level scale the difference between a 4 and a 5 was whether either the cranial region was separated from the body or the caudal region. When speaking about overall preservation quality, whether it is the head or the tail that is separated is not relevant. The semi-quantitative nature of the scale was lost with the seven-level approach. The difference between, say, a 4 and 5 would be which end of the fish was missing or detached. The number 4 on the index could as likely have been the 5 or vice-versa. Such a scale is no longer from best-preserved to worst- preserved but arbitrarily different in number. These differences in type of disarticulation, however, are covered in the "preferred disarticulation" index. A difficult problem occurred with fewer than a five- level index. With fewer levels, too many specimens that were different ended up lumped together although some were clearly better preserved than others with the same preservation index number. For these reasons five levels of preservation quality were chosen. 37 Figure 10. Overall preservation quality index (OPQI) examples. 10A. OPQI 1, whole specimens with articulated head and body; no missing parts; Xyne grex examples from LACMNH; 10B. OPQI 2 and 3, whole specimen with some disarticulation or minor missing parts (2); whole specimen with significant disarticulation (3); Xyne grex examples from LACMNH; 10C. OPQI 4, mostly whole specimen with separated, partly coherent, body parts; Xyne grex{?) examples from LACMNH; 10D. OPQI 5, specimen not whole, mostly disarticulated, difficult to recognize individual, some parts articulated/ recognizable; specimen not identified. 38 6£ m --------- ly g W W m y j j g - *1 ! ' *” W ‘MEM ~ * S on • * > » —■ z s t a T - ° £ i j $ p i90|0MM>»pid »mqiUJ/v •**“7/ w n a tn w j u n h o d s b i b o n v b o i I iOdO .irnTfi '•»■>*& lity ■ . Uolowo’ i’ l.d j’ S l^j^ X 0 ' ^ wnasnw ain h o^ saiaonv sen -s&.y m 40 Dissolution Index (DI) The next factor chosen was the degree to which the original hard part material remained in the preserved fossil. The "dissolution index," or DI, fell into four categories and is also semi-quantitative. The four levels of dissolution were originally termed "diagenesis index" but with further thought it was better described with the word "dissolution." It was expected that there would be more replacement of original skeletal material with silica or other material, but as results showed, for most of the fossils, simple dissolution of the original bone and scale material was the primary means of alteration. Removal of all original skeletal material therefore left only molds. Placement into different categories, like each of the indices, was done by visual estimation. No destructive weight or chemical analyses were performed on the museum specimens (for obvious reasons). The four levels are as follows: 1) estimated 80-100% original skeletal material preserved; 2) estimated 50-80% original skeletal material preserved; 3) estimated 10-50% original skeletal material preserved; 4) estimated less than 10% original skeletal material preserved. Figure 11 shows examples of the four levels of dissolution index (DI). 41 Figure 11. Dissolution index (DI) examples. IIA. DI 1, estimated 80-100% original skeletal material preserved; Xyne grex examples from LACMNH; IIB. DI 2, estimated 50-80% original skeletal material preserved; Etringus example from LACMNH; IIC. DI 3, estimated 10-50% original skeletal material preserved; Etringus bathylagus example from LACMNH; IID. DI 4, estimated less than 10% original skeletal material preserved; Etringus Scintillans from LACMNH. 42 m m 0 § ' $ $ i / ; # # $ : ’ y: " S ' . f j & l 82? m a ■ “ ■ : ■ ■ : •■>>■>'-' ■ ■ > ; ■ • v.*. ■ :5- ■ .; *’ - •-• 44 Arched Vertebral Columns (AVC) The next of the semi-quantitative indices is the "arched vertebral column" (AVC) index. In preliminary study of museum and field specimens it became apparent that there was a significant percentage of those specimens observed that had vertebral columns which were bent dorsally. The degree to which they were distorted was also scaled in this research. There were three levels of distortion distinguished: 1) none to slight--spine is relatively straight with normal to slight curvature; 2) moderate--less than 45 degrees from straight; 3) severe--more than 45 degrees from straight. Figure 12 shows examples of the different arched vertebral column (AVC) indices. While it may have been possible to differentiate more levels of spine distortion, none, some, and severe seemed most appropriate so that there weren't too many divisions to attempt to analyze. There were four measured factors that did not naturally fall on a continuum. These four were "preferred disarticulation" (PD), "rock type" (RT), "depositional mode" (DM), and taxonomic classification. I assigned arbitrary numbers to the characteristics 45 Figure 12. Arched vertebral column examples. 12A. 12B . 12C. AVC 1, spine is relatively straight with normal to slight curvature; Xyne grex examples from LACMNH; AVC 2, curvature less than 45 degrees from straight; Etringus example from LACMNH; AVC 3, more than 45 degrees from straight; Etringus example from LACMNH; 46 Pill W i M M w m m ^ * » 12B. AVC 2 47 L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y M U S E U M V e r te b r a te P a le o n to lo g y > < ^ aiaS D e p r , N o . A a r N o , _ , v ' . o 1 \- Sc. A M at______________________________i F o r m . _ _ _ — ............................ ..................................... u.^ZSCAfa^xil^ C f l . - L K U r.- _________ .__________ C o l l ____________ !____________________ D a t e ___________ I r le n r . b v _______________ - 7 a s t measured (or noted in the case of taxonomic classification). While these characteristics did not fall on a continuum they were assigned numbers so that the data set could be counted and readily manipulated. Preferred Disarticulation (PD) Portions of the fish bodies disarticulated at different rates and in different ways before, and presumably soon after, the time they came to rest on the sea floor some six to ten million years ago. The preferred disarticulation (PD) index was broken into four categories that were expected to be related to one or more of the other indices. The selection of items was based on assessment of preliminary observations. The four items are as follows: 1) none, no disarticulation or evenly distributed disarticulation; 2) cranial; 3) ventral body; 4) other (described in comments). Figure 13 shows examples of the different modes of preferred disarticulation (PD). The preliminary observations made at LACMNH showed that there was little variability in the modes of preferential disarticulation (PD). The best and worst 49 Figure 13. Preferred disarticulation examples. 13A. PD 1, no disarticulation or evenly distributed disarticulation; Xyne grex examples from LACMNH; 13B. PD 2, cranial disarticulation; Clupeidae example from LACMNH; 13C. PD 3, caudal disarticulation; Xyne grex example from LACMNH; 13D. PD 4, other disarticulation, caudal in this case; unidentified specimen from LACMNH 50 LOS ANGELES COUNTY M 51 L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T V M U S E U M Vertebrate Paleontology D ept. No. / ^S ‘ f f . 3 7 A r e No.----- Sc. Name * 1 . / ^ ----- Mu & / £ - k r . . . 5 * - # 0 O i G - r T 5, Age__ Form.. Loc,_ W r o , C/. St*<iCAK£. , ________ f S o C i J s . 4C*t. /S/rusty. A:dy e. « . Coll. T ~ > f l Ment. bv____/UUr/r/f^ • preserved specimens seemed to show no particular degree of body-part-specific disintegration while some of the moderate quality specimens showed disarticulation of the cranial region and/or ventral body. Occasionally there was another form of preferred disarticulation (i.e. caudal) which was assigned an index of "4" or "other." These were typically described in comments but weren't analyzed further statistically. The reason to include preferred disarticulation (PD) was to see if a relationship appeared between one of the overall preservation quality indices and a particular PD, for example; or if a more arched vertebral column (AVC) was associated with preferred disarticulation (PD) "3," ventral body disarticulation. Ichnofabric Index (II) The ichnofabric index is a previously developed and used semi-quantitative method of describing the degree to which a rock (or sediment) has been bioturbated (Droser and Bottjer, 1986, 1987; Britt et al., 1992). Bioturbation is a factor in fish taphonomy because even a fish buried in conditions otherwise perfect for preservation may be disrupted or destroyed by bioturbating organisms. Also, the degree to which sediments were bioturbated lends clues to oxygenation and 53 other sediment-water interface conditions (Seilacher, 1967; Rhodes and Morse, 1971; Byers, 1977; Bromley and Ekdale, 1984; Savrda and Bottjer, 1986, 1987a, 1987b). The description of the ichnofabric indices are as follows: 1) no bioturbation; 2) discrete, isolated trace fossils, 10% disturbed; 3) 10-40% bedding disturbed; 4) last vestiges of bedding discernable; 5) bedding completely disturbed, burrows still discrete; 6) bedding nearly completely homogenized (Droser and Bottjer, 1986) . Figure 14 shows the degree of bioturbation associated with the different ichnofabric indices (II). This semi-quantitative index was also fairly easy to use in Monterey and similar rocks. Most of the specimens turned out to be in rocks with little or no bioturbation. Mere on this subject follows in the results and discussion sections. Rock Type (RT) Another non-semi-quantitative index that was used in this research was rock type. This factor was divided 54 1 Figure 14. Ichnofabric indices. Originally drawn for strata deposited in carbonate shelf environments but is sufficient for purposes of this investigation. From Droser and Bottjer (1986). 55 into four types: 0) diatomite; 1) altered diatomite (porcelainite); 2) diatomaceous mudstone; 3) other, clastic. The division between diatomite, diatomaceous mudstone, and other clastic rocks was a subjective one whereby if the material in which the fossil specimen was found had less than 10% clastic material it was termed diatomite; if the rock had 10-50% clastic material it was termed diatomaceous mudstone; and if it had greater than 50% clastic material it was termed clastic. During the museum data collection process it became apparent that there was another possible classification. It turned out that many of the museum specimens were preserved in "altered" diatomite. As discussed previously, diagenesis of opal-a diatomite goes through opal-ct (porcelainite) to chert. Some.of the rocks had some degree of alteration to porcelainite with its characteristic increase in hardness from unaltered diatomite. The new index was called the "0" (zero) index. This indicated that the rock was "unaltered" and index "1" was renamed "altered" diatomite. Since the diagenetic alteration was post-depositional, relations between these two indices and each of the others except "dissolution index" (DI) should, in theory, parallel one another. It would be an ideal control for the comparisons made in the study. The reality of this assumption will be discussed in the results to follow. Depositional Mode (DM) The depositional mode (DM) was divided into three categories based on examination of the host rocks of the fossil specimens. Specifically, this index indicates the inferred depositional regime of as little as a fraction of a millimeter above and below the fossil. Sometimes bedding or laminae were thicker but for the most part, neither were. The three categories break down as follows: 1) laminated; 2) event deposit (within); 3) event deposit (under). Figure 15 shows examples of x-radiographs each of the three basic depositional modes (DM). These three categories were divided based on preliminary observations which indicated that there were two basic depositional mechanisms--one of background (seasonal, otherwise cyclic) light and dark, varve-like laminations, and graded event deposits. The laminations 57 Figure 15. X-radiographs of laminated and event deposits. Examples are from GREFCO quarry float samples. Depositional mode (DM) index numbers are shown with arrows. 58 are typically less than 1 mm thick. The event deposits are as thin as 1 or 2 mm to as much as 10 cm (observed in the field, not in museum rocks). The event deposits are usually graded in some sense so that it is relatively clear that they were deposited at basically one time. Whether fossils were in fact buried beneath an event deposit (i.e., they were resting when the event deposit simply buried them in place), or within the thickness of the event deposit (i.e., they were transported and deposited with the event) determined the assignment of DM index number "2" or "3," respectively. Taxonomic Grouping The lowest taxonomic grouping was also recorded for museum specimens so described previously by museum staff. Many of the specimens were not identified or were not identified below the family level, Of the 691 specimens studied at LACMNH, 371 were identified to the generic level. Since this is a substantial proportion of the total, these were used in the statistical comparisons. Genera with enough examples (greater than 15) to be used for comparisons include: Xyne, Etringus, Ganolytes, and Perciformes. The complete list of genera follows: 59 1) Xyne 12) Rhythmias 2) Etringus 13) Euesthes 3) Ganolytes 14) PIueronichthys 4) Bathylagus 15) Decopterus 5) Lompoquia 16) Absal ami ch thys 6) Chauliodus 17) Areosteus 7) Eclipes 18) Thyrsocles 8) Perciformes 19) Zaphlegulus 9) Ligisma 20) Alciola 10) Sarda 21) Pneumatophorus 11) Plectrites Discussion on Museum Specimen Bias Clearly it can be argued that using a museum collection for taphonomic research is inherently biased. The fact that they are in a museum argues to the case that someone considered them "good" examples, or at least the only examples for a particular taxon. While this may skew the collection towards a higher average preservation quality than was seen in the field when the original collectors were digging through road cuts, it seems that this bias is irrelevant for several reasons, or removable. Comparisons made in this research are between assigned values of preservation quality and the other factors measured. If the average preservation quality is skewed towards the well-preserved end, it just means that there are greater numbers of well-preserved fish and fewer poorly preserved ones that would be found in an outcrop. With the museum study, the intention is not to show what the "real" average preservation quality of fish in Monterey and equivalent rocks is, but instead to show the relation (association, causality) between primarily preservation quality and the other parameters measured. The fact that there are more "overall preservation quality index" (OPQI) values of "1" and "2" just means that there is greater sample size of these values. It does not detract from showing trends of how well- preserved fish tend to have less arched vertebral columns or how poorly preserved fish tend to be found within event deposits, for example. The numbers simply have to be normalized with respect to the parameters being compared. More on the details of the normalization is considered in the "Database and Data Reduction" section to follow. The bias in the museum data was expected. This is the reason for the idea of dissecting relatively arbitrarily chosen sections at the GREFCO quarry and at Newport Lagoon. The idea was to see the differences between the museum collection and field locations, with systematic dissection of Monterey deposits. The discussion of the GREFCO and Newport methods follows the discussion of statistical analysis and results of the museum study. 61 Database and Data Reduction As each fossil specimen at LACMNH was observed, attributes of preservation quality, dissolution index, etc. were tabulated. As much as possible of the collection containing fish in Monterey rocks was reviewed. Data were systematically entered into a PC database spreadsheet program for all 691 occurrences. The LACMNH database is included in Appendix A. Table 1 shows the totals of index-occurrences in the LACMNH database. Once the database was compiled, an attempt to determine the associations between each of the indices was undertaken. With the spreadsheet program, data was filtered with built-in features of the program, by hand, and through a series of author-written macro commands to sort out occurrences of individual indices in relation to whole ranges of another index. For example, overall preservation quality index (OPQI) "1" was selected and a separate database section was created which accounted for occurrences of arched vertebral column (AVC) "1," "2," and "3." Likewise, this was done for the rest of the OPQI values, for each AVC index, and for each of the other combinations of indices. Thus a reduced, but still sizable, database was created 62 TABLE 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY INDEX TOTALS GENUS/INDEX COUNTS INDEX/ GENUS#' GENUS COUNT OPQI DI AVC PD RT II DM 0 335 1 113 264 254 287 325 123 687 406 2 73 202 227 139 117 173 1 155 3 73 67 157 75 77 60 118 4 2 106 53 10 5 10 52 6 3 7 14 8 38 9 1 10 4 11 3 12 2 13 1 14 2 15 7 16 1 17 2 18 15 19 3 20 1 21 3 1. List of genera numbers is shown on page 60. 63 which contained the raw associations between index- occurrences. Bar graph plots were made of ranges of index numbers on the x-axis vs. individual index counts on the y-axis to look for associations between indices. For example, OPQI numbers 1-5 were plotted on the x-axis and occurrences of AVC were plotted on the y-axis. This method quickly proved unsatisfactory because of the inherent bias of the museum specimens, as discussed previously. Since there were so many OPQI ones and twos, every other index appeared to be associated with OPQI "1" and "2." To correct this problem, a normalization step was added prior to creating plots. Normalization entailed manipulating the y-axis occurrences based on sample size of each of the x-axis parameters for each index comparison. The filtered index count database, is included in Appendix B. Appendix C contains the normalized LACMNH plots. These plots can be read in two ways: one set of normalized occurrences (y-axis values) can be viewed against the index range on the x-axis; or, the whole range of normalized occurrences can be viewed against one index value on the x-axis. Figure 16 illustrates the way 64 a NORM DM 1 ■ NORM DM2 □ NORM DM3 Figure 16. How to read plots. A. Shows which values to read when comparing individual normalized indices to those on the x-axis. OPQI is overall preservation quality index; DM is depositional mode B. Shows which values to read when comparing one index to a set of normalized data (note: normalized indices are normalized relative to those on the x-axis, not to each other). DI is dissolution index. 65 these plots can be read. The second way of reading the plots, however is not normalized. LACMNH RESULTS The results of the LACMNH study fall into two categories: observational results and comparative results. The observational results describe what was seen with little data manipulation. Comparative results describe what was seen when the database was normalized and comparisons were made between indices. Observational Results Table 1 shows the total counts of indices measured in this portion of this study. These counts show the range and distribution of the various measured parameters. They show that the range of collected fossil fish varies in every parameter measured except ichnofabric, which almost invariably was a value of "l"-- no bioturbation. That, in itself, is an interesting observation. One hypothesis at the onset of this investigation was that bioturbating organisms tend to disrupt sedimentary bedding and that if fossils were present bioturbators would also disrupt potential fossils. In addition to passive disruption from burrowing sediment feeders, an 66 environment where sediment feeders could exist is not likely to be an environment that exclude scavengers. Scavenging organisms are probably one of the most destructive forces operating on potential fossils. The fact that there were virtually no bioturbators indicates that there were probably no scavengers and is likely a major contributor to the fact that there are so many well preserved fossil vertebrates in portions of the upper Monterey. Along the same lines with the observed lack of bioturbation was the predominance of laminated rocks in which the fossil fish were preserved. While this observation is undoubtedly confounded by the fact that many of the best specimens were preserved in laminated rocks, and people tend to collect "good" examples, the fact still remains that, whether biased or not, a majority of museum specimens were found in laminated rocks. The remainder were found, not quite evenly split between, in, or under an event deposit. Not surprisingly, most of the fossils were found in diatomaceous rocks of some kind. This is not as obvious as it sounds because the fish collection at LACMNH is arranged taxonomically. That is, of the taxa which are typically found in Monterey-type rocks, very few were from other units. This fact lends credence to the 67 hypothesis that the Monterey tends to preserve fossils better on a whole than other rocks containing some of the same (but less consistently preserved) taxa. Of course this could also mean that the taxa examined here tended to live primarily in the highly productive waters over Monterey depocenters. Another observation was that while most specimens did not show the characteristic of an arched vertebral column, many did. The specimens that did show dorsally curved spines were in all rock types and were in both laminated and event deposits. It did not appear that they were associated with other measured indices but were fairly well distributed. From these initial observations it seemed as though this was controlled more by taxa than by the other measured parameters. It appeared that at least as often as not, fossil fish from the genera Xyne and Etringus had arched vertebral columns. The arched vertebral column attribute, like each of the others, will also be discussed in the comparative results section. Many of the rest of the observational results were not so much what was seen but what was not seen. In looking again at the arched vertebral column specimens, it did not appear that there were "landing" marks in any of the fish observed at the museum. This is probably due to the nature of the substrate which the fossils settled 68 into. The fossils likewise did not seem to disrupt bedding very much at all except for the few large specimens which seemed to indent into other laminations with larger skeletal components only. Skeletal components of all kinds didn't dissolve very readily either. An overwhelming majority of fossils retained over 50% of their original phosphatic bone and scale material. This seemed to be associated with rock type. The highly diatomaceous rocks tended to show less dissolution. Comparative Results This section takes observational results one step further and attempts to quantify the comparisons between indices. As described previously, each index was plotted against each of the others, "normalized" with respect to sample size, with the exception of ichnofabric index which showed no variation and therefore was not plotted. Indices which, after normalization, show a trend of increasing or decreasing numbers in relation to the index to which it was compared could be directly related, but not necessarily. Those that show a flat comparison (i.e. they show equal numbers of each normalized index when compared to the chosen index) have no relation to each other. Indices that have varied relations are probably 69 controlled by a third unknown factor or sample size is not large enough to remove randomness--thus there could be trends in the data which cannot be seen or a flat response is not developed. The plots of each comparison are included in Appendix C. The most interesting are included as figures in the text but numerous plots are not referred to directly in the text, however, and the reader can view those plots at his or her discretion. Normalization of sample sizes removed some of the sampling bias of the museum collection but appeared to indicate other bias when no better explanation was obvious. For example, OPQI plotted against normalized DI occurrences (Figure 17A) seemed to show a trend of more examples of low DI indices (little dissolution) in higher OPQI indices (poorer preservation). It seems that the most plausible explanation for this is that in order for a collector to decide to bring back a poorly preserved fossil, it must have fairly well preserved (undissolved) components such as scales, bones, or other parts. Corroborating this example is the plot of DI versus normalized OPQI (Figure 17B), which for each DI overall, showed the same trend. Other examples of collection biases are for the most part passed over in this review. 70 OPQI VS. NORM DI A. P 40 □ NORM DI 1 ■ NORM DI 2 □ NORM DI 3 □ NORM DI 4 OPQI B. w u i o z UI O' O' 3 o o o o Q . o E a . o DI VS. NORM OPQI ■ NORM OPQ11 ■ NORM OPQI 2 □ NORM OPQI 3 □ NORM OPQI 4 ■ NORM OPQI 5 DI Figure 17. LACMNH data plots of OPQI and DI. A. Shows plot of overall preservation quality index (OPQI) vs. normalized dissolution index (DI). B. Shows plot of DI vs. normalized OPQI. 71 Several of the results noticed by casual observation and discussed in the previous observational results section turned out to be demonstrable quantitatively as well. The most notable, and expected, of these observations was that well preserved fossils tended to be found in laminated rocks. Before normalization it appeared that there were more well preserved specimens in laminated rocks and fewer poorly preserved ones. Interestingly though, after occurrences of the three DM (depositional mode) indices were normalized to show equal sampling of each OPQI, the trend remained (see "OPQI vs. Norm DM" plot on Figure 18A). That is to say that even with the inherent sampling bias of a museum collection, fewer poorly preserved samples were found in laminated rocks than well preserved ones. The same was true of fossils buried under an event deposit, though the strength of the association was weaker. In contrast, the opposite was true for fossils trapped in, but not under, an event deposit. For this situation, normalized data show that a much greater proportion of poorly preserved fish were found within event deposits than well preserved ones. More notable than the lamination association, perhaps because it was less expected, were the 72 OPQI VS. NORM DM ■ NORM DM 1 IB NORM DM2 □ NORM DM 3 B. OPQI VS. NORM GENERA Jlhlr BNORM GENUS 1 ■ NORM GENUS 2 □ NORM GENUS 3 □ NORM GENUS 8 Figure 18. LACMNH data plots of OPQI, DM and genera. A. Shows plot of overall preservation quality index (OPQI) vs. normalized depositional mode (DM). B. Shows plot of OPQI vs. normalized genera. 73 associations related to taxonomy. While only four taxonomic groups were plotted because of the small sample size of the other 17 groups, some interesting relationships came to light when normalized plots were created. Normalized occurrences of genus #1 (Xyne) showed a much higher proportion of better preservation quality than the overall group (which would be indicated by equal numbers of each OPQI, Figure 18B). Etringus (genus #2) was inconsistent with respect to OPQI indices. Ganolytes (genus #3) and Perciformes (genus #8) numbers increased with decreasing preservation quality. The fact that there are differences between each genus and the numbers and range of overall preservation in the entire museum database is not unexpected--this should be the case--the sum of the parts makes a whole. But, a directional trend is significant. In the plot of dissolution index plotted against normalized genera, only Etringus (genus #2) showed a trend of increasing numbers as dissolution increased (Figure 19A). The plot of genera vs. normalized dissolution index supported this trend (Figure 19B). The other genera showed haphazard distribution. The arched vertebral column index in relation to normalized genera (Figure 20A) showed three interesting 74 DI VS. NORM GENERA n NORM GENUS 1 ■ NORM GENUS 2 □ NORM GENUS 3 □ NORM GENUS 8 B. GENERA VS. NORM DI m 30 □ NORM D11 ■ NORM DI 2 □ NORM DI 3 □ NORM DI 4 GENERA Figure 19. LACMNH data plots of DI and genera. A. Shows plot of dissolution index (DI) vs. normalized genera. B. Shows plot of genera vs. normalized DI. 75 AVC VS. NORM GENERA A. 2 AVC IS NORM GENUS 1 ■ NORM GENUS 2 □ NORM GENUS 3 □ NORM GENUS 8 | ! B. GENERA VS NORM AVC ■ NORM A VC 1 ■ NORM AVC2 □ NORM AVC 3 GENERA Figure 20. LACMNH data plots of AVC and genera. A. Shows plot of arched vertebral column index (AVC) vs. normalized genera. B. Shows plot of genera vs. normalized AVC. relations. The first was that Xyne (genus #1) showed high numbers of moderate arching, but very few were severely arched. Etringus (genus #2) showed a strong increase in numbers as arching increased. Behaving the opposite, Perciformes (genus #8) numbers decreased with increasing arching. These trends are supported in the genera vs. normalized arched vertebral column data plots in that Etringus has many fewer examples of AVC 1, Perciformes had many fewer AVC 2 and 3, and Xyne had very few examples of AVC 3 (Figure 20B). These trends indicate that taxonomic grouping plays a significant role in vertebral arching. Preferred disarticulation also seemed to be related to taxonomic group. Xyne (genus #1), while showing a high degree of no preferred disarticulation, also showed a high amount of ventral body disarticulation (Figure 21A) . Etringus (genus #2) on the other hand tended to show more cranial disarticulation than other modes. With respect to rock type, Xyne was found most in altered and unaltered diatomite, even after normalization to total sampling of each of the different rock types (Figure 2IB). Etringus was overwhelmingly found in the more clastic rock types. 77 PD VS. NORM GENERA 0NORM GENUS 1 ■ NORM GENUS 2 □ NORM GENUS 3 □ NORM GENUS 8 PD RT VS. NORM GENERA B. ■ NORM GENUS 1 ■ NORM GENUS 2 □ NORM GENUS 3 □ NORM GENUS 8 RT Figure 21. LACMNH data plots of PD, genera, and RT. A. Shows plot of preferred disarticulation index (PD) vs, normalized genera. B. Shows plot of rock type (RT) vs. normalized genera. 78 It appears also that Xyne is found predominantly in laminated deposits and under event deposits (Figure 22A) . The data also shows that Ganolytes (genus #3) and Perciformes (genus #8) are more likely to be found under an event deposit than in one or in laminated deposits. Some other observations not related to taxonomic grouping were noted and follow below. Dissolution index (DI) seemed to associate with rock type. Occurrences in unaltered diatomite (RT 1) decreased as DI increased. The number of fish occurrences in clastic rocks also increased with increasing DI (Figure 22B). Altered diatomite and unaltered diatomite did not seem to show association. The arched vertebral column index (AVC) showed association with mode of deposition (DM) and rock type (RT). Laminated rocks seemed to show slightly greater numbers of moderately and severely arched vertebral columns (AVC 2 and AVC 3, respectively) than slight arching (AVC 1). In contrast, fish in event deposits showed no variation in AVC and fish under event deposits showed a trend of slightly decreasing numbers as arching increased (Figure 23A). There also appears to be a trend of increasing arching in more clastic (RT 2, 3) dominated rocks (Figure 23B). The opposite seems to be the case in 79 DM VS. NORM GENERA A. £ IS 60 so o a 40 = = 5 30 o O 20 Z o 10 n aa r i I ~ i . ■ NORM GENUS 1 ■ NORM GENUS 2 □ NORM GENUS 3 □ NORM GENUS 8 2 DM B, Di VS. NORM RT in 120 ■ NORMRTO ■ NORM RT 1 □ NORM RT 2 □ NORM RT 3 DI Figure 22. LACMNH data plots of DM, genera, DI, and RT. A. Shows plot of depositional mode (DM) vs. normalized genera. B. Shows plot of dissolution index (DI) vs. normalized rock type (RT). 80 AVC VS. NORM RT 0NORMRTO ■ NORM RT 1 □ NORM RT 2 □ NORM RT 3 I i B. AVC VS. NORM DM HNORM DM 1 ■ NORM DM2 □ NORM DM3 Figure 23. LACMNH data plots of AVC, RT, and DM. A. Shows plot of arched vertebral column index (AVC) vs. normalized rock type (RT). B. Shows plot of arched vertebral column index (AVC) vs. normalized depositional mode (DM). 81 altered diatomite (DI 1) and possibly the opposite in unaltered diatomite (DI 0). Some plots showed relations that were due to the interrelationships of some of the indices. They were expected and, to some degree, demonstrate the utility of the method. Overall preservation (OPQI) compared to normalized preferred disarticulation (Figure 24A), for example, showed almost no preferred disarticulation (PD) for OPQI "1" and some random distribution of PD through the other OPQI indices. Likewise, PD versus normalized OPQI (Figure 24B) showed that almost all OPQI "l's" had no preferred disarticulation. This was expected because nearly perfect fossils (OPQI 1) should have almost no disarticulation let alone preferred disarticulation. Those that show some degree of disarticulation would either show a trend toward one mode of PD or a combination. None showed much association. Several of the plots showed no notable trends in the comparison data and have not been mentioned thus far. Each plot considered in this portion of the research, however, is included in Appendix C for the reader's review. Some plots showed conflicting information. Notably the rock type index did not tend to show a parallel relationship between RT "0" (unaltered diatomite) and 82 OPQI VS. NORM PD c o LU C J z U I o ' U L Z 3 O o o a a £ O ' o z 200 150 100 50 II ■ NORM PD 1 ■ NORM PD 2 □ NORMPD 3 □ NORM PD 4 3 OPQI A. B. t o UJ o z U I a . o n = > o o § 100 a O S O' o 250 200 150 50 PD VS. NORM OPQI PD ■ NORM OPQI 1 ■ NORM OPQI 2 □ NORM OPQI 3 □ NORM OPQI 4 ■ NORM OPQI 5 Figure 24. LACMNH data plots of OPQI and PD. A. Shows plot of overall preservation quality index (OPQI) vs. normalized preferred disarticulation (PD). B. Shows plot of PD vs. OPQI. 83 RT "1" (altered diatomite) as was originally hypothesized. The reason for this dynamic is largely unknown except for the possible association with the dissolution index--higher degree of diagenesis indicates higher dissolution. Synopsis The comparative results of this section shed a bit of light on the relationships between rock type, depositional mode, and overall preservation quality, as well as arched vertebral columns, preferred disarticulation, taxonomic grouping, and dissolution index. While the relationships are not clear among all the measured indices or taxonomic groups, several trends did appear that should be compared to an in situ occurrence of fossils. This should be done so that a natural order of the relationships between the various indices can be compared to the museum data. METHODS FOR GREFCO QUARRY STUDY Introduction This portion of the research focused mainly on one square meter of bedding plane exposure which was systematically dissected using physical methods 84 facilitated by both gross mechanical help (a backhoe, care of GREFCO) and the inherent ease of working with soft, diatomaceous rocks. The location of the GREFCO field site is shown on Figure 2. Before selecting a suitable location for the bedding plane study, several trips investigating the various quarry exposures were made. Quarry managers and workers were very helpful in pointing out locations where it seemed to them there were significant fish occurrences. It seemed in explorations of the quarry that fossil fish were all but ubiquitous. It was exciting to see such a massive exposure where fossils of such extraordinary preservation could be found nearly everywhere. During the quarry exploration it was quickly observed that diatomaceous rocks that had been exposed for a time, allowing the rock to dry out to some degree, were much more fissile than those that were more recently exposed. Mining activities at GREFCO usually entailed using heavy equipment to remove diatomaceous rocks from the quarry walls and floors. After the materials were exposed, they were typically left for several days before being trucked to the diatomite refinery in Lompoc. Observations on these exposed ore piles were the source of many of the early hypotheses formulated in this study. 85 It was observed that rocks -which were on the more laminated end of the spectrum (as opposed to massive or thicker bedded) tended to have more discrete, well preserved fossils. This may be in part due to the relative ease of extracting well preserved specimens from laminated rocks. The laminated rocks, when partially dried, could be broken along bedding planes with a few taps of a rock hammer to the butt end of a stiff putty knife. Usually this was enough to expose a bedding plane on boulders broken free during quarrying operations. Preliminary study of these rocks showed that many of the same observations made in the museum study were also true of rocks in the field. There was a wide range of preservation quality. Fossil fish commonly showed a preferred mode of disarticulation. Many showed arched vertebral columns. There was a wide range of skeletal dissolution. There also seemed to be a correlation between depositional mode (laminated versus event deposit) and preservational quality. Observation also showed that the quarry study was going to be different from the museum study. Except for occasional chert, all the rocks in the quarry were unaltered diatomite. There was no porcelainite and very little clastic material. There were a few tuff beds in 86 the quarry but nothing especially striking was observed near them in terms of fish preservation. Another interesting point is that nearly all of the fossil fish found in the quarry were of the species Xyne grex. Square Meter Section Following the preliminary quarry exploration, an appropriate location for the systematic dissection of approximately a cubic meter of diatomite was chosen. The location selected was above and to the south (right) of the East Brush Ridge road cut shown in Figure 25. This area was ideal for several reasons. There was fairly easy access. There was already a bedding plane exposure so no significant quarrying was needed to start the dissection. Figure 26 shows the location of the square meter in relation to local features. Quarry personnel indicated that this area was unlikely to be mined in the near future (i.e. there was time to work in this area intermittently over an extended period of time). There were fossils weathering to the surface at this location. There were some good chert marker beds near the site which could be correlated to the nearby road cut to 87 Figure 25. Photo looking east along East Brush Ridge quarry roadcut. Indicated on the right roadcut wall is the stratigraphic interval of the square meter dissection portion of this study. Study area is up and to the south (right) of the roadcut. 88 Figure 26. Photo of dissection operation in progress. Note debris pile. This represents about one third of the total excavation depth. 89 locate the studied interval in the stratigraphic section. Figure 25 shows the projected location and stratigraphic interval of the dissected section in the East Brush Ridge road cut. •A square meter of bedding plane exposure was delineated near the East Brush Ridge road cut. Millimeter by millimeter the square meter was scraped away using a stiff putty knife and a whisk brush. Banding ranged from less than one millimeter to 3.5 centimeters. Concurrent with the bedding plane dissection, the microstratigraphy was briefly described. Thickness of individual laminations, color, texture, interpreted lithologic constituents, and quiet-water versus event deposition was noted, each where discernable. Appendix D contains the micro-stratigraphic section and descriptions for the 93.8 centimeter interval. Individual laminations were numbered as the dissection progressed. Unfortunately, because the work progressed from upsection to down, numbering goes opposite to normal geologic convention. As fossil fish were encountered during dissection, many of the same observations were made as were during the museum study. Each fish was described in terms of overall preservation quality index (OPQI), dissolution index (DI), arched vertebral column (AVC), preferential 90 disarticulation (PD), ichnofabric index (II), rock type (RT), depositional mode (DM), and fish species (where identifiable). Fish in the GREFCO square meter dissection portion of the study were also measured for size and oriented to an arbitrary north. Appendix E contains the database of observations of fish in the dissection portion of the study. Like the museum study, a filtered index count database was created to facilitate creation of comparison plots. This filtered database is included in Appendix F. Plots were created in a method similar to that of the museum study. In addition to the normalized plots, however, plots of as-found occurrences were also reviewed. The non-normalized plots were examined because, unlike the museum fish, these specimens were found in situ and were not subject to selection bias. The normalized versions were reviewed because, to some degree, there was unintended selection bias because there were many more of some indices that others. So, in other words, normalized versions were used to compare index occurrences to other index occurrences based on corrected, equal sampling of the other. As-found plots and normalized plots are included in Appendix G. They are arranged so that the as-found plots are on the same page as the normalized plots, for easier comparison. 91 Like the museum study, no variation in ichnofabric was apparent and therefore no plots were created for this index. Likewise, because very few different taxa were found or could be identified confidently, no plots were made regarding taxonomic grouping. GREFCO RESULTS Similar to the museum study, the GREFCO results are broken down into two components--observational results, and comparative results. The observational results in the GREFCO study, unlike the museum study, also contain observations that may not be directly related to the index comparisons. Observational Results The GREFCO portion of this research brought to light some interesting observations. Some of these are related to the square meter section but others were made generally throughout the quarry. Not all of the observations were related to fish occurrence. General Chert is common in the GREFCO quarry and is nearly always accessible. Chert is typically avoided in quarrying operations because it is not useable and must 92 be segregated during processing if it is included in ore shipments (Craig Smith, personal communication, 1992). Since it is avoided, quarrying operations typically stop when it is encountered, leaving abundant chert at near surface exposures. Chert bedding usually has the appearance of crushed black glass. Chert bedding often appears much more contorted that surrounding diatomaceous strata, which appears normally bedded, except for minor microfaulting. These features are similar to those seen at other locations by other investigators, usually in other lithologies (Dunham and Blake, 1987; Snyder et al., 1983) . Two other notable observations related to chert occurrence are presence of pseudoburrows and presence of fish quite frequently at the chert/diatomite interface. Both of these observations were made at various locations throughout the quarry and in the square meter section but are considered here. The pseudoburrows are termed such by this author because they look very similar to Thalassinoides burrows but have no apparent beginning or ending and do not truncate at bedding interfaces. Sometimes they appear as simple 1-2 cm oblate blebs. They are thought not to be burrows because they frequently have bedding which passes through them. Figure 27 shows a photograph of a 93 Figure 27. Photo of and line drawing of pseudoburrow at GREFCO. Line drawing illustrates relations of bedding to pseudoburrow margin. 94 pseudoburrow with accompanying line drawing. The pseudoburrows have a distinct outline, usually a narrow void space. These are thought to be associated with abandoned chert formation because they take the same shape as many occurrences of chert nodules and sometimes show slight or partial alteration to chert. Several occurrences of fossil fish were found at the transition boundary between chert and diatomaceous sediments. It is not clear whether the fossil occurrence was the locus of chert formation, the cause of the boundary (stopping the advance of chert diagenesis), or coincidental to the boundary. Square Meter Section Table 2 shows the total counts of indices measured in this portion of this study. These counts show the range and distribution of the various measured parameters. They show that the range of collected fossil fish varies in every parameter measured except ichnofabric, which invariably was a value of "l"--no bioturbation. Rock type was invariably unaltered diatomite except for minor amounts of chert, which did not have an index number. Bioturbation and rock type did not vary in the GREFCO square meter portion of this investigation but 95 TABLE 2 GREFCO QUARRY SQUARE METER SECTION STUDY INDEX TOTALS INDEX COUNTS INDEX # OPQI DI AVC PD DM 1 8 126 47 22 92 2 71 26 47 67 53 3 56 2 40 2 10 4 18 1 1 5 2 96 should not be dismissed as unimportant because they are constants. Lack of bioturbation is important here for the same reasons that it was important in the museum study. Namely, a depositional environment without bioturbators is very likely to be without scavengers as well. This leads to a higher potential for better preservation. Rock type is important in ways supported in the museum section--that rock type is associated with preservation quality, arched vertebral columns and dissolution index. Having the same rock type throughout the section provides an opportunity to view the data with a constant (control) factor but it also may introduce a bias of its own--that presence in unaltered diatomite causes a skewed distribution of the other factors. This is likely so. Those issues aside, there were several interesting observations made going through the section and from the raw counts data. Almost all of the 155 individuals excavated during this part of the investigation were from the family Clupeidae (herrings) and were probably Xyne grex. Several were thought to be Perciformes but otherwise very few were from other groups, as far as this author could identify. Appendix E lists the individuals and, where possible, their identifications. 97 There was, again, a wide range of overall preservation in the 155-specimen sample from the square meter section at GREFCO. Surprisingly, yet not surprising at all after stepping back and realizing that this is basically a randomly selected sampling location, was that there were few perfectly preserved fossils. There were however numerous examples of whole fish which were slightly to moderately disarticulated (OPQI 2,3). A few were severely disarticulated. The sample set as a whole tended towards the well-preserved end of the spectrum with few OPQI 4's and very few OPQI 5's. Table 2 contains the counts of each index-occurrence. Other indices showed a variety of tendencies. Dissolution was not a major factor at this locality. Over 80% of the 155 samples showed little or no dissolution loss of original skeletal material (DI 1). Few showed greater degrees of dissolution and only three examples had greater than 50% loss of skeletal material. Vertebral arching had fairly even distribution throughout the examined individuals at GREFCO. Slightly fewer severely arched specimens were found than moderately arched or unarched specimens. A great proportion of the fish found in the square meter section at GREFCO had preferred cranial disarticulation. Similar to the museum, the majority of fossils were found in laminated 98 intervals. At GREFCO, however, a much greater percentage were found within an event deposit, and a smaller proportion were found under one (Table 2). Common occurrence of high concentrations of scales and bones was associated with event deposits. This aspect is not revealed in the index counts however, because these scales and parts do not form recognizable individuals. The total mass of fossil fish debris may amount to the same or more as whole fish in the laminated sediments but was not recognized in the indexing method utilized here. No clear trends were observed in the field with the exception of perhaps better preservation in laminated sediments and poorer preservation within event deposits; and perhaps fewer occurrences of vertebral arching within event deposits. These on-the-surface observations were made in the field and with cursory review of the data. The following section considers the data at a following stage of manipulation and yields some further interesting results on the comparison between indices at GREFCO. Comparative Results This section, like the LACMNH comparative results section, takes observational results one step further and attempts to quantify the comparisons between indices. Numerous plots are not referred to directly in the text, 99 however, and the reader can view those plots at his or her discretion in Appendix G. Similar to the museum study, each index was plotted against each of the others, "normalized" with respect to sample size, with the exceptions of ichnofabric index and rock type which showed no variation and therefore were not plotted. Plots that show a flat comparison (i.e. they show equal numbers of each normalized index when compared to the chosen index) have no relation to each other. Indices that have varied relations are probably either controlled by a third unknown factor or sample size was not large enough to remove randomness--thus there could be trends in the data which cannot be seen or for which a flat response is not developed. Several of the results noticed by casual observation and discussed in the previous observational results section turned out to be demonstrable quantitatively as well. Most comparisons, however, were inconclusive. Preservation quality plotted against vertebral arching shows a moderate association between decreasing arching with decreasing preservation quality, with the exception of OPQI 1, which is underrepresented at the GREFCO square meter section (Figure 28). The association weakens to a degree upon normalization. OPQI 1 moves into prominence, however, and follows the trend of 1 0 0 OPQI VS. AVC 0#A VC 1 ■ # AVC 2 □ # AVC 3 I B. OPQI VS. NORM AVC a NORM AVC 1 ■NORMAVC2 □ NORM AVC3 Figure 28. GREFCO data plots of OPQI vs. AVC. A. Shows plot of overall preservation quality index (OPQI) vs. arched vertebral column index (AVC). B. Shows plot of OPQI vs. normalized AVC. 1 0 1 decreasing arching with decreasing preservation quality (with AVC 3, at least). Fossils with no arching are fairly well distributed throughout the range of preservation quality. The arched vertebral columns versus preservation quality plot (and AVC vs. normalized OPQI, which are virtually identical) doesn't support the decreasing OPQI, decreasing AVC association except in perhaps within OPQI 4 (Figure 29). The latter plots are considered more trustworthy here, and since the former plots show weak association only, this data indicates that to a large degree, preservation quality and vertebral arching are not related. Preservation quality does seem to be associated with depositional mode. As preservation quality decreases, occurrences in laminated sediments decrease (Figure 30). Occurrences within event deposits increase as preservation quality decreases. Too few fish were found beneath event deposits to see a trend in the OPQI vs. DM data plots. The DM versus normalized OPQI did show that better preserved fish (OPQI 2) tended to be found in laminated deposits and under event deposits. Poorer preserved fish (OPQI 4) were more frequently found within event deposits (Figure 31). 102 m# opqi 1 B# OPQI 2 □ # OPQI 3 □ # OPQI 4 a # OPQI 5 | B. AVC VS. NORM OPQI B NORM OPQI 1 BNORM OPQI 2 □ NORM OPQI 3 □ NORM OPQI 4 BNORM OPQI 5 Figure 29. GREFCO data plots of AVC vs. OPQI. A. Shows plot of arched vertebral column index (AVC) vs. overall preservation quality index (OPQI). B. Shows plot of AVC vs. normalized OPQI. 103 OPQI VS. DM A. m# DM 1 ■ # DM 2 □ # DM C O I B. OPQI VS. NORM DM BNORMDM 1 ■ NORM DM2 □ NORM DM 3 Figure 30. GREFCO data plots of OPQI vs. DM. A. Shows plot of overall preservation quality index (OPQI) vs. depositional mode index (DM). B. Shows plot of OPQI vs, normalized DM. 104 DM VS. OPQI 0 # OPQ11 0# OPQI 2 a # OPQI 3 □ # OPQI 4 j 0# OPQI 5 B. DM VS NORM OPQI 0NORM OPQI 1 0NORM OPQI 2 □ NORM OPQI 3 □ NORM OPQI 4 ONORM OPQI 5 2 DM Shows Figure 31. GREFCO data plots of DM vs. OPQI. A. plot of depositional mode index (DM) vs. overall preservation quality index (OPQI). B. Shows plot of DM vs. normalized OPQI. 1 0 5 Dissolution seemed to be associated with preferred disarticulation (PD) only in that cranial disarticulation (PD 2) was only found in DI 1 and 2, but this may be due only to the extremely low occurrence of DI 3 and 4 (Figure 32). Normalized PD showed that no preferred disarticulation (PD 1) was strongly associated with DI 3 and 4 but this also is probably due to the low occurrence of DI 3 and 4. Plots of preferred disarticulation and normalized dissolution show that DI 1, little dissolution, is distributed throughout the range of PD (Figure 33). This plot also shows that DI 2 is much more likely to occur in cranial and ventral body disarticulation (PD 2 and 3, respectively). Vertebral arching is apparently associated with depositional mode. Plots of vertebral arching vs. depositional mode (AVC vs. DM; AVC vs. norm DM, Figure 34), show that, normalized or not, numbers of specimens in laminated intervals and event deposits increase with increased vertebral arching. Also, numbers of specimens within event deposits decrease with increased vertebral arching. These associations are supported by the depositional mode (DM) versus normalized AVC plots (Figure 35). Fewer severely arched fish are present within an event deposit when compared to laminated sediments or under event deposits and more 106 DI VS. PD B # P D 1 | I# PD 2 | □ # PD 3 O# PD 4 A. DI B. DI VS. NORM PD BNORM PD 1 BNORM PD 2 □ NORMPD 3 □ NORM PD 4 DI Figure 32. GREFCO data plots of DI vs. PD. A. Shows plot of depositional mode index (DI) vs. preferred disarticulation index (PD). B. Shows plot of DM vs. normalized PD. 1 07 PD VS. DI to UJ o z Ul a . a . o o o 6 0 50 40 30 20 10 I B# DI 1 B# DI 2 □ # DI 3 □ # DI 4 A. PD B. PD VS. NORM DI BNORM DI 1 ■ NORM DI 2 □ NORM DI 3 □ NORM DI 4 PD Figure 33. GREFCO data plots of PD vs. DI. A. Shows plot of preferred disarticulation index (PD) vs. dissolution index (DI). B. Shows plot of PD vs. normalized DI. 108 0 # DM 1 ■ # DM2 □ # DM 3 B. AVC VS. NORM DM m 35 2 AVC 0 NORM DM 1 ■ NORM DM2 a NORM DM3 Figure 34. GREFCO data plots of AVC vs. DM. A. Shows plot of arched vertebral column index (AVC) vs. depositional mode index (DM). B. Shows plot of AVC vs. normalized DM. 109 DM VS. AVC (0 1U o z UJ O ' a . 3 O o o o > < 35 30 25 20 15 10 : : . I t : _ iz3 __ ^ DM DM VS. NORM AVC B # A VC 1 j ■ # AVC 2 j □ # AVC 3 I B. BNORM A VC 1 BNORM AVC2 □ NORM AVC3 2 DM Figure 35. GREFCO data plots of DM vs. AVC. A. Shows plot of depositional mode index (DM) vs. arched vertebral column index (AVC). B. Shows plot of DM vs. normalized AVC. 1 10 unarched fish are found within event deposits than in an event deposit or in laminated sediments. Thus, fish found in an event deposit are less likely to be arched and more likely to be arched if found in rocks of the other two modes of deposition. Several of the plots showed no notable trends in the comparison data and have not been mentioned thus far. Each plot considered in this portion of the research, however, is included in Appendix G for the reader's review. Much of the cause for lack of notable trends is that the sample set, while substantial considering the volume of rock excavated, was too small. Many of the trends, or lack of them, may have developed further with a larger database. This was not realistic in this investigation however, because of the difficulty and time consumption in millimeter by millimeter excavation at both GREFCO and Newport Lagoon. The comparative results of this section did show some of the relationships between depositional mode, and overall preservation quality; arched vertebral columns, preferred disarticulation, and dissolution index. Following the Newport Lagoon section, commonalties and differences between the field studies and museum results will be considered in Chapter IV, Discussion of Results. I l l METHODS FOR NEWPORT LAGOON STUDY This section of the research focused on an approximately 1/4 square meter section of Monterey diatomaceous rock quarried from Newport Lagoon, Orange County, California. The methods of analysis were similar to those performed for the GREFCO section study although the dissection was not performed in the field. The location of the section taken from Newport Lagoon is shown on Figure 3. As at GREFCO, thickness of individual laminations, color, texture, interpreted lithologic constituents, and quiet-water versus event deposition was noted, each where discernable. Appendix H contains the micro-stratigraphic section and descriptions. Also as at GREFCO, individual laminations were numbered as the dissection progressed. Unfortunately, because the work progressed from upsection to down, numbering goes opposite to normal geologic convent ion. As fossil fish were encountered during dissection, many of the same observations were made as were during the museum study. Each fish was described in terms of overall preservation quality index (OPQI), dissolution index (DI), arched vertebral column (AVC), preferential disarticulation (PD), ichnofabric index (II), rock type (RT), depositional mode (DM). In addition to the indices 1 1 2 counted in the museum and GREFCO portions of this study, an average scale count was also performed for each interval. The rock from Newport Lagoon was of similar lithology to that of the GREFCO quarry but contains more siliciclastics. It was primarily laminated but also contained event deposits. There was no chert in the section dissected. While no bioturbation was evident visually during the whole dissection process, x-radiographs showed that visual observation cannot always be trusted. A discussion on results of the series of x-radiographs is pursued. Appendix I contains the database of observations of fish in the dissection portion of the study. Since only 14 individual fossil fish were identified in the entire 76 centimeter section, and most of those were OPQI 4 or 5, no plots were created for comparison to the museum or GREFCO studies. Observational results are discussed with specific attention to the contents of the x-radiographs. NEWPORT LAGOON RESULTS The results for the Newport Lagoon study are somewhat less involved and are more anecdotal than 113 systematic. No index comparisons were made because of the. low level of fossil fish occurrence. Some interesting observations were made regarding bioturbation, however, and this section focuses on its aspects and implications more than fossil occurrence. Observational Results Upper Monterey diatomaceous rocks that outcrop around the margins of Newport Lagoon contain obviously bioturbated rocks with banded intervals. The section from which the rocks for this portion of this investigation were taken was along the west side of the lagoon in an interval of primarily banded rocks (Figure 3). It was originally thought that these banded rocks were probably not bioturbated at all. During millimeter by millimeter dissection of the quarried rocks it appeared that there were no trace fossils or indications of burrowing organisms. X-radiographs of the interval dissected show a different picture however. Two intervals of the dissected section are shown in Figure 36. Both vertical sections and corresponding horizontal intervals are shown. Clearly there are burrows in these rocks even though they were not seen with unaided visual observation during the dissection. This was of particular concern because no traces of 114 Figure 36. X-radiographs of vertical and horizontal intervals at Newport Lagoon. 115 36A. X-radiograph of vertical section of beds 12-22. Intervals of 36B and 36C are indicated. 116 36B. X-radiograph of horizontal slab from vertical interval indicated on 36A. k$7t ■ i ■ 36C. X-radiograph of horizontal slab from vertical interval indicated on 36A. 118 36D. X-radiograph of vertical section of beds 54-68. Interval of 36E is indicated. Note "X"-shaped vertebrae (arrows). 119 36E. X-radiograph of horizontal slab from interval indicated on 36D. Note vertebrae 0.8 cm dark grey pellet (circle). vertical (arrow) and 120 bioturbation were seen at the GREFCO square meter section or in almost all of the museum specimen host rocks. Interestingly, however, Figure 36A, 36B, and 36C are from a section where very few fish were found, and each of those were poorly preserved. Figures 3 6C and 3 6D show no bioturbation structures, appear more definitely laminated, and are from the zone where the only well preserved fossil was found (specimen 14, Appendix I). The x-radiographs of typical rocks at GREFCO (Figure 15) show that laminations are much more well-defined, and appear closer in structure to rocks shown in Figure 3 6C--the Newport Lagoon example with no bioturbation. This information, while not extensive, at least restores confidence to that which was lost when the Newport x-radiographs were first viewed. There were some other interesting notes about the x-radiographs. Foraminifera(?) could be seen in both the horizontally and vertically oriented slabs as they are more radio-opaque than their host rock (Figure 36). They seem to be randomly distributed and do not cluster. Also, the cross-shaped black marks in Figure 36D are fish vertebrae. Other workers have taken x-radiographs of Monterey rocks and thought that these were salt crystals (Govean and Garrison, 1981), but these are in fact vertebrae, as demonstrated in the dissection. Vertebrae 1 2 1 and scales were seen with great frequency throughout the dissection portion of the Newport Lagoon section study. As alluded to in the previous paragraphs, the fish themselves were poorly preserved at Newport. In part, this is probably because of intermittent oxygenation as indicated by the occasional bioturbation. Oxygenation itself isn't interpreted as one of the direct causes of poorly preserved fish but the lack of scavenger exclusion is one possible explanation. Since so few fish were found at the Newport Lagoon section, no plots were made to compare indices. The few fish found were typically very poorly preserved, had experienced very little dissolution, tended to have no preferred disarticulation, and were primarily found in laminated sediments. Whether these sediments were free of bioturbation is not completely clear. The Newport study was not as fruitful as GREFCO in terms of information provided but did provide an example of a different, poorer quality in terms of fossil preservation, Monterey deposit. The discoveries regarding bioturbation in banded, visually undisturbed rocks, puts a larger degree of caution in interpretation from the other study areas. 122 CARBON/CARBONATE ANALYSES In addition to the tabulation of the various indices described in previous sections, chemical analyses were also run on several intervals of the GREFCO dissection rocks to see if there were any correlations between carbon/carbonate content of the rocks and fossil fish preservation. Specifically, 29 laminations were tested for total carbon and carbonate content. A total of 98 samples were run for total carbon and 86 samples were run for carbonate content. The reasoning behind using this method was that there seemed to occasionally be a mild to strong petroleum odor which came from freshly broke rock at the quarry. Perhaps the odor was sourced from specific beds or laminations more that others. Residual carbon may or may not have been associated with particular beds. Also, carbonate content or the ratio between total carbon and carbonate may have been related to fish occurrence. The analyses were run using a LECO total carbon/carbonate instrument. Total carbon was determined for each sample by thermal oxidation, release, and measurement of carbon dioxide evolved. Total carbonate was determined by acid digestion. Samples were taken from the upper 16 laminations at the GREFCO square meter section. Within each lamination 123 several samples were taken and pulverized to assure complete burn or digestion. Some of the laminations were divided into several constituent parts which were analyzed separately (e.g. lamination "10" divided into "10a" and "10b" based on color difference). Total carbon ranged from about 2.5-5%, most of which (81-94%) was carbon from carbonate. Carbonate content ranged from about 17-33%. Appendix J contains the results of the analyses. A surprising result was the high carbonate content of the diatomite. After running the 184 samples and seeing no substantial variability in the carbon/carbonate ratio, and no apparent association between carbonate content and fish occurrence, the investigation was abandoned. 124 CHAPTER IV--DISCUSSION COMPARISON AMONG FIELD LOCATIONS AND MUSEUM STUDIES Several observations were made during the course of this investigation which indicated that there are consistencies between the museum collection, which contains fossil specimens from a variety of field localities, and the two field localities, which were very narrow in their sampling extent, but not data size. There were inconsistencies too. Measured Indices The measured indices defined in this research were compared both in their raw form and after inter-index plots were created. The raw data and plots form the base for most of the interpretations of this investigation. Raw index count comparison Preservation quality of fossil fish at the museum is overwhelmingly good but there also is a fairly well distributed range. This was expected because samples at the museum were collected to a large degree because they were good examples or were the only examples of a particular taxon. Preservation quality at GREFCO is good also but more weighted towards average preservation. 125 Preservation quality at Newport Lagoon is poor overall. The two field localities were expected to have poorer average preservation quality and this was the case. The range of dissolution index is well distributed at the museum but is definitely skewed at GREFCO and Newport. These differences make sense because factors leading to dissolution are specific to the location where a fossil is found. Each fossil collection location has, at and since deposition, experienced slightly if not completely different histories of compaction, burial, tectonism, diagenetic alteration, and ground water dissolution. The museum has a range of dissolution because sampling was from a wide range of localities. GREFCO and Newport were rather weighted towards little dissolution because the sampling location was very limited and conditions were ideal for preservation of skeletal material. The arched vertebral column index and preferred disarticulation index likewise showed distribution in one study location while another was skewed towards one end of the spectrum. AVC was weighted toward a low degree of arching at LACMNH while at GREFCO close to even numbers of each was indicated. Newport had too few examples to really compare. PD showed the opposite trend. It tended to show that museum fish were not preferentially 126 disarticulated, and remaining specimens were distributed among the different PD types, while at GREFCO most specimens showed cranial disarticulation with very few other types. Again, this is probably site driven. Different locations have different taxa and different taxa arch and preferentially disarticulate differently. Depositional mode and rock type are distributed for the various sampling locations of the museum study. Depositional mode was distributed but rock type was constant at GREFCO and Newport. Ichnofabric by unaided visual observation was almost invariable for all three studies--there was none. X-radiographs of Newport rocks showed that this may not indicate that there were no bioturbators, however. Based on other evidence, including x-radiographs of GREFCO rocks and more definite lamination at GREFCO, the ichnofabric assessment method for bioturbation presence is believed to be valid for GREFCO. Approximately 54% of the fish at the museum were identified to the generic level. Most of these were of four genera: Xyne, Etringus, Ganolytes and Perciformes. At GREFCO and at Newport almost all of the identifiable specimens were from the family Clupeidae and probably were Xyne. The distribution of taxa is probably locality influenced. 127 Index relationship (data plots) .comparison Most of the data plots comparing indices showed no association between individual indices but a few notable ones did show trends. Fewer still were the associations which crossed over between the museum study and the GREFCO dissection. No plots were created for Newport and so no comparisons are made here. Only the most interesting comparisons are considered. The most notable among the comparisons was the overall preservation versus depositional mode. There was clear association in both the museum and at GREFCO between deposition in laminated sediments and under event deposits with good preservation. Specimens found within event deposits were more poorly preserved. The indication is that fish passively lying on the bottom, whether buried slowly in laminated deposits or by an event deposit were more likely to be well preserved than those transported in the flow. This runs counter to the contention of Allison (1986, 1990) and Kidwell and Baumiller (1990), whose experiments showed that freshly killed echinoderms (fish assumed here to be at least as fragile) did not disarticulate easily. An explanation for this difference is that the fish transported in the event that created the event deposit were not freshly killed. They were 128 resting on the bottom, with degraded connective tissues, when onset of the event flow disrupted them and spread the parts about. Fish not swept up by events such as these tend to be well preserved. Also related to depositional mode is the presence and degree of vertebral arching. Similar to overall preservation, presence of vertebral arching is tied to deposition within, or not within, an event deposit. Fish are less likely to have arched vertebrae if they are within an event deposit. It is interpreted then that AVC is tied to exposure time prior to burial. It is thought here that it takes some time on the sea floor for a fish to come to its final arched pose. Support for this assertion includes fewer arched fish in event deposits. Fish buried in an event are, to a degree, frozen in their burial pose. Some arching can occur in the presumed soupy diatomaceous substrate that became Monterey event deposits but probably less than in non-event deposition. Both the museum and GREFCO data plots supported these associations, but the trends were shown better with the museum plots. Taxonomic grouping also controls the degree to which vertebral columns arch. For the four groups plotted, Etringus showed the highest preference for vertebral arching. Xyne showed a high degree of vertebral arching 129 but this group did not show severe vertebral arching very commonly. This indicates that arching may be controlled by physiology of each group. Physical makeup of each group probably controls how far a vertebral column will arch. Ganolytes shows approximately equal numbers of no and moderate arching and fewer severely arched vertebral columns. Perciformes shows mostly unarched vertebral columns with a few moderately and fewer severely arched columns. Observational Comparisons Many of the observations made in this research are not directly related to the index comparisons but are anecdotal. Some of the most notable of these observations are those on bioturbation, the ability to detect it by simple visual methods and its relation to fish preservation; as well as presence and absence of certain taxa in certain depositional environments as evidenced by rock type. Bioturbation was originally thought to be easily detected by visual observation. Most trace fossils can be detected by slight differences in lithology inside and outside of a trace, disruption of laminations, texture or some kind of geochemical induced halo (Hallam, 1975). None of these indications were observed visually at 130 GREFCO, Newport, or in an overwhelming majority of host rocks at LA County Museum. Traces were detected in x-radiographs of Newport rocks, however. The Newport x-radiograph traces were undetected by visual observation and were a cause of concern in terms of the interpretation that biogenic structure-free rocks, and the presumed reduced oxygenation of bottom waters, helped lead to good preservation. The problem was that presence of no traces observed by eye didn't necessarily mean there were no bioturbation structures. This problem was partially alleviated by two things. Banding and lamination were much less well defined at Newport. In other words, it is possible that the visual detection of traces depends on the quality of lamination preservation. Lamination was well preserved basically everywhere except at Newport. Thus, visual detection of traces can be trusted at most locations. The other alleviating factor -s that fish found in the apparently bioturbated rocks (evidence from x-radiographs) were very poorly preserved--supporting the interpretation that bioturbation, and implied oxygenation, discourages good preservation. In addition to the bioturbation related observations, the taxonomic ones are probably at least as important. It appeared that taxa were strongly 131 controlled by depositional environment. Almost fish found at both Newport and GREFCO were Clupeidae and probably Xyne. Both of these localities were highly diatomaceous and deposited under highly productive waters (Pisciotto and Garrison, 1981; Bramlette, 1946; others). Xyne is a schooling fish which lives in productive waters (David, 1943), and thus it makes sense that it would be found in rocks dominated by pelagic sediment. Problems with Data Analysis There was one issue that became problematic as data reduction was completed and plots were used for comparisons. Many of the comparisons were confounded by the fact that some of the indices were controlled by factors that are not simple in nature. Some indices were controlled by more than one of the others. For example, depositional mode, overall preservation quality and taxonomic grouping were each interrelated. Some taxonomic groups were associated with presence in laminated rocks, preservation quality was associated with deposition in laminated rocks, and preservation quality was associated with taxonomic grouping. Which, or more importantly, to what degree, do each of these affect the other? Better preserved fish appear to be found in laminated rocks or under event deposits. Xyne and 132 Etringus tend to be found in laminated rocks or under event deposits and tend to be well preserved. Is their well preserved nature due to their presence in laminated rocks, or are they always better preserved and their presence in laminated rocks is simply a coincidence? Do numerous examples of these genera in good preservation in laminated rocks lead only to conclusions on the apparent importance of laminated rocks? These questions cannot be answered confidently with the present level of data analysis. Multivariate analyses would have to be performed to come up with explanations for some of the problems. Further analyses were out of the scope of this investigation and were not pursued. This author feels that while these problems are important and troubling, they do not negate fully the implications made by the simple comparisons. The associations are there. The problem is to what degree each portion is important. Many of the associations have still been used for interpretation. TAPHONOMIC AND PALEOBIOLOGIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MONTEREY LAGERSTATTE Some of the data reviewed and discussed here has, in addition to simple specific relationships, implications for taphonomy and paleobiology in general. Not all the 133 implications are clear cut or without openings for argument, but they are intriguing. Some of the results of this study which do have taphonomic and paleobiological significance include, for example: 1) poor preservation of fossil fish buried within event deposits; 2) range and mode of vertebral arching; and 3) presence/absence of bioturbation with oxygenation implications. Fossil preservation and its relation to depositional mode has long been a topic of discussion among paleontolgists {e.g. Seilacher, 1982; Seilacher et al., 1985; Brett, 1986 ) and this study adds another piece to the puzzle. The results of this study tend to support the conventional paleontological wisdom that it's better to be buried by a distal flow (under an event deposit) than to be transported in one. While a few workers have contended that freshly killed pre-fossil material is relatively durable (i.e. Allison, 1986, 1990; and Kidwell and Baumiller, 1990), this study at most shows that this is not the case for fish, and at least indicates that a majority of fish buried within event deposits in the Monterey were not freshly killed. Somewhere in the middle ground, whether freshly killed or not, the data here implies that transport (or other agitation which results in graded or massive bedding) causes damage to 134 potential fossil material. Thus the observation that "good" fossils tend to be found in laminated deposits is not simply an artifact of the ease of their removal in these deposits. What the "fewer-good-fish-in-event-deposits" result implies is that fossils can be very well preserved if they simply escape transport. Fish which are passively buried by lamina deposition or are buried by an event deposit were simply not damaged by transport. Apparently, the amount of time which elapsed between coming to rest and burial was not important to preservation quality. Fish buried under event deposits may have been buried sooner and slightly deeper than those in laminated deposits but they are equally well preserved. These observations and indications show, in combination with lack of scavenging and lack of bioturbation, that obrution is less important than stagnation in terms of potential for high quality fossil preservation. While no study location was investigated which had significant bioturbation to compare preservation quality, those that were investigated showed relatively good preservation. The lack of bioturbation, despite some indications that it may not be universal, is important indirectly as a factor in preservation quality. The lack 135 of bioturbation implies low oxygenation (e.g. Rhodes and Morse, 1971; Byers, 1977) and with low oxygenation scavengers are excluded. Low oxygen bottom water itself did not lead to good preservation but the lack of scavengers contributed. The few intervals at Newport Lagoon which apparently contained trace fossils--implying at least some oxygenation--showed very poor preservation of the few fish encountered. No evidence of scavenging was clear, but poor preservation was present in these intervals. While this information does not prove the assertion that bioturbation/oxygenation and the presumed potential for scavenger presence precludes good fossil preservation, it does imply it. This is not especially revealing, however, since low oxygenation with the exclusion of scavengers is a standard environment for good preservation (Allison and Briggs, 1991b). What is revealing and is not simply an example of depositional conditions which help to preserve fossils well is the presence as well as interpretations based on the vertebral arching of many of the fossil fish. The presence of vertebral arching in many of the fossils examined in this work was one of the first observations noted. A large proportion of fossils observed were arched to some degree. Arching was related 136 to several of the other measured indices and interpretations are considered_here as to the cause. It appears to some degree that vertebral arching is related to taxonomic group. Some tend to arch severely (Etringus) while others tend not to arch (Perciformes) . Some tend to arch readily but the arching process stops before the fish is severely arched (Xyne). The reason for the group distribution is not known but is likely due to minor differences in the physical and chemical makeup of the connective tissues in each group. Arched vertebral columns are also associated to some degree with mode of deposition. Fish in laminated deposits and, to some degree, under event deposits tend to have more arched vertebral columns. This implies, based on the observation made above that fish in these conditions tend to be exposed longer, that fish exposed longer show more vertebral arching. In contrast, those in event deposits show less arching. This may mean that those fish not so fragile as to not survive transport tend to show less vertebral arching. This supports the assertion that fish with greater exposure time prior to burial tend to arch more. Rock type shows an association with vertebral arching as well. More clastic dominated rocks show more 137 vertebral arching. It is not clear that this is related at all to exposure time but may be. The depositional environments and modes of deposition do not indicate that vertebral arching is related to high salinity as some have thought (i.e. Seilacher, personal communication, 1993). While portions of the Monterey appear to be low oxygen, none have indicated that it was deposited in a hypersaline environment. Asphyxiation was hypothesized as a potential cause of arching (mouth open, gills expanded, rigor mortis pose) but no real evidence supports this idea. Very few fish showed this pose, but instead seemed to show arching after death, with mouth closed, no expanded gills or other indications of asphyxiation. What the arched vertebral data does show is that there is no definitive explanation for arching of fish in the Monterey or other rocks. It appears that taxonomic grouping has the greatest control and, to some degree, length of exposure time related to mode of deposition of a fish's host rock also has some. 138 CHAPTER V--CONCLUSIONS The Monterey Formation and its equivalents is a fossil lagerstatte and as such contains significant fossil occurrences, taphonomic information, and paleobiological implications based on data gleaned from the fossils within. There are numerous fossil localities which have yielded scores of very well preserved fossil fish. Many of the individuals are rare occurrences while others are quite common. The quality and range of quality of fossil preservation yields voluminous taphonomic data, some of which is addressed in this study. Results of taphonomic data analyses afford the opportunity to draw taphonomic as well as geological and paleobiological conclusions. Some of these results have been discussed at greater length than others but all are considered important to some degree. Some of the most interesting observations were simply anecdotal and not directly related to the index comparisons. These include: • Fish were very well preserved at LA County Museum of Natural History, fairly well preserved at GREFCO, and poorly preserved at Newport Lagoon; • Many fossil fish examples both in and out of the museum had arched vertebral columns; ■ Most fish were found in laminated sediments rather than in event deposits; 139 • Almost none of the museum fish were in bioturbated rocks despite the fact that they were collected from various localities; • Bioturbation may not always be seen with the naked eye, especially in rocks with bedding that is difficult to see; • There was very little taxonomic diversity at both field localities; • Very little dissolution of hard part material occurred at all study locations. The observational results indicate that the fossils within the upper Monterey and its equivalents are significantly well preserved and it is probably fair to designate this unit as a fossil lagerstatte. The predominant mode of deposition of beds with fish occurrences is lamination. This, with the lack of bioturbation, shows that stagnation is more important for good fossil preservation than obrution. Arched vertebral columns are present but a reason for their presence is not elucidated. Hard part preservation is good in much of the collected fish at both field localities investigated in this research and in other's work represented in the museum collection. Other observations were related to the index comparisons. These include: • Very few of the index comparisons showed association with one another, but a few did show some relations; 140 • Overall preservation, as seen observationally, is shown semi-quantitatively to be associated with deposition in laminated sediments and under event deposits, to a degree; • Arched vertebral columns, as shown in the index- comparisons, may be tied to deposition in laminated sediments, simply related to exposure time, or most likely controlled by taxonomic grouping; • Preferred disarticulation was also associated with taxonomic grouping; • Dissolution index seemed to associate with rock type--unaltered diatomite had less dissolution and more clastic dominated rocks showed more; • Some indices showed that the index system was simply working--a good sign. It appears from the index comparison results that the methods utilized in this investigation worked at least to a degree. Some trends were indicated but others were not. It is not clear whether the sampling was not extensive enough or the interrelationships among the indices were too complicated to use simple 1 on 1 comparisons--but probably the latter. The associations that were indicated are interesting however, and show that there are taphonomic and paleobiological trends within the sample used in this investigation even if some are obscured by sampling or method problems. In comparing the museum study with the two field localities, it appears that some of the indices are strongly related to sampling location. Preservation 141 quality, dissolution index, rock type, and ichnofabric index each were weighted toward one index value at the two field localities. This was less true of the museum collection which is a compilation of many field locales. This is undoubtedly caused by the narrow range of geological and paleoenvironmental circumstances that the two (small) sections at Newport Lagoon and GREFCO experienced. The other strong association is between several of the indices and taxonomic grouping. Taxonomic groups, with their slightly different physiology and life habit, have significant control over preservation quality, preferred disarticulation, and vertebral arching. What is recommended for future research is clear, but not simple. A multivariate analysis of the present database would further elucidate the associations between the indices discovered thus far. Hopefully this author or other workers will use the databases compiled in this thesis to further examine the extraordinary fossil occurrences in the Monterey and its equivalents. Further research would be both informative and interesting. 142 REFERENCES Allison, Peter A., 1986, Soft-bodied animals in the fossil record: the role of decay in fragmentation during transport: Geology, v. 14, p. 979-981. Allison, Peter A., 1988, Konservat-lagers tat ten: Cause and classification: Paleobiology, v. 14, p. 331-344 Allison, Peter A., 1990, Variation in rates of decay and disarticulation of echinodermata: implications for the application of actualistic data: Palaios, v. 5, p. 432-440. Allison, Peter A. and Briggs, Derek E. G., 1991a, preface to: Taphonomy releasing the data locked in the fossil record: Plenum Press, New York, 560 p. Allison, Peter A. and Briggs, Derek E. G., 1991b, Taphonomy of nonmineralized tissues, in, Allison, Peter A. and Briggs, Derek E. G., Taphonomy releasing the data locked in the fossil record: Plenum Press, New York, p 25-70. Barron, J. A., 1986, Paleoceanographic and tectonic controls on deposition of the Monterey Formation and related siliceous rocks in California: Palaeoceanography, Palaeoclimatology, and Palaeoecology, v. 53, p. 27-45. Bramlette, M. N., 1946, The Monterey Formation of California and the origin of its siliceous rocks: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 212, 57 p. Brett, C. E., Speyer, S. E., and Baird, G. C., 1986, Storm-generated sedimentary units: Tempestite proximality and event stratification in the Middle Devonian Hamilton Group of New York State, in, Brett, C. E., ed., Dynamic stratigraphy and depositional environments of the Hamilton Group (Middle Devonian) in New York State, Part 1: New York State Museum Bulletin v. 457, p. 129-156. Britt, Sanford L, Bottjer, David J., Fischer, Alfred G., Flocks, James G., and Gorsline, Donn S., 1992, X-radiography of horizontal core slabs: a method 143 for greater retrieval of sediment core data: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 62, p. 718-721. Bromley, Richard G. and Ekdale, A. A., 1984, Chondrites: a trace fossil indicator of anoxia in sediments: Science, v. 224, p. 872-874. Brongersma-Sanders, Margaretha, 1957, Mass mortality in the sea: Geological Society of America Memoir 67, Part 1, p. 941-1010. Burnett, John L., 1991, Diatoms--the forage of the sea: California Division of Mines and Geology, California Geology, v. 44, no. 4, p. 75-81. Byers, Charles W., 1977, Biofacies patterns in euxinic basins: a general model: in, Cook, Harry E., and Enos, Paul, eds, Deep water carbonate environments, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Book 25, p. 5-17. California Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, 1940, 1941, 1943, Geologic formations and economic development of the oil and gas fields of California, 773 p. David, Lore Rose, 1943, Miocene fishes of southern California: Geological Society of America Special Paper 43, 193 p. Dibblee, T. W., 1950, Geology of southwestern Santa Barbara County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 150, 95 p. Droser, Mary L. and Bottjer, David J., 1986, A Semi- quantitative field classification of ichnofabric: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology v. 56, p. 558-559. Droser, Mary L. and Bottjer, David J., 1987, Development of ichnofabric indices for strata deposited in high- energy nearshore terrigenous clastic environments: in, Bottjer, David J., ed., New concepts in the use of biogenic sedimentary structures for paleoenvironmental interpretation: Pacific Section Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Book 52, p. 29-33. Dunham, John B. and Blake, Gregg H., 1987, Guide to coastal outcrops of the Monterey Formation of western Santa Barbara County, California, in, 144 Dunham, John B, ed., Guide to coastal outcrops of the Monterey Formation of western Santa Barbara County, California, p. 1-36. Durham, D. L. and Yerkes, R. F., 1964, Geology and oil resources of the eastern Puente Hills area, southern California: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-B, 62 p. Durham, D. L., 1974, Geology of the southern Salinas Valley, California: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 819, 111 p. Elder, Ruth, 1985, Principles in aquatic taphonomy with examples from the fossil record, Ph.D Dissertation: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Michigan, 366 p. Garrison, Robert E. and Douglas, Robert G., eds., 1981, The Monterey Formation and related siliceous rocks of California: Pacific Section Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Book 15, 327 p. Gorsline, D. S., 1978, Anatomy of margin basins: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 48, p. 1055-1068. Gorsline, D. S. and Emery, K. 0., 1959, Turbidity current deposits in San Pedro and Santa Monica basins off southern California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 70, p. 279-280. Govean, Frances M. and Garrison, Robert E., 1981, Significance of laminated and massive diatomites in the upper part of the Monterey Formation, California: in Garrison, Robert E. and Douglas, Robert G., eds., The Monterey Formation and related siliceous rocks of California: Pacific Section Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Book 15, p. 181-198. Graham, S. A., 1976, Tertiary sedimentary tectonics of the central Salinian Block of California: Ph.D thesis, Stanford University, Stanford California, 510 p. Grant, Christopher W., 1991, Distribution of Bacterial mats (Beggiatoa sp.) in Santa Barbara Basin, California, a modern analog for organic rich facies of the Monterey Formation, unpublished master's 145 thesis: California State University, Long Beach, 201 p. Hallam, A., 1975, Preservation of trace fossils, in, Frey, Robert W., ed., The study of trace fossils, Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 55-63. Hood, Chris, 1991, personal communication, quarry geologist, GREFCO Quarry. Hoots, H. W., 1931, Geology of the eastern part of the Santa Monica Mountains, Los Angeles County, California: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 165-C, p. 83-134. Ingle, James C., 1980, Cenozoic paleobathymetry and depositional history of selected sequences within the southern California continental borderland: Cushman Foundation Special Publication 19, p. 163- 195 . Isaacs, Caroline M., Piper, David Z., Tennyson, Marilyn E., Ingle, James C., and Baumgartner, Timothy R., in prep, Depositional Setting of the Monterey Formation Revisited: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper. Isaacs, Caroline M., 1981a, Outline of diagenesis in the Monterey Formation examined laterally down the coast near Santa Barbara Coast, California: in, Isaacs, C. M., ed., Guide to the Monterey Formation in the California coastal areas, Ventura to San Luis Obispo: Pacific Section, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, v. 52, p. 25-38. Isaacs, Caroline M., 1981b, Porosity reduction during diagenesis of the Monterey Formation, Santa Barbara Coastal Area, California: in, Garrison, Robert E. and Douglas, Robert G., eds., The Monterey Formation and related siliceous rocks of California: Pacific Section Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Book 15, p. 257-271. Isaacs, Caroline M. and Garrison, Robert E., eds., 1983, Petroleum generation and occurrence in the Miocene Monterey Formation, California: Pacific Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, 228 p. 146 Jahns, R. H.( ed., 1954, Geology of Southern California: California Division of Mines Bulletin 170. Jordan, David Starr, 1907, The fossil fishes of California: University of California Publications, Department of Geological Sciences, v. 5, p. 95-144. Jordan, David Starr, 1921, The fish fauna of the California Tertiary: Stanford University Publications, Biological Sciences, v. 1, no. 4, p. 235-300. Jordan, David Starr, 1924, Miocene fishes from southern California: Southern California Academy of Sciences Bulletin, v. 23, p. 42-50. Jordan, David Starr, 1925, The fossil fishes of the Miocene of California: Stanford University Publications, Biological Sciences, v. 4, no. 1, p. 1-51. Jordan, David Starr, 1927, The fossil fishes of the Miocene of California: Stanford University Publications, Biological Sciences, v. 5, no. 2, p. 88-97. Jordan, David Starr, and Gilbert, J. Z., 1919, Fossil fishes of southern California: Stanford University Publication, p. 1-98. Jordan, David Starr, and Gilbert, J. Z., 1920, Fossil fishes of diatom beds of Lompoc, California: Stanford University Publication, p. 1-45. Kidwell, Susan M. and Baumiller, Tomasz, 1990, Experimental disintegration of regular echinoids: roles of temperature, oxygen, and decay thresholds: Paleobiology v. 16, p. 247-271. Kleir.pell, Robert M., 1938, Miocene stratigraphy of California: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, 450 p. Kleinpell, Robert M., 1980, Miocene stratigraphy of California, Revisited: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, 349 p. Kruge, Michael A., 1983, Diagenesis of Miocene biogenic sediments in Lost Hills oil field, San Joaquin Basin, California: in Isaacs, Caroline M. and 147 Garrison, Robert E., eds., 1983, Petroleum generation and occurrence in the Miocene Monterey Formation, California: Pacific Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, p. 39- 51. Lamar, Donald L., 1970, Geology of the Elysian Park- Repetto Hills area, Los Angeles County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 101, 45 p. Neuerburg, George J., 1953, Geology of the Griffith Park area, Los Angeles County, California: California Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, Special Report 33, 29 p. Pemberton, J. R., 1940, Economics of the oil and gas industry of California: in, California Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, 1940, 1941, 1943, Geologic formations and economic development of the oil and gas fields of California, Part One, p. 3-14. Pisciotto, Kenneth A., and Garrison, Robert E., 1981, Lithofacies and depositional environments of the Monterey Formation, California: in Garrison, Robert E. and Douglas, Robert G., eds., The Monterey Formation and related siliceous rocks of California: Pacific Section Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Book 15, p. 97-122. Poland, J. F. and Piper, A. M, 1956, Ground-water geology of the coastal zone Long Beach--Santa Ana area, California: U. S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1109, 163 p. Rhodes, Donald C. and Morse, John W., 1971, Evolutionary and ecologic significance of oxygen-deficient marine basins: Lethaia, v. 4, p. 413-428. Romer, Alfred Sherwood and Parsons, Thomas S., 1986, The vertebrate body, Sixth Edition: Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia, 679 p. Savrda, Charles E. and Bottjer, David J., 1986, Trace fossil model for reconstruction of paleo-oxygenation in bottom waters: Geology, v. 14, p. 3-6. Savrda, Charles E. and Bottjer, David J., 1987a, Trace fossils as indicators of bottom-water redox 148 conditions in ancient marine environments: in, Bottjer, David J., ed., New concepts in the use of _ biogenic sedimentary structures for paleoenvironmental interpretation: Pacific Section Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Book 52, p. 29-33. Savrda, Charles E. and Bottjer, David J., 1987b, The exaerobic zone, a new oxygen deficient marine biofacies: Nature, v. 327, p. 54-56. Schafer, Wilhelm, 1972, Ecology and paleoecology of marine environments: University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 568 p. Seilacher, Adolf, 1982, General remarks about event deposits, in, Einsele, G and Seilacher A., eds., Cyclic and event stratigraphy: Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 161-174. Seilacher, A., Reif, W. E. and Westphal, F., 1985, Sedimentological, ecological and temporal patterns of fossil lagerstatten: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, v. B311, p. 5-23. Seilacher, Adolf, 1967, Bathymetry of trace fossils: Marine Geology, v. 5, p. 413-428. Seilacher, Adolf, 1993, personal communication. Smith, Craig, 1992, personal communication, GREFCO quarry engineer. Sr.yder, Walter S., Brueckner, Hannes K. , and Schweickert, Richard A., 1983, Deformational styles in the Monterey Formation and other sedimentary rocks, in, Isaacs, Caroline M. and Garrison Robert, E., Petroleum generation and occurrence in the Miocene Monterey Formation, California, p. 151-170. Stalaer, Walter, 1940, History of exploration and development of gas and oil in northern California: in, California Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, 1940, 1941, 1943, Geologic formations and economic development of the oil and gas fields of California, Part One, p. 75-80. 149 Taylor, Gary C., 1981, California's diatomite industry: California Division of Mines and Geology, California _ Geology, v. 34, p. 183-192. United States Geological Survey, 1966, 7.5 minute topographic map, Newport Beach quadrangle, photorevised 1981. Weigelt, Johannes, 1927, translated by Judith Schaefer, 1989, Recent vertebrate carcasses and their paleobiological implications: University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 188 p. Woodring, W. P. and Bramlette, M. N., 1950, Geology and paleontology of the Santa Maria district, California: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 222, 185 p. Woodring, W. P., Bramlette, M. N., and Kew, W. S. W., 1946, Geology and paleontology of the Palos Verdes Hills, California: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 207, 145 p. Yerkes, R. F., McCulloh, J. E., Schoellhamer, J. E., and Vedder, J. G, 1965, Geology of the Los Angeles Basin, California, an introduction: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-A, 57 p. Yerkes, R. F., 1972, Geology and oil resources of the western Puente Hills area, southern California: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-C, 62 p. Zangerl, R. and Richardson, E. S., 1963, The paleoecology of two Pennsylvanian black shales: Fieldiana Geology, Chicago Museum of Natural History Memoir #4, 352 p. Zawacki, Robin Lee, 1974, Xyne grex, revisited: unpublished Master's Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 25 p. 150 APPENDIX A LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION DATABASE A B C D E F G |H 1 J 1 sp e c im e n # ta x o n GENUS # OPQI Dl AVC PD II RT DM 2 26191 Clupeidae 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 25231 Clupeidae 2 3 1 2 1 4 25088a Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 25088b Xyne grex 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 6 25088c Xyne grex 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 7 25088d Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 8 25088e Xyne grex 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 9 25088f Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 10 25088aa Xyne grex 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 11 25088bb Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 12 25088cc Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 13 25088dd Xyne grex 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 14 25125 Xyne grex 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 15 25079 Xyne grex 1 2 1 3 3 1 0 1 16 25080 Xyne grex 1 2 2 1 2 1 0 1 17 25237 Clupeidae 2 2 2 3 1 3 1 18 25437 Clupeidae 1 2 3 1 1 0 1 19 10259a Xyne grex 1 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 20 10259b Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 1 1 0 1 21 10259c Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 1 1 0 1 22 10259d Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 1 1 0 1 23 10259e Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 1 1 0 1 24 10259f Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 1 1 0 1 25 10259g Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 1 1 0 1 26 10259h Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 1 1 0 1 27 10259i Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 1 1 0 1 28 10259j Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 1 1 0 1 29 10259k Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 1 1 0 1 30 102591 Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 1 1 0 1 31 10261a Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 3 1 0 1 32 10261b Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 3 1 0 1 33 10261c Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 3 1 0 1 3 4 10261d Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 3 1 0 1 35 10261e Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 3 1 0 1 36 10261f Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 3 1 0 1 37 10261g Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 3 1 0 1 38 10261h Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 3 1 0 1 39 10261i Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 3 1 0 1 4 0 10261j Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 3 1 0 1 41 10261k Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 3 1 0 1 4 2 102611 Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 3 1 0 1 4 3 13482a Xyne grex 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 1 4 4 13482b Xyne grex 1 3 1 2 3 1 0 1 4 5 13482c Xyne grex 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 1 151 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION DATABASE (continued) A B C D E F G H I J 1 sp e c im e n # tax o n G E N U S# OPQI Dl AVC PD II RT DM 4 6 13482d Xyne grex 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 1 4 7 13617a Xyne grex 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 4 8 13617b Xyne grex 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 4 9 13617c Xyne grex 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 50 13644a Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 51 13644b Xyne grex 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 52 13644c Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 53 13645a Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 0 1 5 4 13645b Xyne grex 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 55 13645c Xyne grex 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 56 13645d Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 57 13645e Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 58 26128a Xyne grex 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 9 26128b Xyne grex _ _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 0 13640 Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 61 13643a Xyne grex 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 62 13643b Xyne grex 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 63 13647aa Xyne grex 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 6 4 13647ab Xyne grex 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 65 13647b Xyne grex 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 66 13636a Xyne grex 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 67 13636b Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 68 13638a Xyne grex 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 69 13638b Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 0 10016 Clupeidae 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 71 13653 Clupeidae 4 1 2 1 0 1 72 11953 Clupeidae 4 1 2 1 0 1 7 3 11959 Clupeidae 4 1 2 1 0 1 7 4 11954 Clupeidae 4 1 4 1 0 1 7 5 11957 Clupeidae 4 1 4 1 0 1 7 6 11960 Clupeidae 4 4 1 0 1 7 7 11963 Clupeidae 4 1 2 1 0 1 7 8 10115 Xyne grex 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 7 9 11948 Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 80 11947 Xyne grex 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 81 10164 Clupeidae 2 2 1 2 1 0 1 8 2 11965 Clupeidae 4 2 2 1 0 1 8 3 11950 Clupeidae 4 1 2 1 0 8 4 11946 Xyne 1 4 1 2 1 0 1 8 5 11967 Xyne grex 1 3 2 2 1 1 0 8 6 11952 Xyne grex 1 2 2 2 3 1 0 87 10350 Xyne grex 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 8 8 10359 Xyne grex 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 8 9 10358 Xyne grex 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 152 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION DATABASE (continued) A B C D E F G H I J 1 s p e c im e n # ta x o n G E N U S # OPQI Dl AVC PD II RT DM 90 10362 Xyne grex 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 91 10363 Xyne grex 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 9 2 10360 [ Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 93 10361 i Xyne grex 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 9 4 10657a i Xyne grex 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 9 5 10357b Xyne grex 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 96 5329 Clupeidae 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 97 1015a Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 9 8 1015b Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 99 1015c Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1015d Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 101 1015e Xyne grex 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 10364 Xyne grex 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 10365 Xyne grex 1 2 3 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 4 10367 Xyne grex 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 5 10368 Xyne grex 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 106 12214 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 7 12236 3 2 2 4 1 0 1 108 12543 Xyne grex 1 3 4 1 3 2 3 1 1 0 9 12545a Xyne grex 1 3 4 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 0 12545b Xyne grex 1 3 4 1 3 1 2 1 111 12544 Xyne grex 1 5 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 12546 Xyne grex 1 4 3 1 3 2 113 12547 Xyne grex 1 4 3 1 3 2 1 1 4 12548 Xyne grex 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 5 26169a Etringus scintillans 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 6 26169b Etringus bathylagus 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 7 11725 Etringus bathylagus 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 8 11592 Entringus 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 9 1256 Entringus 2 1 4 2 1 3 1 1 2 0 1209 Etringus scintillans 2 3 3 3 1 3 1 121 1251 Entringus 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1313 Entringus 2 1 4 2 1 3 1 123 4586 Entringus 2 2 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 4 26280 Etringus scintillans 2 2 4 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 5 25795 Entringus 2 4 2 1 3 1 1 2 6 25793 Entringus 2 2 4 3 2 1 3 1 2 7 25798 Entringus 2 1 4 3 1 1 3 1 2 8 11730a Entringus 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 9 11730b Entringus 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 3 0 11730c Entringus 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 131 11730d Entringus 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 11735 Entringus 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 45815 Entringus 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 153 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION DATABASE (continued) A B C D E F G H 1 J 1 sp e c im e n # tax o n GENUS # | OPQI Dl AVC PD II RT DM 1 3 4 26186 Entringus 2 2 3 2 2 1 3 1 3 5 7922 Entringus 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 136 26196 Entringus 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 7 26178 Entringus 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 138 7943 Entringus 2 4 2 1 2 3 139 7944 Entringus 2 3 4 2 2 1 2 3 140 26916 Entringus 2 4 3 1 1 2 3 141 26194 Entringus 2 4 3 3 1 2 3 1 4 2 26921 Entringus 2 4 3 3 1 2 3 143 26192 Entringus 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 4 4 26920 Entringus 2 2 4 2 1 2 3 1 4 5 26919 Entringus 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 3 146 26925 Entringus 2 4 3 1 1 2 3 147 26916a Entringus 2 4 3 1 1 2 3 148 26924 Entringus 2 5 3 1 2 3 149 26928 I Entringus 2 2 3 2 1 2 3 150 7946a Entringus 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 3 151 1946b Entringus 2 1 4 1 2 3 152 11564 Entringus 2 5 1 1 2 2 153 11561 Etringus scintillans 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 5 4 11562 Etringus scintillans 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 5 5 317a 17b Entringus 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 156 10121 Etringus scintillans 2 2 4 3 2 1 3 1 157 10007a Etringus scintillans 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 158 10007b Etringus scintillans 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 159 10229 Entringus 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 160 10156 i Etringus scintillans 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 161 11497 Entringus 2 4 3 2 1 2 1 162 11460 1 Entringus 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 163 11475 Entringus 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 6 4 11483 Etringus scintillans 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 165 11484 | Entringus 2 4 2 2 1 2 2 1 6 6 26153 j Etringus scintillans 2 2 3 3 2 1 3 2 167 26168a Etringus scintillans 2 2 3 3 3 1 3 2 168 26168b Entringus bathylagus 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 2 169 26168c j Etringus scintillans 2 1 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 7 0 26168d j Etringus scintillans 2 2 3 1 4 1 3 2 171 11518 Entringus 2 1 2 1 2 1 172 11515 Entringus 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 173 11524 Etringus scintillans 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 7 4 11555 Etringus scintillans 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 175 11559 Entringus 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 176 11522 Etringus scintillans 2 2 1 3 3 1 2 1 177 11533 Entringus 2 2 4 3 3 1 2 1 154 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION DATABASE (continued) A B C D E F G H 1 J 1 sp e c im e n # tax o n GENUS # OPQI Dl AVC PD II RT DM 178 26173 Etringus scintillans 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 179 26177a Entringus 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 180 26177b Entringus 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 181 26175 Entringus 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 1 182 131863a Etringus scintillans 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 183 131863b Etringus scintillans 2 4 1 1 1 1 184 26582 Ganolytes 3 4 2 1 3 185 32518 Ganolytes 3 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 186 26176 Ganolytes 3 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 187 10028 Ganolytes cam eo 3 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 188 11520a Ganolytes 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 189 11520b Ganolytes 3 1 1 1 2 1 190 26244 Ganolytes 3 5 1 1 2 1 191 11737 Ganolytes 3 4 2 1 2 1 192 11739 Ganolytes 3 5 1 1 2 1 193 11744 Ganolytes 3 4 1 1 2 1 194 11740 Ganolytes 3 5 1 1 2 1 195 11738 Ganolytes 3 4 3 1 2 1 196 10001 Ganolytes cam eo 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 197 10237 Ganolytes 3 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 198 25320 Ganolytes 3 4 1 1 2 199 25652 Ganolytes 3 5 1 1 2 1 200 11633 Ganolytes 3 5 1 1 2 1 201 12447 Ganolytes 3 5 1 1 2 1 202 25372 Ganolytes 3 4 1 1 0 203 26276 Ganolytes 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 0 4 10288 Ganolytes cam eo 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 205 25529 Ganolytes 3 5 2 1 3 206 25531 Ganolytes 3 5 2 1 2 207 26641 Ganolytes 3 4 2 1 0 1 208 25543/51 Ganolytes cam eo 3 2 1 1 0 1 209 10291 Ganolytes 3 4 3 2 1 3 1 210 10281 Ganolytes 3 1 4 3 1 1 2 1 211 10299 Ganolytes cam eo 3 1 4 2 1 1 3 212 10298 Ganolytes 3 1 4 3 1 1 3 1 213 1083 Ganolytes 3 4 1 1 0 1 2 1 4 12445 Ganolytes 3 5 1 1 0 2 2 1 5 1112 Ganolytes 3 4 1 1 0 2 216 11580 Ganolytes 3 1 3 2 1 1 3 3 217 11728 Ganolytes 3 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 218 7321 Ganolytes cam eo 3 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 9 1278 Ganolytes 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 220 1116 Ganolytes 3 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 221 11729 Ganolytes cam eo 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 155 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION DATABASE (continued) A B C D E F G H 1 J 1 sp e c im e n # tax o n GENUS# OPQI Dl AVC PD II RT DM 2 2 2 12948a Ganolytes 3 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 12948b Ganolytes 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 4 26185 Ganolytes 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 5 11906 Ganolytes 3 4 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 6 29172 Ganolytes 3 5 1 1 2 2 2 7 25963 Ganolytes 3 5 3 1 2 1 2 2 8 7914 Ganolytes 3 5 3 1 2 1 2 2 9 29195 Ganolytes 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 0 12141 Ganolytes 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 231 25998 Ganolytes 3 5 1 1 0 1 2 3 2 25999 Ganolytes 3 5 1 1 0 1 2 3 3 29195 Ganolytes 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 26300 Ganolytes 3 2 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 5 10283 Ganolytes 3 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 6 10287 Ganolytes 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 7 10302 Ganolytes 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 3 8 25260 Ganolytes 3 5 4 1 3 1 2 3 9 26270 Ganolytes 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 4 0 25732 Ganolytes 3 5 1 1 0 1 241 11897 Ganolytes cameo 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 4 2 129971 Ganolytes 3 3 1 1 4 1 2 1 2 4 3 JB6 Ganolytes 3 4 1 1 2 1 2 4 4 1111 Ganolytes 3 5 1 1 2 2 4 5 2222 Ganolytes 3 5 1 1 2 2 4 6 25254 Ganolytes 3 2 1 2 3 1 0 1 2 4 7 7348 Ganolytes 3 5 3 1 0 1 2 4 8 7351 Bathylagus angelensis 4 2 3 3 4 1 0 1 249 4560 Bathylagus angelensis 4 2 2 3 4 1 0 1 2 5 0 10031 Lompoquia vettopes 5 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 251 5251 Chauliodus eximius 6 4 1 1 0 1 2 5 2 13308 Gadidae 4 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 5 3 26100 Gonostomatidae 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 5 4 26099 Gonostomatidae cyclothone 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 5 5 4097a Ganolytes cameo 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 5 6 4097b Ganolytes cameo 3 1 4 3 1 1 2 1 2 5 7 45821 Gadidae 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 5 8 45820 Xyne grex 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 5 9 5016 Halichoeres 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 0 45823 Xyne grex 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 261 45819 Xyne grex 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 6 2 13018 Scambidae? 3 2 2 1 0 1 2 6 3 13012 Perciformes 8 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 6 4 12049 Perciformes 8 3 2 2 1 0 1 2 6 5 13042 Perciformes 8 3 2 1 1 0 1 156 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION DATABASE (continued) A B C D E F G H 1 J 1 sp e c im e n # taxon G E N U S# OPQI Dl AVC PD II RT DM 2 6 6 12968 Perciformes 8 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 6 7 3897 4 2 1 0 1 2 6 8 49701 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 9 49702 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 0 44703 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 271 49704 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 2 46705 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 3 49706 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 4 49707 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 5 49708 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 6 49709 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 7 497010 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 8 497011 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 9 497012 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 8 0 497013 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 281 497014 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 8 2 497015 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 8 3 497016 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 8 4 197017 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 8 5 497018 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 28 6 497019 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 8 7 497020 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 28 8 497021 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 28 9 497022 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 9 0 497023 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 291 497024 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 9 2 497025 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 9 3 497026 ! 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 9 4 497027 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 9 5 497028 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 9 6 497029 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 9 7 497030 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 9 8 4970a1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 9 9 4970a2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 0 4970a3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 301 4970a4 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 2 4970a5 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 3 4970a6 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 4 4970a7 3 3 1 1 3 0 5 4970a8 3 3 1 1 3 0 6 4970-3 Eclipes 7 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 7 4970-3w1 Ganolytes 3 3 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 0 8 4970-3w2 Ganolytes 3 3 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 0 9 4970-3w3 Ganolytes 3 3 2 1 3 1 2 1 157 I LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION DATABASE (continued) A B C D E F G H 1 J 1 sp e c im e n # ta x o n | GENUS # OPQI Dl AVC PD II RT DM 3 1 0 4970-3w4 Ganolytes I 3 3 2 1 3 1 2 1 311 4970-1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 31 2 4970-2 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 31 3 4970-3 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 4 9 -6 Eclipes 7 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 5 98471 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 6 9 -8 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 7 9-1 8 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 8 9 -1 9 4 3 1 1 2 3 1 9 9 -2 0 4 3 1 1 1 2 3 2 0 9-21 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 321 9 -2 2 Ganolytes 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 3 2 2 12369 3 2 1 3 1 0 1 3 2 3 12230 2 2 1 1 1 0 2 3 2 4 6589-25 Ganolytes 3 5 2 1 0 2 3 2 5 25724 3 1 2 2 1 0 2 3 2 6 25880 Myctophidae 2 2 3 1 1 0 1 3 2 7 12202 2 1 2 1 0 2 3 2 8 12193 4 4 1 0 1 3 2 9 12190 4 2 1 0 2 3 3 0 25716 2 4 1 1 1 0 2 331 12235 2 2 3 1 1 0 1 3 3 2 25672 1 3 3 1 1 0 1 3 3 3 10-3 2 2 3 1 1 0 1 3 3 4 25735 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 3 5 12228 4 1 1 1 0 2 3 3 6 25723 4 1 1 1 0 1 3 3 7 25731 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 3 3 8 25230 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 3 3 9 17143a Chauliodus eximus 6 1 2 1 1 1 0 3 3 4 0 17143b Chauliodus eximus 6 1 2 1 1 1 0 3 341 25919 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 4 2 25920 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 3 4 3 25075 2 1 2 1 0 3 3 4 4 10-14 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 3 4 5 12408 4 4 1 1 0 2 3 4 6 25777 Stomatidae 5 2 1 0 2 3 4 7 25913 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 3 4 8 25763 5 3 1 0 2 3 4 9 10-19 Xyne 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 3 5 0 10-20 Clupeidae 2 2 3 1 0 1 351 25676 2 1 1 3 1 0 3 3 5 2 10-22 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 5 3 10~22a 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 158 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION DATABASE (continued) A B C D E F G | H 1 J 1 sp e c im e n # ta x o n GENUS # OPQI Dl AVC PD II RT DM 3 5 4 10-24 3 1 3 4 1 0 1 3 5 5 10-25 Argentinidae 1 2 3 1 1 0 1 3 5 6 10-26 Bathylagidae 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 3 5 7 10-27 Eclipes 7 2 3 1 3 1 0 1 3 5 8 10-28 2 2 1 3 1 0 1 3 5 9 10-aa Bathylagidae 1 4 3 1 1 0 1 3 6 0 10-ab Bathylagidae 1 4 3 1 1 0 1 361 10-ba Xyne 1 2 2 1 2 1 0 1 3 6 2 10-bb Xyne 1 2 2 1 2 1 0 1 3 6 3 11-c Eclipes 7 1 1 1 0 1 3 6 4 11-d Bathylagidae 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 3 6 5 11-e Xyne 1 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 3 6 6 11-f Bathylagidae 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 3 6 7 25878 Gonostomatidae 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 3 6 8 12368 Perciformes cyclothone 8 2 1 1 3 1 0 3 6 9 12207 3 2 1 0 3 7 0 25841 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 371 12219 2 2 2 3 1 0 3 7 2 11-11 4 2 1 0 1 3 7 3 13604 Perciformes 8 4 2 1 0 1 3 7 4 25255 Perciformes 8 3 1 1 1 1 0 3 7 5 25849a 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 3 7 6 25849b 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 3 7 7 25849c 3 2 1 3 1 0 1 3 7 8 25849d 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 3 7 9 11-18 4 1 1 1 0 1 3 8 0 25910 2 2 3 3 1 0 3 381 25912 2 4 1 1 1 0 2 3 8 2 25771 2 4 2 1 1 0 2 3 8 3 25842 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 8 4 25925 2 2 3 2 1 0 2 3 8 5 25933 Clupeidae 3 2 1 1 1 0 1 3 8 6 12388 4 2 1 0 1 3 8 7 12188 2 1 3 1 1 0 1 3 8 8 25688 5 2 1 0 2 3 8 9 25924 2 1 3 3 1 0 3 3 9 0 25776 Perciformes cyclothone 8 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 391 12397 Clupeidae 3 1 1 2 1 0 2 3 9 2 12390 Bathylagidae 3 2 1 2 1 0 1 3 9 3 12387 2 2 1 3 1 0 3 3 9 4 25781 Myctophidae 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 3 9 5 25782 Myctophidae 4 1 1 0 1 3 9 6 12391 Myctophidae 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 9 7 12401 Clupeidae 1 3 3 1 1 0 1 159 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION DATABASE (continued) A B C D E F G H 1 J 1 s p e c im e n # tax o n GENUS # OPQI Dl AVC PD II RT DM 398 26058 Stomatoid 1 1 2 3 1 0 1 3 9 9 12384 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 4 0 0 12393 Gonostomatidae 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 401 25778 Clupeidae 4 1 1 0 2 4 0 2 12192 Myctophidae 4 3 1 0 1 4 0 3 12362 Myctophidae 2 3 2 1 1 0 2 4 0 4 12247 4 2 1 1 1 0 1 4 0 5 12394 Etringus 2 2 1 3 2 1 0 1 4 0 6 12191 2 3 3 1 1 0 2 4 0 7 12365 3 2 3 3 1 0 1 4 0 8 25909 Myctophidae 1 2 1 1 1 0 3 4 0 9 12197 5 1 1 0 2 4 1 0 12360 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 411 12194 4 3 2 1 0 1 4 1 2 25778 2 1 2 2 1 0 3 4 1 3 25773 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 4 1 4 12409 Etringus 2 4 1 1 0 1 4 1 5 25885 Myctophidae 1 2 1 1 1 0 2 4 1 6 25931 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 4 1 7 25734 Clupeidae 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 4 1 8 12252 Clupeidae 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 4 1 9 12212 Clupeidae 4 2 1 0 1 4 2 0 12240 Myctophidae 2 3 2 3 1 0 3 421 12242 Myctophidae 1 2 1 1 1 0 3 4 2 2 1241 Myctophidae 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 4 2 3 12176 2 2 1 3 1 0 3 4 2 4 12223 j 3 1 1 1 0 2 4 2 5 12392 ! 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 4 2 6 25766 4 2 1 0 2 4 2 7 12-21 j 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 4 2 8 12271 ; 4 1 1 0 2 4 2 9 25072 Perciformes 8 2 1 1 2 1 0 2 4 3 0 25949 Perciformes 8 2 1 2 1 1 0 2 431 25761 I 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 4 3 2 25827 i 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 4 3 3 25765 5 1 1 0 3 4 3 4 25715 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 4 3 5 25762 3 2 2 3 1 0 1 4 3 6 25760 Perciformes 8 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 4 3 7 11934 4 1 1 2 1 4 3 8 11933 4 1 1 1 2 1 4 3 9 11941 Clupeidae 5 2 1 2 1 4 4 0 11938 5 1 1 2 1 441 11921 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 160 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION DATABASE (continued) A B C D E F G H 1 J 1 sp e c im e n # tax o n GENUS # OPQI Dl AVC PD II RT DM 4 4 2 25222 5 1 1 2 1 4 4 3 25225 5 1 1 2 1 4 4 4 25211 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 5 25204 4 1 1 2 1 4 4 6 11940 Perciformes 8 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 7 11939 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 4 4 8 25216 1 4 2 1 1 2 1 4 4 9 13-30a Clupeidae 2 2 3 2 1 3 1 4 5 0 13~30b Clupeidae 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 451 25224 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 4 5 2 11926 Perciformes 8 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 3 31648 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 4 5 4 11674 2 3 2 2 1 3 2 4 5 5 11904 3 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 11697 4 1 1 3 2 4 5 7 11695 Eclipes 7 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 4 5 8 11752 5 1 1 0 2 4 5 9 11731 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 4 6 0 15-3 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 461 26437 Perciformes 8 4 1 1 1 2 4 6 2 26320 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 6 3 26318 Perciformes 8 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 4 6 4 12146 4 3 1 1 2 4 6 5 26184 Perciformes 8 4 1 1 1 2 4 6 6 26182 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 4 6 7 5330 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 6 8 7939 Etringus 2 5 3 1 2 2 4 6 9 79378 Clupeidae 4 3 1 2 2 4 7 0 26927 Etringus 2 5 3 1 2 2 471 188055 Clupeidae 5 3 1 2 2 4 7 2 15-15 Clupeidae 2 4 1 4 1 2 2 4 7 3 26926 Clupeidae 5 2 1 2 3 4 7 4 26915 Clupeidae 4 2 1 2 2 4 7 5 7937 Clupeidae 5 2 1 2 2 4 7 6 7945 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 4 7 7 15-20 2 3 2 1 2 3 4 7 8 26304 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 4 7 9 11361 4 1 1 2 1 4 8 0 15-23 4 1 1 2 3 481 129672 Eclipes 7 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 8 2 129678 4 1 1 1 3 4 8 3 129671 Bathylagidae 4 1 1 1 4 8 4 129691 Ganolytes cam eo 3 4 1 1 1 2 4 8 5 129662 Eclipes 7 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 161 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION DATABASE (continued) A B C D I E F G H I J 1 sp e c im e n # tax o n G E N U S # I OPQi Dl AVC PD II RT DM 4 8 6 129683 Eclipes 7 4 1 1 1 2 4 8 7 10375 Eclipes 7 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 4 8 8 129661a Bathylagidae 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 4 8 9 129661b Xyne 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 4 9 0 129661c Xyne 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 491 129661d Xyne 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 4 9 2 129661e Xyne 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 4 9 3 129673 Bathylagidae 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 4 9 4 129696 Scambridae 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 4 9 5 129697 Cyclothone 1 1 2 1 2 3 4 9 6 129698 Xyne 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 9 7 129699 Xyne 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 4 9 8 129700 Xyne 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 4 9 9 129701 Xyne 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 5 0 0 129702 Xyne 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 501 129685 Bathylagidae 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 5 0 2 129684 Bathylagidae 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 5 0 3 317a8a 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 5 0 4 29184 Myctophidae 1 2 3 1 1 0 1 5 0 5 1104 Clupeidae 4 1 1 0 2 5 0 6 25226 4 1 1 0 1 5 0 7 29197 Myctophidae 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 5 0 8 29196 Carangidae 4 2 1 2 3 5 0 9 11655 Perciformes 8 1 3 1 3 1 5 1 0 10274 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 511 1340 Ligisma tenax 9 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 51 2 11477 Scomber 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 513 12969 Perciformes 8 1 3 1 1 1 0 3 5 1 4 13051 Perciformes 8 4 3 1 1 1 0 3 5 1 5 13017 Perciformes 8 1 2 1 1 1 0 3 516 13059 Perciformes 8 2 1 2 3 1 0 3 51 7 13053 Perciformes 8 3 3 3 1 0 3 51 8 13038 Perciformes 8 4 1 1 2 1 51 9 13081 Perciformes 8 4 1 1 0 1 52 0 13079 Perciformes 8 4 1 1 0 1 521 12965 Perciformes 8 1 3 1 1 1 0 3 52 2 26008 Perciformes 8 4 1 1 0 1 523 13035 Perciformes 8 3 1 3 1 0 3 5 2 4 13033a Perciformes 8 3 2 3 3 1 0 2 5 2 5 13033b 3 3 3 1 1 0 2 52 6 12964a Perciformes 8 4 1 1 0 3 52 7 12964b Bathylagidae 1 2 1 1 1 0 3 528 13029 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 5 2 9 13036 4 1 1 0 2 162 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION. DATABASE (continued) A B C D E F G H 1 J 1 sp e c im e n # taxon GENUS# OPQI Dl AVC PD II RT DM 5 3 0 13030 2 2 1 0 2 531 13032 Perciformes 8 4 2 1 0 3 5 3 2 13037 Perciformes 8 2 2 1 3 1 0 3 5 3 3 13073 Perciformes 8 1 2 1 1 1 0 3 5 3 4 13066 4 1 3 1 2 2 5 3 5 12965a 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 5 3 6 13040 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 5 3 7 13074 4 2 1 2 2 5 3 8 13336 4 2 1 0 2 5 3 9 13155 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 5 4 0 13324a 2 2 3 2 1 0 1 541 13324b 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 5 4 2 13324c 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 5 4 3 13152 2 1 3 3 1 2 1 5 4 4 13151 2 1 1 3 1 0 1 5 4 5 13354 3 2 2 3 1 0 2 5 4 6 13153 1 3 2 1 1 0 3 5 4 7 13336 5 2 1 0 2 5 4 8 26314 4 1 1 0 3 5 4 9 4361 2 2 1 2 1 0 3 5 5 0 13057 2 1 2 2 1 0 3 551 11972 4 1 1 1 0 2 5 5 2 7343 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 5 5 3 12617 Xyne 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 5 5 4 25785 Xyne grex 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 5 5 12614 1 1 2 1 1 0 3 5 5 6 12622 2 2 1 1 3 5 5 7 13054 Perciformes 8 2 1 1 3 1 0 3 5 5 8 13359 Perciformes 8 4 2 1 0 3 5 5 9 18~9a I 3 1 2 2 1 0 3 5 6 0 18— 9b I 2 2 1 1 1 0 3 561 26037a 1 2 1 1 1 0 3 5 6 2 26037b 4 1 1 0 3 5 6 3 13052 Perciformes 8 4 2 1 0 1 5 6 4 10391a Eclipes 7 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 5 6 5 10391b Eclipes 7 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 5 6 6 10391c Eclipes 7 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 5 6 7 10391d Eclipes 7 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 5 6 8 10391e Eclipes 7 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 5 6 9 13302 Pleuronectiformes 1 2 2 2 1 0 1 5 7 0 16444 2 2 1 0 2 571 13229 5 3 1 2 5 7 2 7329 3 1 1 1 2 5 7 3 13015 1 2 1 1 1 0 3 163 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION DATABASE (continued) A B C D E F G H I J 1 sp e c im e n # ta x o n G E N U S# OPQI Dl AVC PD II RT DM 5 7 4 13346 4 3 1 0 2 5 7 5 26274 Exocoetidae 4 2 1 2 5 7 6 4097 Clupeidae 1 4 3 2 1 2 3 5 7 7 131869 Sarda stocki 10 2 1 1 3 1 0 3 5 7 8 12607 Scombridae 3 4 1 2 1 1 3 5 7 9 12601 Scombridae 3 2 3 1 0 2 5 8 0 10066 Scombridae 3 3 1 0 2 581 12589 Scombridae 2 3 1 1 1 0 2 5 8 2 25741 Pneumatophorus 2 3 1 2 1 0 3 5 8 3 10519 Plectrites classeni 11 2 3 1 1 1 5 8 4 1555 Rhythmias 12 1 4 1 1 1 1 5 8 5 10222 Plectrites classeni 11 1 3 1 1 1 2 5 8 6 10315 Plectrites classeni 11 1 4 1 1 1 0 3 5 8 7 11900 Lompoquia 5 5 2 1 0 2 5 8 8 25757 Lompoquia culveri 5 1 4 1 1 1 0 5 8 9 10349 Lompoquia 5 2 3 1 2 1 0 3 5 9 0 25743 Lompoquia retropes 5 1 4 1 1 1 0 2 591 26034 Lompoquia 5 2 2 1 2 1 0 3 5 9 2 11675 Sciaenidae 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 5 9 3 10201 Lompoquia retropes 5 1 4 1 1 1 0 3 5 9 4 10155 Rhythmias starri 12 2 4 1 1 1 1 2 5 9 5 13025 Lompoquia 5 3 2 1 3 1 0 1 5 9 6 11732 Lompoquia 5 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 5 9 7 26193 Lompoquia 5 2 4 1 2 1 2 2 5 9 8 10235 Euesthes jordani 13 1 4 1 1 1 0 3 5 9 9 31646 Cynoglossidae 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 6 0 0 10258 Pleuronichthys 14 1 4 1 1 1 0 3 601 1328 Pleuronichthiformes 2 3 1 1 2 6 0 2 10161 Pleuronichthys 14 1 3 1 1 1 0 3 6 0 3 10151 Pleuronichthiformes 1 4 1 1 1 0 1 6 0 4 10270 Pleuronichthiformes 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 6 0 5 13329 Pleuronichthiformes 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 6 0 6 13330 Pleuronicthidae 2 1 1 1 0 1 6 0 7 13334 Pleuronichthiformes 4 1 1 1 0 2 6 0 8 13333 Pleuronichthiformes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 6 0 9 13335 Pleuronichthiformes 3 3 1 0 2 6 1 0 13341 Pleuronichthiformes 1 2 1 1 1 0 3 611 13345 Pleuronichthiformes 1 4 1 1 1 0 3 6 1 2 13346 Pleuronichthiformes 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 6 1 3 3334 Pleuronichthiformes 2 3 1 1 1 0 2 6 1 4 12918 Pleuronichthiformes 2 4 1 1 0 2 6 1 5 26004 Pleuronichthiformes 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 6 1 6 13615 Pleuronichthiformes 2 3 1 1 1 0 2 6 1 7 131852 Pleuronichthiformes 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 164 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION DATABASE (continued) A B C D E F G H 1 J 1 sp e c im e n # tax o n GENUS # OPQI Dl AVC PD II RT DM 6 1 8 11665 Pleuronichthiformes 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 9 133239 Pleuronichthiformes 1 3 1 1 1 2 6 2 0 13075 Carangidae 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 621 13028 Carangidae 1 1 1 0 1 6 2 2 13055 Carangidae 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 6 2 3 16462 Carangidae 1 1 1 1 0 1 6 2 4 13064 Carangidae 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 6 2 5 7352 Carangidae 2 1 1 3 1 0 2 6 2 6 25124 Carangidae 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 6 2 7 25583 Decopterus 15 3 3 1 2 1 0 2 6 2 8 12529 Decopterus 15 3 4 1 2 1 0 2 6 2 9 10172 Decopterus 15 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 6 3 0 129690 Decopterus 15 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 631 131433 Carangidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 3 2 26090 Decopterus 15 3 1 1 1 1 0 2 6 3 3 25206 Carangidae 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 6 3 4 13013 Decopterus 15 2 2 1 2 1 0 3 6 3 5 13581 Carangidae 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 6 3 6 13067 Decopterus 15 2 2 1 3 1 0 1 6 3 7 115856 Absalamichthes velifer 16 1 3 1 1 1 2 3 6 3 8 128460 A raeosteus rothi 17 1 3 1 1 1 0 3 6 3 9 a98 Areosteus 17 3 3 1 1 0 2 6 4 0 12608 Zaphroridae 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 641 10053 Araeosteus rothi 19 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 6 4 2 13037 Perciformes 8 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 6 4 3 13063 Zaphlegidae 4 1 1 0 2 6 4 4 25738 Zaphlegidae 1 4 1 1 1 0 3 6 4 5 11572 Thyrsocles kriegeri 18 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 6 4 6 119344a Sarda stocki 10 3 2 1 1 0 2 6 4 7 119344b Sarda stocki 10 2 2 1 1 0 2 6 4 8 25126 Thyrsocles kriegeri 18 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 6 4 9 131862 Thyrsocles kriegeri 18 4 1 1 0 2 6 5 0 10253 Thyrsocles kriegeri 18 1 1 1 1 0 1 651 12066 Thyrsocles 18 4 1 2 1 0 1 6 5 2 13031 Thyrsocles 18 4 1 2 1 0 1 6 5 3 12959 Thyrsocles 18 4 1 2 1 0 1 6 5 4 12974 Thyrsocles 18 5 1 1 0 2 6 5 5 12416 Thyrsocles 18 5 1 1 0 2 6 5 6 12437 Thyrsocles 18 5 1 1 0 2 6 5 7 12435 Thyrsocles 18 5 1 1 0 2 6 5 8 12599 Thyrsocles 18 4 4 1 1 2 6 5 9 13478 Thyrsocles 18 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 6 6 0 133242 Thyrsocles 18 5 1 1 0 2 661 10295 Thyrsocles 18 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 165 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION DATABASE (continued) A B C D E F G H I J 1 sp e c im e n # tax o n GENUS # OPQI Dl AVC PD II RT DM 66 2 12946 Zaphlegidae 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 6 6 3 10214 Zaphlegulus ventura 19 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 6 6 4 25333 Zaphlegidae 4 1 1 1 2 6 6 5 7349 Zaphlegulus ventura 19 2 1 3 2 1 0 1 6 6 6 12610 Zaphlegidae 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 6 6 7 10102 Alciola sp. 20 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 6 6 8 45816 Scomber 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 6 6 9 10225 Pneumatophorus 21 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 6 7 0 10052 Pneumatophorus 21 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 671 129663 Scombridae 5 1 1 2 2 6 7 2 129675 Scombridae 5 1 1 2 2 6 7 3 129686 Scombridae 5 1 1 2 2 6 7 4 129677 Scombridae 5 1 1 2 2 6 7 5 129679 Scombridae 5 1 1 2 2 6 7 6 129689 Scombridae 4 1 1 2 2 6 7 7 129664 Scombridae 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 678 129666 Scombridae 4 1 1 2 3 67 9 10525 Scombridae 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 680 129676 Scombridae 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 681 129688 Scombridae 4 1 1 2 2 68 2 129676a Scombridae 4 1 1 2 2 683 131853 Scombridae 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 68 4 133424 Scombridae 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 6 8 5 12591 Scombridae 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 686 10211 Pneumatophorus 21 1 4 1 1 1 0 1 687 25317 Scombridae 4 1 1 2 2 6 8 8 45830 Scombridae 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 689 11711 Scombridae 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 690 26180 Scombridae 5 4 1 2 2 691 13060 Perciformes 8 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 6 9 2 13078 Sarda 10 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 166 APPENDIX B LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION FILTERED DATABASE r o 5 2 X o z o C O M * C O C O i n C M i n C N J r - ~ 10 C M 5 x o 2 X o z C N J m m - i n C O O C M C M 5 X o X 0 z C O tt 1 t - m c o I c o C O 0 3 C M 5 X D X 0 z C D C O C O C O C O M " O ) 0 0 C M 5 X o X o z C O C O 0 0 C M o i n 5 o C M C M 5 X o X o z i n C O C M C O o I s - C O O ) r v j a X o X o z C O c o C O C D C M i n m C M Q 2 X o z C O i n i n N . C O C O C O C M C M 5 C L o 2 X o z C N J i n C M Is - C O i n C O C O C O C O C M r * 5 X o 2 X o z C D 0 5 o C O C O C O C M M * C M 5 X o X 0 z C O C M C M 0 0 M " O i n M * C M a X o 2 X o z L O o o T “ “ C O M - 0 0 C O C O C O C M a X o X D z 0 0 X — G O C M o C O i n C M 5 X o 2 X D z o C O C M C O 0 3 O C M C M o T “ 5 2 X O z 0 0 C O O ) C O r - C O 0 0 C O ! i , - i c ^ R S i i i i i n 5 C L o t t o C O T — a >C M C M m l O 5 X o tt O o o O n 5 X o tt O o O o o m 5 X o tt 0 3 o c o C M C M m i n 5 X o tt 0 0 o C O C O I n i n a X o t t M - o C M O m C M Q t t 1 S 5 p S ! c o j c o i C M C O C O ' t 5 C L o tt 0 0 i n C M C O C O C O o T “ ■ 4 - 5 X O t t i — o o - a X o t t f - C O C O C O r - C O M - o X o t t C O m C M C O C O o M - a X o t t 0 3 M - o M - C O m o 5 X o t t C O - C O C O C O M 1 i ! I c o ; ' — □ i i o i c o t t ; : j i i ! i 2 ; “ j o ) • j ! N - C O 5 0 . o t t o C N J C O C M i n X ” C O I s - C O C O a X o t t C M C O h - C D i n m C O 5 X o t t 0 3 C D T — C O C M C O C O C O 5 X o t t M - c o C O • r “ C O C O 0 3 C O C O 5 X o t t C O C O i n C M - 0 3 C O C O a X o t t - C O 0 3 h - O C O i ' i C M r I D S » - □ “ ( O C M C M t - t t C D C M C M C M 5 X o t t T j - I T - C D C O i T “ C O i n r - o C M C M a X O t t 0 0 h - C M C O C O 0 5 C M 5 X o t t C M C D C O h - O i n M - 0 3 0 0 C M 5 X o t t i n , r - r - 0 3 1 ^ - M - o C M o C M C M 5 X o t t 0 0 c o ' M - r - c o 0 0 0 3 C M a X D t t 0 0 o • r - * i n C M C O 0 3 m m 5 t t 3 s ’ - M ' O C O O S C O t o C M l O C O x . 5 | ° o r t t ; i n C M c o C O C M a X o t t f v . m c o M - I s - C O C M M * C M 5 X 0 t t Is — C O C M 1 I r ^ l x - ! O i n M - C M r ~ 5 X o t t O 0 3 h - 0 0 C O C M C O C O C M 5 X o t t 0 0 0 0 r - i n C O m C M r “ 5 X o t t T T M - o C O C O T “ O * r - C M o t o ^ cm c o ; 2 c o ! 2 i : . i | i M o c s i j c o r T o C O £ T " “ C O C O r - co £ C D i m j 0 3 M * J C D I 0 3 C M i n £ C M C O i n p T } - i q T “ ■ M * 0 0 i n g C O C M T “ M - ■ M 1 0 0 2 : t J - C M i c D 31 (0 1 0 ^ 1 0 ^ e g ! C N I I C D ; ! 1 1 C M W 0 5 C O 2 z > C O • N f i n C M C M C M r * - i n C O i n O ) C O 2 D W 0 0 C M 1 2 2 1 m < 2 K O i n 2 D 7 5 m C M C O o 0 3 C M m 2 D C O i n C O C O C O C M C O h- o C O V 0 3 C O D 7 5 C O o M- i n m 0 0 0 3 r — C O 2 ’ J ) C O C O r- CO h- C O C O r- 0 3 C M O X o ■ ; . f t- ( cm i c o I tt im 1 1 ! i 1 i : 1 1 5 o H a h - C M C O M - I s o H O > < - C M C O ~ 3 o H - „ Q X „ - C M C O M - j c 5 o h - 1 — X o - C M C O 3 o I - - C M C O 3 o h- < X JJ z LU - C M C O 0 0 5 o 167 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION FILTERED DATABASE, (continued) CO O > < 2 X o z CM CO r ^ - r- O o ID h- o £ 2 X o z o ID 05 CO CO to 05 00 00 C N J M- □ t t 05 CM CO - CO M* M- □ t t CM CM NT - M1 M- 5 tt 05 CD ID X “ CO CO ID M- Q tt CM CM CO M* 05 M’ Q t t CO CM CO o CO CM CM O > < 2 x o z CM CO TT CD rf o o CD CO CO O < tt CM CO CM h- T“ X T *to h- ro □ tt CD ID ID T “* CM CO □ tt o CO 05 CD CM CM r- CM CO 5 tt 05 ID M- CO CM CO CM CO h- to CO Q t t ID 00 CD CO 05 CM O ID X “ CO 5 tt M* CM CO CM T “ ID O 05 o > < 2 x O z CD o N- h- lO CO O) o CO CM CM o < tt O) M* CO X “ to CO 05 CO C N J 5 t t M- CM CO CD CM 00 CM 5 t t CM CM CO h- CM CM CM CO CM 5 tt 05 O o ID r- LO - h- CM CM CM □ t t O ID CO CO O M* CD CM CM CM 5 t t CM ID T“ CM CM ID CO CO U > < tt CO C N J CO CD o o in O > < tt 00 r * . M* CM CO ID 05 CM 1 ^ . 00 CM □ tt CO h» 05 CM CO M* r — □ tt r- 05 Tf ID O CM M* ID r ^ - □ tt h- M- V CO CO 05 CD ID M- ID CM r- 5 tt 05 Nf O r * - ID CO M* ID CM □ tt h- ID M- CO CO X “ O CM | cm] y ioo ! 1 i j I i s : £ ! ° i o 05 CO in 5 CL 0 2 X 1 CO C N J O - h- CM to LO 5 X o 2 X o z o O O O m 5 X o 2 X o z o o O O o ID o X o 2 X 0 z - O tD CO CO CM ID ID 5 X o 2 X o z 05 h- CO ID LO ID 5 X o 2 X 0 z T —M- o CM O ID CM O > < t t □ 2 X o z i t , | a b 2 x 0 z M- m- CN CO C N J C N J T " " CD O M- o X o 2 X o z - O O x - X " a CL o 5 x 0 z - 05 CM CO CO M1 5 X o 2 X 0 z CM CO CO x — CO CM CM CO O M - o X o E 0 z ID CM CO ID CO CM ID O M’ 5 X o X D ; 2 ; - CO O CO CM CO 1 : ■ i . i i ! i coiCMi-criy, T r ! I i 1 1 ! CD CO ID CO 5 X O s a: D z CO r* O) CD r— 05 * r -CD CO 5 X o 2 X 0 z o CM CM M* ID ID CO 5 X o 2 X O z to CO CO CM CO CM CD CO 5 X o 2 X 0 z CO CO r* CD T * “ 1^ 05 CO CO 5 X o 2 X o z r- CO CO 05 05 CD CO O X O 2 X o z CO 00 CM T * “ o CO o X o T“ CM CO ID JS o h- 5 CM CO * o K* o > < - CM CO T O O 1- □ X x — CM CO NT T O O H ) — X O - CM CO T O O 1- 2 □ x- CM CO T O O f — < X l U z LU & - CM CO CO T O o h- 168 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION FILTERED DATABASE, (continued) □ X S X o z o C N J lo ico O o cm Q X X D Z CD CO Nj- C N J o C N J 00 CO □ X tt CO CO r- r - r “ o > < X o 2 LO a> r*- CD r*- co 00 O’ r^. h - C M O > < 5 X O 2 o O) ID M * 00 C M O > < 5 X o z CO 05 00 C D G O C O 00 C M O > < X o z C M C M CO 05 CO CD r - C O □ X 2 X o z o C O 3 K O h - r “ Q X 2 X o z ^ r CO o 05 C D C O CO CO lO C M CO C O □ X t t C M C O C D C M CO C O O > < t t ID Nf M * v C O T“ cO ID C O O > < t t C O 00 05 r - ID C O O > < tt o ID C M CO O I-* - C O O > < tt CO C D C M ID - ID CO C M □ C L 2 X i o to O) iTj* COICM i O r* M - D X t t tT CO C N J o C M □ X t t 05 ID C O ^ r 00 05 C M O > < t t ID C D ID C O C D C M - r^ C M C M L) > < t t C O C D C O C M CO r^ T “ 05 C O C M O > < t t 05 00 C M C M r*. C M 00 C O C M o > < t t r - LD C D C M O CO C O 05 S i ; 1 j i | S iM-ten ir r 5 ~ ito ieo t - * — n r , - O : ! i ! Z ; ■ o m C N J CO C O O X tt O C N J h - C N J CD C N J NT □ X t t CO 05 ID CD ID tT C O O C O T “ u \> < tt C O 05 05 M " C M C O C O r>- h - C M O > < tt O M " h - ID C D r^. C O C M o > < tt N fr r*» M- C M CO C O 00 C M O > < t t CD CO C O O C M h - CD r^. M - : ! | ^ o ' ^ t p o t r o i o t t ' o C M □ X t t N T to C N J CO 05 C M h - * — ■tt □ 2 X o z CD 05 CO C M C O Nf O’ □ X o 2 CO h - C O M * M " M " Q S X 0 z CD - 00 C M CO ID □ 5 X o z o T “ C D CO C M 05 M- □ X o z C M C O CO o CO C M n Q t - ° n C O a . t o cm t t C M O ^ co cn oo X Is - t t o f c ! j s i s f e t t ' O C O C M un C M C O C O □ 2 X o z C O CO ID CO CO O ' C M C O 5 2 X 0 2 CO co C M C M ID M- C M n . C M C O 5 2 X o 2 m - C M 1^- co ID C M C M r^- h- ID C O 5 X o z CD M- T“ LD M- ID O ID V“ C O 5 £ X D z O CO C D C O CO - o O) O it- t i ( C O < 2 5 z CNjir- - | - C D Y “ o CO m C M 5 2 X O z 00 h - O CO CO C O C M Q 5 X O 2 ID C M C O ID O C O C M 00 C M Q 5 X 0 z O) id h - O CO co C O r^- C M C M C M □ X D z 05 C O CD LD 00 C D C M C M C M 5 2 X D Z h - C O T — 05 T“ ID C M Nf C D ! T “ I t t ■ ; ; ! ! LO C N J CO C M o > < 2 X D Z co CO M- C N J CD to CD C M O) C O i— ■ *-• □ X o 2 00 ID CO NT 00 ’ t t □ X D 2 h- CO ID C M C O 05 M * ID h*. 5 X o z N T 05 ID LO C O 00 M’ ID C M 5 2 X o z 00 CO O 00 CO ID C M 5 X o z 00 CO Nf C M CO CO CO O C M ; ' ! a - o\ ; i i 1 : ; ! ! I I s o 1_ 5 C N J C O 2 o I - a > < <r* C M CO T O O H 3 X - C M CO T O O H X O T" C M C O T O O H 3 C M CO r o o H < X L 1 J z L U C D - CM C O 00 T O O H 169 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION FILTERED DATABASE, (continued) —1 — C O — X S S a n o z m t j -'. o i ! 1 <°!5 T “ 1 — a: 2 a n o z i ! C O lO 0 5 C M I 'M - C O ! ! ; i | f " v I C O I i i c o r- X tt ! 1 ' ! T -jr-ir- ! i o in r- \ — " X s X o z £ e g C O o C O o C N J Q 1. 2 X o z r ^ * C N J C Din C O C O c o r- T “ C N J □ a. S X o z 0 5 e g C O Tt C O Tt in C N l O X 2 X D Z C O £ 1 ^ C O C D tT rsi! ! a n 21° a n . z ! C O e g C N J c o C O i ; r-!f2 co£r i j o! h-i g lo Oi z | o > C O o h- C D * C O C O C N J \ — X t t h- m C O CD r " - o r— o ! — X 5 X o z C D in m m C O h- C O c o o r > - e g r— Q X 2 a n o z C N J C O 0 0 T “ 0 5 C D e- in C N J C O r — Q X 5 X o z T j * C O in C D 0 5 0 0 C O a X 2 X D Z C O t J - C O C N J e g e g C O 0 5 C N I ! 1 r-: 1 s i — jfOlh- X\ ■ ° i ; z ! ; Tt C O ! j ! ! o lf0 C M °i£ \ 1 [ j ro — a n t t C O T — e g C O C O s r — — a n t t • < t C O C N J C O in o ro i — X t t h- C N J C O - 0 0 N T Q X t t h- o C N J - o N j - Q X t t 0 0 C N Jo o Tt □ X t t O T ” - o C N I i ; 1 : ! : —1 1 I i X' , I C O to ’■*-I tJ -If- S;inioo|i^ih-iLO X: ; ; 2 : : ! ! ! i ' o- C O C O C M ! -- a n t t CD C Din C N J C O in C O o 1 — a n t t o • N T T — C O C D * — C O 0 5 C O C N J e g i - X t t o in C D C O D - C N J in o ro □ X t t N * C D D - h » r^ C O □ C L t t o in o r ^ . h- e- C O □ X t t C O e g r- C D r ^ - C D T T • : i S i C O | { t t j j s «- i — a: t t C O C O o in tt C O C D C O C N J ** □ X 2 a n o z - - in r ^ * X t t C D G O Tt X ” C DO C O o C M □ X t t Tt in T j * T “ C O C O C O r ^ . C N I Q X tt h- in C O C O in e g in T “ T — e g □ X t t C O0 5 C D C O C D Tt e g — 0 0 h- C D •*- Q :« « f M ’ r- C O t t — . c o n j : C O o e g • * r ~ o “ a n t t □ X 2 a n o z i r ^ - 'C D tt ;o C D in CD Tf C O C O C O □ X 2 a n o z r*- T ~ c o C N J C D C N J o X tt e g C D Tt in e- o e g □ X tt e g C D C D C O o in e g m e g C O □ a. tt o e g e g 5 in C O C O Q X tt C O C D C O e g O C N J in 0 5 C N J T * “ — 0 5 0 5 C O C N J £ t - t - < « - tt ; i c o teg ieg ; I j C O o T “ C M □ X 2 a n o z C N J T ~ * Tt o C O 0 0 CD C O O > < X o z N T C N J • * “ r- T" C O in r^ C O O > < 2 a n o z C O 0 5 in 0 5 C O in C O o > < X D z C N J C O o C N J C Oo h- C O O > < X o z C N J C O e g in C N J in C O o a : c o i m - r - j ^ t t ; i : ! C O □ X 5 a n o z 5 C N J O ) e g C O Q X 2 a n o z r* C O o C O o C O C N J O > < X D Z h- C N J t t C D Tt Tt r- e g C M o > < 2 a n o z C O C O O C O 05 C N J < o Tf 05 C O C N J D > < X o z in c o C O C O in C O C O C N J o > < X O z in Tt C N | C O C N J C D 05 ! ! 3 i(5 Q _ T- C N J 'COi^tllO| q O i i h : U ! 1 1 T e g C OTt r o o h- a > < - C N JC O j2 o H Q X - C N JC ON T r o o 1- H X o - C N JC O ro o H s Q - e g C O Is o H < X L U z u o - C N JC O0 0 5 o h ~ 170 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION FILTERED DATABASE, (continued) C M C O D Z L U 3 t t O C O in eg C O O' C O r - C O 2 3 2 X 3 2 eg r - eg C D eg g- 00 t — 2 □ 2 X 3 z C D C D m o C D o C O C O co 2 3 2 X 3 z oo eg m C O C D C O o C D C D C O 2 3 2 X 3 Z eg C O C O eg eg g- eg eg 00 f- r— X 2 X 3 Z to to C O C O C O C O eg T “ 1 — X 2 X 3 Z C O C M C O C O I s- C D C O C O 3 Z JJ t ) t t T j- g* m * — C O 1 i ic o N 2 □ 2 X 3 z o C D eg in m o 00 h- C D eg C O 2 3 t t eg C O r - eg oo r^- C D N 2 3 2 X O z in C O C O to T " “ C O eg C D 00 N 2 3 2 X 3 Z r - co 00 eg p- g- C O g* in in o X 2 X 3 Z m 00 o C O C O C O o X 2 X 3 z O M - J eg J g* in in __I eg C O 2 Q 2 X 3 2 O C O C D eg C O eg I n i loo 05 e 1 ! r- 2 o 2 X 3 Z C O o eg eg § C D r- C D O g- N 2 □ t t r - g* eg eg eg < T “ oo 2 □ 2 X 3 z p — 00 eg C D C O 00 C O o T — in C O C O 2 Q 2 X 3 z in o eg g* 00 in C D C D o g- C O r — X tt C O C O tn^ h- in in I ro r “ X t t I s - u in eg C O ' m s r eg C D C O C D C O C O m m m C O 2 D t t L O co o g- C D eg g- 00 2 2 5 t t g* r - < p “ C D 00 o m C O C O C O 2 3 t t r - in m eg r- T“ o C D o> C O 2 3 t t in in C D C O h- 00 eg r— X t t g- oo !g* C D C O !o C M — X t t C D g- g- oo C O g- m C D ill g i = S 01 ■ 2 h- I s- eg r^ » N * m C D o N“ C M 2 o tt o C D C O C D C O co in m C O x 2 X 3 z r^ > in 00 eg o m eg 2 3 t t g- C O C O o eg C D 00 eg 2 3 t t C O p- o eg g* in T “ in in X t t C O 00 i o eg m T ” eg — - X t t eg C O r eg eg C O C D C O C O 5 □ t t C M 2 Q t t f - r - C D — I® in co ^ «5!0)!0 n ' ^ t t . m C O eg eg C D o g- N — x 2 £ O z C O in C O o g* I s - o 2 3 t t o eg eg h- in o to C O m C O C O 2 Q t t C O o eg C D co g- 00 C O C O C D o g* o — X tt C O o eg C O r^- h- m C O C O C O o — X t t in C O eg ! in o C O eg V“ h- co .m o i o i S g- eg g- co j 70 i — X: g'CM 2 C i Ol 2 i C D g* eg o> eg s r * — X 2 IT O 2 in C O C O eg m o C O — X 2 X o z o g- eg 00 g- g- o eg C O o g* □ C L 2 X 3 Z C D g- i j o o M - □ C L s X 3 Z o - - ! o eg 5 !00 loo j «:i ! i i C O I C O ] t : 1 ' 1 IO)!oo I T T i ! i C D 0 N " 1 1 N 1 — z 2 X o Zi i r ^ i g - | C O N’ t n i C O co g- C O r - T “ o f “ r 2 cc o z g- 00 i g- 00 I fZ !< D iC O eg eg — X 2 X o z oo ! i h- co C D eg ! i 1 g- eg m o T “ ! D- eg CD C D eg eg ! i h- r^- C O 3 Q_ 2 X 3 z C D eg m C O CO h- h- CO Q a. 2 X 3 2 in ! C D g- I j C D g* O 1 ' ’ ! ]nj Q.:'«-|CMlCOWIlO ■« o m I ! ; I h - ! ! ! ! ! ; 5 - eg C Og- ro o 1- o > < eg C O 15 o 1- 3 Q. ! eg C O j i g- iS o h- — X o - eg C O 5 o 1- 2 3 - eg C O ro o c < X LU Z JU a T“ eg C O 00 r o o h- 171 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION FILTERED DATABASE, (continued) O O 7 3 D Z L U O 2 X o z C D C O03 r— o C M M * C M 7 3 =) Z J J c d 5 X o z 0 3 o C M O f ) C M in C O o o 7 3 D z L U C D tt r ^ C O - C M C M 7 3 3 Z J J C D x o z o T — 0 3 T * “ C M C M in C M 7 3 3 z L U 3 X o z - C M C M m M - in Q O 7 3 3 Z J J C D tt in f s - C D T ” C O C O T " 2 □ 2 X O z 0 5 C D 03 C Os C M C O o C M r o 7 3 D Z L U 0 1 o z C DC O C O - r - C M C D C O C O 7 3 E D Z J J c d 2 X D Z C O M * o T “ O in - C O C O 7 3 3 Z J J C D tt o C M o T “ C O C O C O 7 3 3 Z J J O 5 X P z M * C O in C M 0 3 M - o 0 3 o 7 3 3 z u c d 5 X o z in C O h- T f 03 T “ C M C O C O 7 3 = 3 Z L U C D tt in in 1 ^ . - C O N - C O 2 □ tt C O r— 00 T “ C O00 M - C M s z _ u e d 2 tr o z 7 3 D Z l U C D 2 a: o z i j o o o ^ ,C M 1 ^ i cdI c m T ! C O o o 7 3 D Z L U c d tt 00 in in o 00 C O C M 7 3 D Z J J C D tt C O C D C M C O C M in in o o 7) 3 Z L U C D tt m T — C O o m C M o o 7 3 3 z J J C D tt o C O C OM - G O C O C M 7 3 3 Z L U C D tt in C O M - C Ol-~ C D C M 2 □ tt M - M - 1 ^ - r ^ C M M * 1 : O 05 O in vf C O C O 00 T “ C O 7 3 e d z jj c d tt T — C O C M C M C M C O C O 1 ^ T — L O 3 Z J J C D tt C D C O r ^ - m C O C D 0 3 C O 7) 3 Z J J C D tt o C M C DO ) - C D C O C O 7 3 3 z L U C D tt m C M C O C O 00 T “ C O o 7 3 3 Z L U C D tt C D 0 3 M * C O C O 2 3 tt C D 0 3 m C O in in in O C M C D 7 3 i ° o > r-JE J J o tt OSJ C M 7 3 n z jj 3 tt M -iin iTf t - i ^ - C N J i 1 1 : C M 1 X 3 C D r o 2 3 2 £ O z ■ t t C D C O o C M 0 3 C M 7 3 3 Z J J 3 tt C D C M o o C M in C M 7 3 3 z J J C D tt t TC M M * M ’ m C M in r ^ C O h — X 5 X o z 0 3 C M C M ■ t t C D C O C O X 2 X o z in C D C M 03 T “ C M T “ in r o co ■ : 2 03 C O — K O 'O icO J t- ■ * - “ t-'CMiN E D . ' * ■ 1 t 7 3 D Z J J cd tt U ) C M 5 C O C O C M 2 □ 2 a: o z t - ' - C M C M C M T — C O 7 3 3 Z L U C 3 tt C O C D 00 C O C M o 0 3 o 7 3 3 Z L U C D tt in C O C M C O 0 3 r- C O T “ C M X 5 X o z C M M * S r - ~ C O O C M X 2 X D Z C D M - M * 00 C O 00 in 0 3 1 5 jr a q . ' t - c m ico r « t iin I'g o ’ , I h ■ ; I ! 1 5 - C M C OT f is o h- o > < - C M C O 1 5 o h- □ a . T — C M C OO ’ 75 o 1- X o - C M C O o 2 3 - C M C O is o K - £ J J z J J E D - C M C O00 ~ 3 o 172 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FISH COLLECTION FILTERED DATABASE, (continued) 1 oo C O 3 z JJ a 2 X O z C O in 00 C M 03 C O 3 z XI t> 2 X o z c o G O ■ M - C M O O C O ! i ; j I i ro C O 3 Z XI O 2 z D Z C O C O T * “ I s- C O C O C O C O 3 z XI 3 2 X o z 03 C O C M C O C M C O D O 7) 3 ! 2 a :; Oi z i i in o C O C O C M C O 3 Z JJ C3 2 Z D Z - O) in C O in in co C O D Z U 0 5 a : D z r -M1 M - O m C M ao C O 3 Z JJ 3 2 X o z C M C M C O C OM - C O C O C M C O 3 z XI C3 2 X o z C O 00 C O C O c o £ 3 £ X 3 z Is - in T — in C M 00 i : I ro C O 3 Z XI 3 2 a: o z o C M c o C O in C M C O r ~ - t” C O 3 Z XI C3 2 a: o z C M 00 C O r- C O O ) ro C O 0 z L U 0 £ a : o z h -CO C O r * - C O c o ro C O 3 Z XI U 5 X o z C M C M M - C O C O M- C O o C O 3 Z XI O 2 a : o z C M C - 0 0 C O C O CO C M £ 3 £ X 3 Z C M C OmC MC M T f o| a . ! — ° l C M i ! COlM“ t 1 in r o o H o- C MCO 2 o 1 - o > < - C MC O 75 o h - 3 X - C MC OO’ r o * — < o 1 - i — X O - C MC O S o 1 - 2 □ - C MC O r o o h- £ U z J J 0 - C MC O0 0 75 o h- 173 APPENDIX C LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY DATA PLOTS O P Q I V S. N O RM Dl I I ■ NORM Dl 1 ■ NORM Dl 2 □ NORM Dl 3 □ NORM Dl 4 O PQ I V S. NORM AVC w 120 o 1 2 3 4 5 OPQI ■ NORM A V C 1 ■ NORM AVC 2 □ NORM AVC3 O P Q I V S. NO RM PD w 200 u | 150 j £ g 100 o Q Q . 50 S a . § 0 1 2 3 4 5 OPQI b ■ NORM P D 1 ■ NORMPD 2 □ NORMPD 3 □ NORM PD 4 174 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISfORY DATA PLOTS (continued) O P Q I V S . N O RM R T BNORMRTO | ■ NORM RT 1 □ NORM RT 2 □ NORM RT 3 I - I O P Q I V S. NO RM DM □ NORM DM 1 ■ NORM DM 2 □ NORM DM 3 1 2 3 4 5 OPQI O P Q I V S. NORM G E N E R A □ NORM GENUS 1 ■ NORM GENUS 2 □ NORM GENUS 3 □ NORM GENUS 8 175 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY DATA PLOTS (continued) Dl V S. N O RM O P Q I « u i o z Ui O f a . = > o o o a CL O £ o c o z 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2 3 4 Dl 0NORM OPQI 1 ■ NORM OPQI 2 □ NORM OPQI 3 □ NORM OPQI 4 ■ NORM OPQI 5 Dl V S. N O RM AVC “J 70 9? 60 □ NORM A V C 1 ■ NORM AVC 2 □ NORM A VC3 Dl V S. N O RM PD Dl □ NORMPD 1 ■ NORMPD 2 □ NORMPD 3 □ NORM PD 4 176 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY DATA PLOTS (continued) Dl V S. NO RM R T c o u i o z U I D C D C = > o o o E C O ■ NORM RT 0 ■ NORM RT 1 □ NORM RT 2 □ NORM RT 3 Dl Dl V S. NO RM DM to i n o z U I E C D C = > O O o £ Q E D C o 140 120 100 ■ NORM DM 1 ■ NORM DM2 □ NORM DM 3 Dl V S. NO RM G E N E R A m (J l l j U i ■ NORM GENUS 1 ■ NORM GENUS 2 ONORM GENUS 3 □ NORM GENUS 8 Dl 177 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY DATA PLOTS (continued) AV C V S . N O R M O P Q I AV C V S . N O RM Dl 0 NORM OPQI 1 j | ■ NORM OPQI 2 | □ NORM OPQI 3 i | □ NORM OPQI 4 ! ■ NORM OPQI 5 C / 3 1 1 1 O z 1 1 1 a . c c 3 O o o Q s o c o AVC AVC V S . N O RM PD ■ NORM Dl 1 ■ NORM Dl 2 □ NORM Dl 3 □ NORM Dl 4 ■ NORM PD 1 ■ NORM PD 2 □ NORM PD 3 □ NORM PD 4 178 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY DATA PLOTS (continued) AVC V S. NO RM R T in u i o z 11 1 a . a z > o o 0 h 0 1 s a : o □ NORM RTO | ; ■ NORM RT 1 j i □ NORM RT 2 | J □ NORM RT 3 j m u i 0 z U I 01 a . 3 O o o E Q a . o 120 100 AV C V S. N O RM DM □ NORM DM 1 ■ NORM DM2 □ NORM DM3 2 AVC A V C V S. N O RM G E N E R A I U. e K30 O o 2 0 Z ° 1 0 □ NORM GENUS 1 ■ NORM GENUS 2 □ NORM GENUS 3 □ NORM GENUS 8 179 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY DATA PLOTS (continued) P D V S. N O RM O P Q I c o LU o z LU O ' a . r j o o - 100 a o . o E c c o 250 200 150 50 L- i b B - t h , J k, , . . B n □ NORM OPQI 1 ■ NORM OPQI 2 □ NORM OPQI 3 □ NORM OPQI 4 ■ NORM OPQI 5 PD P D V S . N O RM Dl c o LU O z LU o e o ' D O o o 5 E O ' o z □ NORM Dl 1 ■ NORM Dl 2 □ NORM Dl 3 □ NORM Dl 4 P D V S. N O RM AV C LU o z LU O f O ' = ) o o o 0 5 1 o z ■ NORM AVC 1 ■ NORM AVC2 □ NORM AVC3 PD 180 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY DATA PLOTS (continued) PD V S. N O RM R T 1 3 NORM RT o] ■ NORM RT 1 | □ NORM RT2I □ NORM RT 3 1 2 3 4 PD PD V S. N O RM DM □ NORM DM 1 ■ NORM DM2 □ NORM DM3 1 2 3 4 PD P D V S . N O RM G E N E R A PD ■ NORM GENUS 1 ■ NORM GENUS 2 □ NORM GENUS 3 □ NORM GENUS 8 181 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY DATA PLOTS (continued) R T V S. NO RM O P Q I c o U J o z U i d c D C 3 C J o o a a . o E d c o z 120 100 Q NORM OPQI 1 ; ■ NORM OPQI 2 ! □ NORM OPQI 3; □ NORM OPQI 4 j ■ NORM OPQI 5 i R T V S . N O RM Dl c o U i o z U J O ' D C 3 C J O o E C O 100 ■ NORM Dl 1 ■ NORM Dl 2 □ NORM Dl 3 □ NORM Dl 4 RT R T V S . N O RM AVC c o u i o z U J D C D C 3 O C J o o > < s D C O z 120 100 80 60 40 20 1 l~B h ■ ■ NORM AVC 1 ■ NORM AVC 2 □ NORM AVC 3 RT 182 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY DATA PLOTS (continued) R T V S . N O R M PD co UJ o z UJ c c o c = > o o o a a. E E C o 120 100 | @ NORM PD 1 j ■ NORM PD 2 {□NORM PD 3 □ NORM PD 4 RT R T V S. N O R M DM RT □ NORM DM 1 ■ NORM D M 2 □ NORM D M 3 R T V S. N O RM G E N E R A 50 <r t/)40 q > u i LU O gS30 o % E §20 £ « o o 2 O 10 i m 1 r ITT S 1 I J l L r - n . 1 1 ■ NORM GENUS 1 ■ NORM GENUS 2 □ NORM GENUS 3 □ NORM GENUS 8 RT 183 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY DATA PLOTS (continued) DM V S. N O R M O P Q I to i n o z UJ v c VC 3 o o o a a . o s VC o z 2 DM 0 NORM OPQI 1 | ■ NORM OPQI 2 | □ NORM OPQI 3 i : □ NORM OPQI 4 | i ■ NORM OPQI 5 | I DM V S. N O R M Dl co UJ o z UI VC VC 3 o o o Q s VC o z 120 100 2 DM ■ NORM Dl 1 I NORM Dl 2 □ NORM Dl 3 □ NORM Dl 4 i to UJ o VC VC 3 o o o o > < s VC o DM V S . N O RM AVC 0 NORM AVC 1 | ■ NORM AVC2 I □ NORM AVC3 I 184 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY DATA PLOTS (continued) DM V S . N O R M PD W 140 0NORMPD1 jj ■ NORM PD 2 i i □ NORM PD 3 □ NORM PD 4 j j DM DM V S . N O RM R T □ NORM RT 0 ■ NORM RT 1 □ NORM RT 2 □ NORM RT 3 DM V S . NO RM G E N E R A < co u j ui o Z Z u j UJ ® 5 P O O Z o 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 IsSi ............ — i g H j . * ■ NORM GENUS 1 ■ NORM GENUS 2 □ NORM GENUS 3 □ NORM GENUS 8 2 DM LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY DATA PLOTS (continued) G E N E R A V S N O RM O P Q I 0 NORM OPQI 1 | ■ NORM OPQI 2 ! □ NORM OPQI 3 | □ NORM OPQI 4 J ■ NORM OPQI 5 i GENERA G E N E R A V S . N O RM Dl 0NORM Dl 1 ■ NORM Dl 2 □ NORM Dl 3 □ NORM Dl 4 1 2 3 8 ! I GENERA | i G E N E R A V S NO RM AVC 0 NORM AVC 1 ■ NORM AVC 2 □ NORM AVC3 1 2 3 8 GENERA 186 N O R M D M OCCURRENCES N O R M R T OCCURRENCES N O R M P D OCCURRENCES LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY DATA PLOTS (continued) G E N E R A V S . N O RM PD □ NORM PD 1 | ; ■ NORM PD 2 j| □ NORM P D 3 ! | □ NORM PD 4 I j G E N E R A V S . N O RM R T □ NORM RT 0 ■ NORM RT 1 □ NORM RT 2 □ NORM RT 3 GENERA G E N E R A V S . N O RM DM GENERA □ NORM DM 1 ■ NORM D M 2 □ NORM DM 3 187 APPENDIX D GREFCO MICROSTRATIGRAPHIC Horizon Thickness Fish # A SECTION Description 5a 10a 10b 10c 1 0 d 11 13 15 19a 19b 20 21 22 0.1 wbite lamination; no sca le s or parts 3.3 1-15 thick graded bed; m edium brown; pellets larger toward base; abundant scales and parts, especially toward b a se 0.9 19-35 laminated; white and light brown; som e flat, oblate chert nodules to 2 cm; som e fish seem to be ______________________ associated with chert; abundant scales ____ 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 36-38 weakly laminated; medium brown; could be lam inated flow (?); few scales 4a 0.7 39-45 laminated; light brown; few scales; so m e plant debris; cluster of fossil fish in one corner of sq u are meter; __________________________________ abundant pellets at b ase _____________________________ 46 laminated; light brown 47-48 laminated; lighter brown thin, dark lamination 49-60 graded; few scales; several fish in lower portion of this bed, p ressd down into horizon 8 and 9 white; fine; no scales 3.5 61-63 graded bed; medium brown; very abundant sc a le s and parts toward base; large (2-3mm) pellets ap p ea r to be oriented; plant debris; three concentrations of fossil hash 64 laminated; light and dark; few scales inversely graded bed; few scales pellet rich bed darker layer with v.small crystals, volcanic (?) laminated, light and dark; organic bits, so m e medium to large w hite pellets; few scales____________________ 12 0.7 65-67 m assive to graded; light and dark, but slightly darker that 11; som e vertebrae and scales; so m e dark pellets; __________________________________ sam e plant fragm ents________________________________ mostly m assive bed; m edium brown; small, oblate, thin chert nodules, bedding disrupted, chert "veins” running toward nodule; bottom a p p ears erosive; psuedoburrow s present with clay outlines; few scales 14 0.6 68-69 laminated upper zone, m ore m assive lower; light brown; few white pellets; a bundant parts 70-71 laminated; light brown; so m e white pellets; few scales 16 0.4 72-74; 76-77 laminated; light brown; chert nodules to 1 0 m m -o n e exam ple formed right on top offish; few small white __________________________________ pellets_______________________________________________ 17 1.1 75 m assive deposit with abundant w hite pellets; m edium brown; no apparent grading; so m e lam inations at base, __________________________________ nicely preserved plant debris at b ase: so m e scales: 18 0.3 78-79 thick laminations; light brown; so m e m edium to large (2 __________________________________ 3mm) pellets, clayey band at b ase ____________________ 80 laminated; light brown; white pellets; few scales laminated; light brown; white pellets; abundant scales and parts___________________________________________ 19c 0.3 84 thick lamination; light brown; so m e pellets; few scales __________________________________ and som e parts_____________________________________ medium-dark brown m assive to reverse graded bed; abundant small pellets; very few scales and parts, concentrated toward bottom 1.2 few laminations a t top then graded to b ase ; m edium brown; som e small parts; abundant fish parts at b a se 0.1 white lamination; no scales o r parts 188 cm GREFCO MICROS TRATIGRAPHIC SECTION (continued) Horizon T hickness Fish # Description Vr * ^ ' j r H W i V" - I 4 i * f * ^ ^V*'- - \ * V J* * 1 ~ ^ 22, — repeated 0.1 white lamination; no scales or parts 23 2.3 82-84; 86 graded; dark colored; few pellets tow ard bottom; many scales and parts toward bottom 24 0.5 85; 87-88 laminated; light colored; m any large pellets (2-3mm); som e scales; few parts 25 1.9 89; 91 laminated; darker; few pellets at top; graded a t base; many pellets; som e scales; som e parts 26 0.9 92 laminated; light colored; pellets throughout; plant fragm ents (?); som e scales; so m e parts 27 0.5 white lamination; no scales or parts 28 2.3 very dark brown organic rich (?), clay rich, pelletal m assive bed; few scales; few parts — 29 0.5 graded bed, w eak lamination within; m edium brown; few scales; few parts 29a 0.6 m assive, dark m edium brown; few scales; few parts 30 0.8 93 darker laminations; very dark n ear b ase; som e scales; few parts -____ 31 0.2 white lamination; no scales or parts 32 2 graded bed; medium brown; few scales; so m e parts toward b ase 33 0.9 94-96 laminated at top, graded to base; lighter; so m e pellets; few scales; som e parts 34 0.3 103; 107- 108 laminated; lighter; som e pellets; few scales; few parts -------- 35 0.2 97; 102 qraded deposit; darker; few scales; few parts \ 36 0.2 98-99; 104; laminated; lighter; few scales; few parts 106 37 1 100-101; 105 graded deposit; darker; som e organic material; very abundant scales; abundant parts 38 0.8 109 laminated; lighter; som e scales; few parts 39a 0.5 graded; lighter; som e pellets; few scales; few parts 39b 1 graded; darker; m ore pellets; abundant scales and parts toward b a se 40 2.2 110-113; 117 laminated; chert lam ination/nodules strongly associated with fish; som e scales and parts 189 GREFCO MICROSTRATIGRAPHIC SECTION (continued) cm A t ' * r w '* / ! « - ~ \r, ' * 4 . \ * % ■ S & l . ’ x" > ^L 'S T "-« i •- ■ . • - 4»W«1 f e 4 > ■ • ' ' Horizon T hickness Fish # D escription 40, cant. 2.2 110-113; laminated; chert lam ination/nodules strongly 117 associated with fish; som e scales and parts 41 42 43a 43b 44 45 46 47 49 53a 53b 53c 54 55a 55b 55c 55d 56a 56b 56c 56d 56e 57 58 1,1 114 m assive bed below chert; som e scales; so m e parts 0.6 1.4 115 laminated; few scales and parts graded; few scales and parts 1.5 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 1.4 0.3 0.7 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 2.2 0.9 116 graded; few scales and parts graded; som e m edium (1-2mm) pellets; few scales light and dark laminations; so m e large (3-4mm) pellets so m e scales; som e parts_____________________________ m assive; abundant large pellets and few dark, coarse pellets; few scales and parts yellowish m assive unit with so m e m edium pellets; few scales 48 0.8 118-120 light and dark laminations; plant fragm ents; abundant pellets in light laminations; few sca le s and parts; dark __________________________________ brow clay lam at b a se____________ __________________ 1 2 2 dark m assive unit with abundant m edium pellets; few scale s and parts toward bottom_____________________ 50 0.3 120,125- light and dark laminations; few large pellets; few scales 126__________________________________________________________ 51 0.2 123; 127 thin m assive unit; som e m edium pellets; few scales __________________________________ an d parts____________________________________________ 52 0.7 124 thick laminations, light and dark; very large pellet (3cm) -not diatom aceous, som e sm aller pellets also; few scales m assive with abundant small pellets; no scales or parts; plant fragm ents few er pellets large abundant pellets; som e scales and few parts light and dark laminations; abundant m edium pellets and a few plant fragm ents; som e sc ales but no parts m assive; small abundant pellets; few scales m assive; large pellets; few scales 128 m assive; very few pellets; som e sc a le s and parts chert lamination with one 4x6x2cm chert nodule laminated; medium pellets; white break a t b ase; few scales; som e parts laminated; som e medium pellets; few scales m assive, yellower colored; few small pellets; white break a t base; no scales or parts__________________ 129 laminated; som e medium pellets; few sca le s and parts 130 laminated; som e medium pellets; no scales or parts graded; coarse pellets, scales, bones, parts, whole fish at b a se graded; lighter color; increasing pellets tow ard base; few scales and parts 190 «- v a s s s s s ^ GREFCO MICROSTRATIGRAPHIC SECTION (continued) Horizon Thickness Fish # Description S i "r»r~ I * “ . T " * • £ * - T 5 S 4 S « S . ' * ' s2 w4-rr> • - " ' ’ -rif *••-*-.• ' ■ . • - l u • • 9 - ' * 4 ' ^ ‘ • • • ■ r- ■ 3 > ! ¥ ■ » —■ ■ < i i . ■ -"-y-, ‘ w*c - ^ t : r ; - "f ■ ' - -rr 59 0.6 131-132 lam inated light and dark; few scales; som e parts 60 1.2 134 laminated, darker laminations are thicker, with pellets; few scales and parts 61 1.3 133 m assive; abundant variable size pellets; few scales and parts 62 1.4 dark, organic (?)/clay (?) rich graded bed with few scales and parts at b ase 63 1 135-136 lam inated light and dark, sam o large and medium pellets; few sc ales and parts 64a 0.5 graded/m assive; medium pellets; few scale s and parts 64b 0.5 137-138 few er pellets 65 2.1 graded with increasing large pellets a t base; very abundant scales; abundant parts 66 1.4 139 jumbled bed with m oderately large pellets and pseudoburrow s; abundant scales; som e parts 67 0.7 lam inated light and dark; som e medium pellets; few scale s and parts 68 1 lam inated light and dark; som e medium pellets; few s c a le s and parts; pseudoburrow s 69 0.6 140-143 lam inated light and dark; som e medium pellets; few s cales and parts ____ 70 0.5 m assive; m edium brown; few scales; no pellets 71 0.5 lam inated light and dark 72 0.3 lam inated light and dark ------------- 73 0.4 m assive; m edium brown; few scales; no pellets 74 2.3 144-146 lam inations with pseudoburrow s 191 GREFCO MICROSTRATIGRAPHIC SECTION (continued) cm “ K s S S J J S S M g j g _ , * » * « • « £ » ? f S W Horizon T hickness F ish # D escription 74, cont. 2.3 144-146 laminations with pseudoburrow s 75 3.2 147-154 graded; medium pellets toward base; organic material toward top; many scales and parts 76 3.5 graded; som e organic aterial especially toward top; few er parts; fewer scales 77 1 155 laminated; only in so m e parts of sq u are m eter, overrun __________________________________ by chert of bed 78 (not pictured)______________________ 78 6 chert; c ro sses laminations but generally parallel to bedding; end excavation, could not p enetrate (not pictured) sum 93.8 192 193 I Specimen # Horizon OPQI AVC PD Di DM size orientation comments 1 2 2 2 2 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 2 2 1 2 1 : 1 2 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 3 2 1 2 1 i 1 2 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 4 2 3 1 i 1 3 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 5 2 1 1 1 i 1 2 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 6 2 3 2 1 2 Clupeidae; headless 7 2 4 1 1 2 6.5 Clupeidae; body only 8 2 ' 3 1 2 Clupeidae; hash spread over 1/4 of plane surface 9 2 3 2 2 1 2 Clupeidae; headless 10 2 5 1 1 2 high concentration of plates and scales 11 2 3 1 2 2 Clupeidae; headless 12 2 3 1 2 1 2 Clupeidae; headless 13 2 3 1 2 1 2 Clupeidae; headless 14 2 2 2 1 1 2 Clupeidae; Xyne grex(?); whole 15 2 3 2 2 1 2 Clupeidae; headless 16 15 2 1 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 17 15 1 1 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 18 3 3 2 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 19 3 2 2 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 20 3 2 2 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 21 3 2 2 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 22 3 3 1 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 23 3 3 2 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 24 3 3 1 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 25 3 3 2 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 26 3 2 1 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 27 3 2 3 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 28 3 2 3 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 29 3 2 2 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) APPENDIX E GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATABASE Specimen # Horizon OPQI AVC PD Dl DM size orientation comments 30 31 32 33 34 3 3 3 3 3 " 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ---------------- Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 35 3 2 1 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 36 4 2 2 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?); parts scattered near individual 37 4 2 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 38 4 2 2 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 39 4a’ 3 1 3 Clupeidae; tail in good shape, buried by 4a' in rapid deposit? 40 4a' 3 2 1 3 Clupeidae; body w/ disarticulated head; poor condition for whole fish 41 4a' 3 1 2 Clupeidae 42 4a' 3 1 2 Clupeidae 43 4a’ 3 1 2 Clupeidae 44 4a' 3 1 2 Ciupeidae 45 4a' 3 1 2 Clupeidae 46 5' 4 1 1 Clupeidae 47 5a’ 2 3 1 1 15 225 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 48 5a' 2 2 1 1 10 150 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 49 7 3 1 2 1 1 10 240 Clupeidae; most of body together 50 7 3 1 2 1 1 17 135 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 51 7 3 2 2 1 1 17 15 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 52 7 3 1 2 1 1 15 165 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 53 7 3 3 2 1 1 15 60 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 54 7 2 3 2 1 1 15 240 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 55 7 3 1 2 1 1 15 15 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATABASE (continued) 195 Specim en # Horizon OPQ1 AVC PD Dl DM size orientation com m ents 56 7 3 1 2 1 1 13 165 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 57 7 3 2 2 1 1 15 150 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 58 7 3 1 2 1 1 17 195 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 59 7 3 1 2 1 1 15 90 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 60 7 2 3 2 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 61 9 2 1 1 1 2 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 62 9 5 1 1 2 63 9 3 2 1 3 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 64 10b 2 1 1 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 65 12 4 1 2 Clupeidae; very badly disarticulated 66 12 4 1 2 15 Clupeidae; very badly disarticulated 67 12 4 1 2 Clupeidae; very badly disarticulated 68 14a 2 1 1 4 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 69 14b 3 1 2 2 345 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 70 15 3 3 3 2 1 315 Clupeidae; severely disarticulated ventral body 71 15 3 3 1 1 345 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 72 16 2 3 1 1 20 90 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?); body and head in good shape 73 16 4 1 2 2 1 180 Clupeidae; headless, very disarticulated 74 16 2 2 2 1 1 45 225 Perciformes (?) 75 17 2 2 2 2 2 15 135 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 76 16 2 2 2 1 2 20 90 77 16 2 1 2 2 10 180 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 78 18 2 3 2 2 15 285 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 79 18 3 2 2 2 2 Clupeidae; headless 80 19a 3 3 2 2 1 15 300 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 81 19c 2 1 1 1 15 0 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 82 23 4 1 2 335 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 83 23 3 1 2 1 2 150 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATABASE (continued) 196 Specim en # Horizon OPQI AVC PD D 1 DM size orientation com m ents 84 23 4 1 2 1 2 330 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 85 24 2 1 2 1 1 23 255 86 23 4 1 2 1 2 325 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 87 24 2 3 2 1 1 16 245 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 88 24 3 3 1 1 1 310 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 89 25 2 1 2 2 12 315 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 90 24 1 2 2 2 1 1 19 285 91 25 3 1 2 1 2 255 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 92 26 2 1 2 1 11 90 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 93 30 2 2 2 1 1 17 255 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 94 33 2 2 2 1 1 23 255 95 33 4 1 1 1 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 96 33 4 1 1 1 1 285 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 97 33 2 2 2 1 3 285 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 98 35 2 1 2 1 1 250 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 99 36 1 3 1 1 1 16 180 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 100 37 2 2 2 1 1 17 160 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 101 37 2 3 1 1 1 17 155 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 102 35 2 3 2 1 3 14 150 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 103 33 2 2 3 1 1 17 320 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 104 36 1 3 1 1 1 16 170 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 105 37 3 3 1 1 2 23 255 106 36 1 1 1 1 1 16 280 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 107 34 2 1 2 2 2 12 295 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 108 34 2 1 2 2 2 13 110 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 109 38 2 2 2 2 1 10 340 110 40 3 3 2 1 1 13 345 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 111 40 2 2 2 1 1 12 60 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 112 40 2 2 2 1 1 16 315 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) GREFCO SQUARE M ETER SECTION DATABASE (continued) 197 Specim en # Horizon OPQI AVC PD Dl DM size orientation com m ents 113 40 2 2 2 1 10 195 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 114 41 2 2 2 2 10 330 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 115 42 1 3 1 1 1 15 90 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 116 43 2 1 2 1 1 20 195 117 40 2 3 2 1 1 13 285 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 118 48 2 1 1 1 11 165 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 119 48 2 2 1 1 15 0 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 120 48 2 2 1 13 60 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 121 50 2 3 1 1 16 225 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 122 49 2 1 1 2 11 15 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 123 51 2 3 1 1 14 180 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 124 52 3 2 3 1 9 195 125 50 3 2 2 1 12 60 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 126 50 3 3 2 1 9 165 127 51 3 3 2 2 10 225 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 128 55 2 1 1 2 9 345 129 56 2 1 1 1 11 75 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 130 57 3 3 1 3 16 270 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 131 59 2 3 1 1 13 210 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 132 59 3 3 1 1 12 345 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 133 61 3 2 2 2 10 180 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 134 60 3 3 2 3 7 150 135 63 2 3 2 1 6 120 136 63 3 3 1 1 15 165 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 137 64b 2 1 3 14 210 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 138 64 2 1 4 1 3 8 180 139 66 4 1 2 1 2 8 165 140 69 3 3 2 1 1 18 285 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) 141 69 2 3 2 2 1 12 165 Clupeidae; Xyne grex (?) GREFCO SQUARE M ETER SECTION DATABASE (continued) 198 Specim en # Horizon OPQI AVC PD Dl DM size orientation com m ents 142 69 2 1 2 1 1 13 0 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 143 69 3 3 2 1 1 13 210 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 144 74 2 3 2 2 1 17 300 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 145 74 2 1 2 2 1 11 r o Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 146 74 2 2 2 1 1 11 165 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 147 75 2 2 2 1 2 12 165 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 148 75 2 3 2 1 2 10 270 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 149 75 4 3 2 1 2 5 270 150 75 4 3 2 1 2 6 270 151 75 4 1 2 1 2 10 180 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 152 75 4 1 2 1 2 9 180 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 153 75 4 2 2 1 2 13 195 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 154 75 4 2 2 1 2 11 15 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) 155 77 3 3 2 1 1 12 45 Clupeidae; Xyne grex ( ? ) GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATABASE (continued) 199 OPQI SUM 1/% # Dl 1 # Dl 2 # Dl 3 # Dl 4 NORM Dl 1 NORM Dl 2 NORM Dl 3 NORM Dl 4 1 8 19.4 8 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 2 71 2.2 57 13 0 1 22 11 0 1 3 56 2.8 42 12 2 0 21 12 2 0 4 18 8.6 17 1 0 0 26 3 0 0 5 2 77.5 2 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 Total 155 126 26 2 1 126 26 2 1 Dl SUM 1/% # OPQI 1 # OPQI 2 # OPQI 3 # OPQI 4 # OPQI 5 NORM OPQI 1 NORM OPQI 2 NORM OPQI 3 1 126 1.2 8 57 42 17 2 8 16 10 2 26 6.0 0 13 12 1 0 0 18 14 3 2 77.5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 31 4 1 155.0 0 1 0 0 0 0 36 0 Total 155 8 71 56 18 2 8 71 56 AVC SUM 1/% # OPQI 1 # OPQI 2 # OPQI 3 # OPQI 4 # OPQI 5 NORM OPQI 1 NORM OPQI 2 NORM OPQI 3 1 47 2.9 3 22 15 7 0 3 21 14 2 47 2.9 2 28 15 2 0 2 27 14 3 40 3.4 3 19 16 2 0 3 21 18 Total 134 8 69 46 11 0 8 69 46 PD SUM 1/% # OPQI 1 # OPQI 2 # OPQI 3 # OPQI 4 # OPQI 5 NORM OPQI 1 NORM OPQI 2 NORM OPQI 3 1 22 4.2 7 6 4 3 2 7 5 5 2 67 1.4 0 32 25 10 0 0 8 11 3 2 46.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 9 14 4 1 92.0 0 1 0 0 0 0 18 0 Total 92 7 40 30 13 2 7 40 30 DM SUM 1/% # OPQI 1 # OPQI 2 # OPQI 3 # OPQI 4 # OPQI 5 NORM OPQI 1 NORM OPQI 2 NORM OPQI 3 1 92 1.7 5 52 31 4 0 4 32 15 2 53 2.9 3 15 19 14 2 4 16 15 3 10 15.5 0 4 6 0 0 0 23 26 Total 155 8 71 56 18 2 8 71 56 APPENDIX F GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION FILTERED DATABASE 200 OPQI # AVC 1 # AVC 2 # AVC 3 NORM AVC 1 NORM AVC 2 NORM AVC 3 # PD 1 # PD 2 1 3 2 3 13 11 14 7 0 2 22 28 19 11 18 10 6 32 3 15 15 16 9 12 11 4 25 4 7 2 2 14 5 4 3 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Total 47 47 40 47 47 40 22 67 Dl NORM OPQI 4 NORM OPQI 5 # AVC 1 # AVC 2 # AVC 3 NORM AVC 1 ORM AVC NORM AVC 3 1 14 2 37 38 31 8 13 17 2 4 0 9 8 9 10 13 23 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 21 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 29 0 0 Total 18 2 47 47 40 47 47 40 AVC NORM OPQI 4 NORM OPQI 5 # Dl 1 # Dl 2 # Dl 3 # Dl 4 NORM Dl 1 NORM Dl 2 1 7 0 37 9 0 1 35 8 2 2 0 38 8 1 0 36 8 3 2 0 31 9 0 0 35 10 Total 11 0 106 26 1 1 106 26 PD NORM OPQI 4 NORM OPQI 5 # Dl 1 # Dl 2 # Dl 3 # Dl 4 NORM Dl 1 NORM Dl 2 1 6 2 20 0 1 1 21 0 2 7 0 54 13 0 0 19 4 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 12 10 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 24 0 Total 13 2 76 14 1 1 76 14 DM NORM OPQI 4 NORM OPQI 5 # Dl 1 # Dl 2 # Dl 3 # Dl 4 NORM Dl 1 NORM Dl 2 1 3 0 76 14 1 1 42 9 2 15 2 41 11 1 0 39 12 3 0 0 9 1 0 0 45 6 Total 18 2 126 26 2 1 126 26 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION FILTERED DATABASE (continued) 201 OPQI # PD 3 # PD 4 NORM PD 1 NORM PD 2 NORM PD 3 NORM PD 4 # DM 1 # DM 2 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 5 3 2 1 1 1 21 1 1 52 15 3 1 0 1 21 1 0 31 19 4 0 0 2 26 0 0 4 14 5 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 Total 2 1 22 67 2 1 92 53 Dl # PD 1 # PD 2 # PD 3 # PD 4 NORM PD 1 NORM PD 2 NORM PD 3 NORM PD 4 1 20 54 1 1 2 31 0 1 2 0 13 1 0 0 36 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 Total 22 67 2 1 22 67 2 1 AVC NORM Dl 3 NORM Dl 4 # PD 1 # PD 2 # PD 3 # PD 4 NORM PD 1 NORM PD 2 1 0 1 6 27 0 1 5 26 2 1 0 4 23 1 0 4 22 3 0 0 18 16 1 0 19 18 Total 1 1 28 66 2 1 28 66 PD NORM Dl 3 NORM Dl 4 # AVC 1 # AVC 2 # AVC 3 NORM AV C 1 NORM AVC 2 NORM AVC 3 1 1 1 6 4 6 6 6 6 2 0 0 27 23 16 8 11 5 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 17 11 4 0 0 1 0 0 20 0 0 Total 1 1 34 28 23 34 34 23 DM NORM Dl 3 NORM Dl 4 # AVC 1 # AVC 2 # AVC 3 NORM AVC 1 NORM AVC 2 NORM AVC 3 1 1 1 27 30 31 18 19 18 2 1 0 19 15 6 22 16 6 3 0 0 1 2 3 6 12 16 Total 2 1 47 47 40 47 47 40 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION FILTERED DATABASE (continued) 202 OPQI # DM 3 NORM DM 1 NORM DM 2 NORM DM 3 1 0 27 7 0 2 4 ! 32 4 3 3 6 24 7 7 4 0 10 15 0 5 0 0 20 0 Total 10 92 53 10 Dl # DM 1 # DM 2 # DM 3 NORM DM 1 NORM DM 2 NORM DM 3 1 76 41 9 21 14 7 2 14 11 1 19 18 4 3 1 1 0 17 21 0 4 1 0 0 35 0 0 Total 92 53 10 ' 92 53 10 AVC NORM PD 3 NORM PD 4 # DM 1 # DM 2 # DM 3 NORM DM 1 NORM DM 2 NORM DM 3 1 0 1 27 19 1 25 19 1 2 1 0 30 15 2 28 15 2 3 1 0 31 6 3 34 7 3 Total 2 1 88 40 6 88 40 6 PD # DM 1 # DM 2 # DM 3 NORM DM 1 NORM DM 2 NORM DM 3 1 10 11 1 11 21 0 2 38 26 3 14 16 0 3 2 0 0 25 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 5 Total 50 37 5 50 37 5 DM # PD 1 # PD 2 # PD 3 # PD 4 NORM PD 1 NORM PD 2 NORM PD 3 NORM PD 4 1 10 38 2 0 6 23 2 0 2 11 26 0 0 11 27 0 0 3 1 3 0 1 5 17 0 16 Total 22 67 2 1 22 67 2 16 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION FILTERED DATABASE (continued) APPENDIX G GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS data plot--not normalized (3 NORM Dl 1 ■ NORM Dl 2 □ NORM Dl 3 □ NORM Dl 4 data plot--normalized 203 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) O P Q I V S. AVC i ( D I l l O z I U c c . O ' z > o o o o > < 30 25 20 15 10 ■ I 1 — 1 1 | 1 — gg M l n , I L - i , 3 OPQI 0 # A V C1 ■ # AVC 2 □ # AVC 3 data plot--not normalized O PQ I V S . NORM AVC 0 NORM AVC 1 ■ NORM AVC 2 □ NORM AVC3 OPQI data plot--normalized 204 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) 35 30 (/) U i ?h o z 1 1 1 IT 20 a . o 15 o o □ 10 a. 5 0 O P Q I V S. PD l 1 I m J S | J_ .A r ^ i 3 OPQI data plot--not normalized b # p d T ■ # PD 2 □ # PD 3 □ # PD 4 £3 NORM PD 1 ■ NORMPD 2 O NORM PD 3 D NORM PD 4 data plot--normalized 205 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) OPQI VS. DM 60 ------------------------------------------------------------- data plot--not normalized OPQI VS. NORM DM 03 NORM DM 1 ■ NORM DM2 □ NORM DM3 data plot--normalized 206 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) 0 # OPQ11 | ■ # OPQI 2 a # OPQI 3 O# OPQI 4 ■ # OPQI 5 data plot--not normalized Dl VS. NORM OPQI 40 1 2 3 4 D l 0NORM OPQI 1 ■ NORM OPQI 2 O NORM OPQI 3 □ NORM OPQI 4 ■ NORM OPQI 5 data plot--normalized GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) Dl VS. AVC c o w o z 1 1 1 D C D C = > o o o o S 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 — — — — ___ 0 # AVC1 ■ # AVC 2 □ # AVC 3 Dl data plot--not normalized Dl VS. NORM AVC yj 25 0 NORM AVC 1 ■ NORM AVC2 □ NORM AVC3 Dl data plot--normalized 208 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) Dl V S . PD m# PD 1 ■ # PD 2 □# PD 3 □# PD 4 Dl data plot--not normalized Dl V S . N O RM PD 40 E 3 NORM PD 1 BNORMPD 2 □ NORMPD 3 □ NORMPD 4 data plot--normalized 209 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) D! V S . DM 1 2 3 4 Dl data plot--not normalized Dl V S . N O RM DM 01 NORM DM 1 ■ NORM DM2 □ NORM DM 3 data plot--normalized 210 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) AVC V S . O P Q I 0 # OPQI 1 ■ # OPQI 2 □ # OPQI 3 □ # OPQI 4 ■ # OPQI 5 data plot--not normalized V) U J o z UJ O ' a . = } o o o a a . O £ a . o AVC V S. N O RM O PQ I □ NORM OPQI 1 ■ NORM OPQI 2 □ NORM OPQI 3 □ NORM OPQI 4 ■ NORM OPQI 5 data plot--normalized 211 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) tn U J o z U J O' O ' z> o o o A V C V S . Dl 0 # Dl 1 | ■ # Dl 2 j □ # Dl 3 | D# Dl 4 I 2 AVC data plot--not normalized AV C V S. NO RM Dl 0NORM Dl 1 ■ NORM Dl 2 □ NORM Dl 3 □ NORM Dl 4 data plot--normalized 212 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) AVC VS. PD 30 -------------------------- data plot--not normalized i n I U o z 1 1 1 a . Q L = } o o o Q a . s t X L O z AVC VS. NORM PD 0NORM PD1 ■ NORMPD 2 □ NORMPD 3 DNORM PD 4 2 AVC data plot--normalized 213 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) AVC VS. DM i I 35 30 1 2 3 AVC data plot--not normalized AVC VS. NORM DM 35 0NORM DM1 ■ NORM DM2 □ NORM DM3 data plot--normalized 214 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) w t u o z L L I o c D C 3 o o o o a O 35 30 25 20 15 10 PD V S. O PQ I 0 # OPQI 1 ■ # OPQI 2 O# OPQI 3 □ # OPQI 4 ■ # OPQI 5 PD data plot--not normalized P D V S . N O R M O P Q I 18 data plot--normalized a NORM OPQI 1 ■ NORM OPQI 2 □ NORM OPQI 3 □ NORM OPQI 4 ■ NORM OPQI 5 215 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) PD VS. Dl 1 2 3 4 PD data plot--not normalized PD VS. NORM Dl 25 0 NORM DM j ■ NORM Dl 2 | □ NORM Dl 3 □ NORM Dl 4 1 2 3 4 PD data plot--normalized 216 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) PD VS. AVC m # a v c 1 ! ■ # AVC 2 | □ # AVC 3 i PD data plot--not normalized PD VS. NORM AVC H NORM AVC 1 ■ NORM A V C 2 □ NORM AVC 3 PD data plot--normalized 2 17 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) PD VS. DM w in o z U J O' 0 £ z> o o o £ Q 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 m I H -II n| iHL , Hi 1 t i H i — i B# DM 1 B# DM 2 Q# DM 3 2 3 PD data plot--not normalized 0 ) U l o z U J a . o n = > o o o s o E 0 £ O z PD VS. NORM DM PD B NORM DM 1 ■ NORM DM2 □ NORM DM3 data plot--normalized 218 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) tn UJ o 60 50 40 30 _ 20 a a. ° 10 DM V S . O PQ I _ 1 ___i_hhB_ . . . . . . H i , b TI 2 DM d a t a p l o t - - n o t n o r m a l i z e d m# o p q i 1 ■ # OPQI 2 □ # OPQI 3 a # OPQI 4 ■ # OPQI 5 i I < / ) UJ O z U l O ' U L 3 O O o a CL o s c c o z DM V S N O RM O P Q I SNORM OPQI 1 HNORM OPQI 2 □ NORM OPQI 3 □ NORM OPQI 4 ■ NORM OPQI 5 d a t a p l o t - - n o r m a l i z e d 219 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) DM VS. Dl < o U J o z U J a . a . 3 O o o B# Dl 1 ■ # Dl 2 Q# Dl 3 □ # Dl 4 ! data plot--not normalized DM VS. NORM Dl 50 45 data plot--normalized BNORM Dl 1 ■ NORM Dl 2 □ NORM Dl 3 □ NORM Dl 4 220 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) DM VS. AVC ia# A v c 1 ■ # AVC 2 □ # AVC 3 1 2 3 DM | t data plot--not normalized DM VS. NORM AVC 25 & NORM AVC 1 ■ NORM AVC2 □ NORM AVC 3 data plot--normalized 221 GREFCO SQUARE METER SECTION DATA PLOTS (continued) DM VS. PD to m o z UJ O ' D C 3 O O o Q CL □#PD1! ■ # PD 2 | □ # PD 3 | □ # PD 4! 2 DM data plot--not normalized DM VS. NORM PD IS NORM PD 1 ■ NORMPD 2 □ NORMPD 3 □ NORM PD 4 2 DM data plot--normalized 222 APPENDIX H NEWPORT LAGOON MICROSTRATIGRAPHIC SECTION c m - / i . - / t o * ■ ■ « r _ * 1 b - ' ■ / f i * ■ • - v' f t i i l 6 ! * f - ~ 3 Skewi-SciA T Horizon Thickness Munsetl Fish soil color scales / 10 cm2 Description 1 1 0.7 1 2.5Y 7/4 40 laminated; occational vertebral parts up to 2.5 cm i « £ ? 2 1.2 2.5Y 5/3 3 ' m assive to weakly graded; abundant white pellets, decreasing toward b ase 3 0.7 2.5Y 7/3 10 laminated; large pellet with scales and vertebral parts inside I? ------- 4 0.9 2.5Y 5/4 5 graded; som e parts J C 5 1.3 2 2.5Y 6/4 20 laminated; scales on this bed probably from fish #2 a • * ------- * ■ - 4 . 6 2.2 2.5Y 6/4 2-3 laminated; black staining f t 7 0.4 2.5Y 5/3 5-10 m assive to slightly graded; so m e black staining ' \ 8 0.6 2.5Y 7/3 15-20 m assive; lots of pellets 9 1.2 2.5Y 5/3 20 2-3 m assive beds \ 10 1.1 3-4 2.5Y 6/4 5 laminated; black staining; scales decom posed (Dl 3) \ 10a 0.7 2.5Y 6/4 5 laminated; black staining; scales decom posed (Dl 3), pellets 11 1.6 2.5Y 5/4 5-10 laminated; trace black staining 12 1.8 5 2.5Y 7/3 30 laminated; trace black staining 13 1.6 2.5Y 5/4 50-60 graded; black staining; som e decom posed scales 14 2.5 6 2.5Y 6/4 25 laminated; som e parts 15 2.2 2.5Y 5/4 5-10 2-3 graded beds; no parts here 2 2 3 C n rv NEWPORT LAGOON MICROSTRATIGRAPHIC SECTION (continued) Munsell scales/ Horizon Thickness Fish soil color 10 cm2 Description . . . . . . . . . . . , M s •aSSSsbi^^^r:- sbssSs t ? ! “ “»£S?S _ t a n s a s i * 3 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2.6 1.9 0.9 1 . 8 1.5 0.6 1.3 0.9 1.3 2.5Y 6/3 10 laminated; som e black staining--scale sized; few very small parts <1cm 2.5Y 5/4 1-2 graded bed with brown clay at top; white pellets at base; rip up(?) clasts at b a se up to 6cm with internal laminations; som e black spots 7-8 2.5Y 7/4 10 laminated; occasional parts 2.5Y 7/3 20 laminated; several parts up to 2cm 2.5Y 6/4 5-10 graded; very bottom lam inated 9 2.5Y 8/3 35 laminated; petroleum odor 2.5Y 6/4 30 graded; disarticulated parts, attached vertebral column parts_______________ 2.5Y 7/4 15 laminated 2.5Y 6/4 10 graded 2.5Y 5/4 20 laminated; part of cranium and vertebral column 224 Cm NEWPORT LAGOON MICROSTRATIGRAPHIC SECTION (continued) Munsell scales/ Horizon Thickness Fish soil color 10 cm2 Description 26 0.9 2.5Y 6/4 20 laminated (not pictured) 27 0.7 2.5Y 6/3 10 laminated ^ 28 0.3 2.5Y 6/4 6 laminated 29 0.3 2.5Y 7/3 15 laminated; 3 <1cm vertebral parts t p g £ 2 f P l S P ® S ^ S e w t e : ; * 2 » ? - T 7 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 0.6 0.3 1.3 0.9 0.3 0.4 1.2 0.9 0.2 0.9 0.6 0.9 1.4 1.2 0.5 2.5Y 6/3 5-10 m assive; trace black spots 2.5Y 5/4 m assive; thin clay separation at b a se 2.5Y 7/3 40 laminated; abundant vertebral parts 2.5Y 5/4 20 m assive; large pellet with fish parts 2.5Y 7/3 75 laminated; parts up to 4cm 2.5Y 4/2 1 -2 dark clay bed; undulating top and ________ bottom; 1-2mm calcareous blebs 2.5Y 4/3 30 10 2.5Y 6/3 100 laminated; cranial and body parts 2.5Y 5/3 10 3 m assive beds; 4 cranii; more calcareous blebs 2.5Y 6/3 20 laminated 2.5Y 5/3 10 graded; 35mm calcareous blebs 2.5Y 6/4 10 2.5Y 6/3 20 laminated; 6 cranial parts 2.5Y 4/3 10 graded; 2-4mm clacareous blebs 2.5Y 7/3 30 laminated; cranial parts 2.5Y 6/4 30 laminated 2.5Y 6/3 40 lam inated 225 Cm NEWPORT LAGOON MICROSTRATIGRAPHIC SECTION (continued) Munsell scales/ Horizon Thickness Fish soil color 10 cm2 Description < i - P . 46, continued - £ t m S s K S S B S S t e S a ^ t e r<<— • ' .- ' A t '- . . . • v . . » . . . *r sex }££ c * . r A v ^ . _ ? t * L - S v T r , f * r 4 Sil, 47 48 48a 49 50 51 52 53 54 54a 55 55a 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.2 0.4 1.1 2.5 0.3 0.7 1.1 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.7 1.3 1.2 0.7 2.5Y 6/3 40 laminated 2.5Y 5/3 30 • laminated 2.5Y 8/3 10 laminated 2.5Y 5/4 laminated 2.5Y 8/2 laminated; but pinches out in parts of slab 2.5Y 6/3 10 2.5Y 8/2 30 laminated 11 2.5Y 6/4 40 m assive; disarticulated fish 2.5Y 7/4 30-40 laminated; a few <1cm parts 2.5Y 7/3 10-100 4 m erged m assive beds 2.5Y 7/3 50 laminated 12 2.5Y 5/4 20 laminated; som e parts 2.5Y 5/4 5-20 m assive; scales increasing toward b ase 2.5Y 8/3 20-40 laminated; few 1-2cm parts 2.5Y 7/4 20 laminated 2.5Y 8.3 10 m assive 2.5Y 5/3 m assive 2.5Y 7/3 20 laminated 2.5Y 5/4 m assive 2.5Y 8/3______ 0-40 laminated; many parts at b a se -< 1 c m 2.5Y 5/3 10 graded bed 2.5Y 8/2 20 graded; som e parts 2.5Y 7/3 40 3 graded beds 2.5Y 5/3 m assive; 3 <2cm parts 2.5Y 7/3 20 lam inated 2.5Y 6/4 50 graded; plant material at top 2.5Y 4/4 m assive; black staining 2.5Y 8/2 5 laminated; som e <2cm parts (not pictured)________________________ 2.5Y 6/4 2.5Y 7/3 lam inated (not pictured) 30 laminated; many parts 2.5Y 8/3 20 laminated; many parts 2.5Y 6/4 10 2 laminations a t top then m assive 13 2.5Y 7/3 30 laminated; cranium 2.5Y 5/4 * " O f * : : . 77 78 79 80 Sum 0.6 0.2 0.5 76 14 2.5Y 8/3 10 m assive; fish a t top (not pictured) 2.5Y 7/3 20 laminated; many parts <2cm (not _______________________ pictured)________________________ 2.5Y 8/1______ >200 laminated; very pale (not pictured) 2.5Y 5/4 10 m assive (not pictured) 226 APPENDIX I NEWPORT LAGOON SECTION DATABASE S pecim en # ; Horizon OPQI Dl AVC PD LvT C om m ents 1 | 1 5 1 1 1 Clupidae 2 I 5 5 1 1 1 Clupidae 3 10 4 1 1 1 Clupidae; cranium 4 10 5 2 1 1 Clupidae 5 12 5 2 1 1 Clupidae; cranium 6 j 14 4 2 1 1 Clupidae; cranium 7 18 4 1 1 1 Clupidae; tail 8 | 18 5 1 1 1 Clupidae 9 | 21 4 1 1 1 Clupidae; cranium 10 37 4 1 1 1 Clupidae; tail 11 52 5 1 1 Clupidae; cranium 12 55 5 1 1 1 Clupidae 13 75 4 1 1 1 Clupidae; cranium 14 77 2 1 2 1 1 Clupidae; Xyne grex (?) 227 8 ZZ. INTERVAL TOTAL CARBON by combustion comments CaC03 by acid digestion CARBON by acid digestion carbon by acid I carbon by burn RATIO G1 (run 1) G1 (run 2) G1 (run 3) G1 (run 4) AVG G1 2.37 2.28 2.28 2.25 2:295 17.17 17.17 17.17 2.06 2.06 2.060 0.90 G2 (run 1) 2.95 22.42 2.69 G2 (run 2) 3.11 23.50 2.82 G2 (run 3) 3.13 22.92 2.75 G2 (run 4) 3.22 AVGG2 3.103 22.94 2.753 0.89 G3 (run 1) 3.03 21.25 2.55 G3 (run 2) 2.96 21.33 2.56 G3 (run 3) 2.96 ~27555 AVG G3 27983 21.29 0.86 G4 (run 1) 3.95 30.33 3.64 G4 (run 2) 3.93 29.08 3.49 G4 (run 3) 29.67 3.56 AVG G4 3.621 27.59 3.311 0.91 G4a (run 1) 3.31 25.25 3.03 G4a (run 2) 3.26 24.58 2.95 G4a (run 3) 24.00 T289 2.88 '27953 AVG G4a 24.61 0.90 G4a' (run 1) 3.18 late burn 23.33 2.8 G4a' (run 2) 3.39 24.50 2.94 G4a' (run 3) 3.51 24.00 2.88 G4a' (run 3) 3.51 TT47U '27873 AVG G4a' 23.94 0.83 G4a' bot. (run 1) 3.55 25.08 3.01 G4a' bot. (run 2) 3.61 24.33 2.92 G4a' bot. (run 3) 26.83 3.22 G4a' bot. (run 3) 25.75 3.09 AVG G4a' bot. 3.580 25.50 3.060 0.85 APPENDIX J GREFCO CARBON/CARBONATE DATABASE 6ZZ INTERVAL TOTAL CARBON by comments CaC03 by acid CARBON by acid carbon by acid/ carbon combustion digestion digestion by burn RATIO G5 (run 1) 3.44 22.42 2.69 G5 (run 2) 3.09 ! 21.50 2.58 G5 (run 3) 2.94 22.58 2.71 G5 (run 4) 3.26 G5 (run 5) 3.25 G5 (run 6) 3.26 AVG G5* 3.207 22.17 2.660 0.83 G5a (run 1) 3.06 22.42 2.69 G5a (run 2) 3.30 25.50 3.06 G5a (run 3) 3.19 23.67 2.84 G5a (run 4) 3.36 22.83 2.74 G5a (run 5) 3.32 AVG G5a 3.246 23.60 2.833 0.87 G6 (run 1) 2.59 17.58 2.11 G6 (run 2) 2.53 17.00 2.04 AVG G6 2.560 17.29 2.075 0.81 G7 (run 1) 3.24 23.92 2.87 G7 (run 2) 3.14 24.00 2.88 G7 (run 3) 3.20 G7 (run 4) 3.21 AVG G7 3.198 23.96 2.875 0.90 G8 (run 1) 2.48 20.08 2.41 G8 (run 2) 2.49 18.83 2.26 G8 (run 3) 17.83 2.14 G8 (run 4) 18.08 2.17 G8 (run 5) 17.42 2.09 AVGG8 2.485 18.45 2.214 0.89 G9 (run 1) 3.52 26.92 3.23 G9 (run 2) 3.63 27.00 3.24 G9 (run 3) 3.51 AVGG9 3.553 26.96 3.235 0.91 GREFCO CARBON/CARBONATE DATABASE (continued) n r z INTERVAL TOTAL CARBON by combustion comments CaC03 by acid digestion CARBON by acid digestion carbon by acid/ carbon by burn RATIO G9' (run 1) 361 i 26.75 3.21 G9' (run 2) 3.62 | 28.67 3.44 G9' (run 3) 3.66 26.83 3.22 G9' (run 4) 27.00 3.24 AVG G9' 3.630 27.31 3.278 0.90 G10 (run 1) 3.75 29.25 3.51 G10 (run 2) 3.83 29.42 3.53 AVGG10 3.790 29.33 3.520 0.93 G10' (run 1) 3.83 29.08 3.49 G10' (run 2) 3.69 29.42 3.53 G10' (run 3) 3.72 AVG G10' 3.747 29.25 3.510 0.94 G10a (run 1) 3.68 26.42 3.17 G10a (run 2) 3.63 25.83 3.1 G10a (run 3) AVG G 10a 3.655 26.12 3.135 0.86 G10b (run 1) 3.72 27.00 3.24 G10b (run 2) 3.67 29.33 3.52 G10b (run 3) 28.92 3.47 G10b (run 4) 28.75 3.45 AVG G 10b 3.695 28.50 3.420 0.93 G10c (run 1) 3.93 32.08 3.85 G10c (run 2) 4.07 30.58 3.67 G10c (run 3) 4.10 31.17 3.74 G10c (run 4) 31.75 3.81 AVG G10c 4.033 31.40 3.768 0.93 G10d (run 1) 4.34 30.83 3.7 G10d (run 2) 4.95 flame in tube 31.33 3.76 G10d (run 3) 4.76 flame in tube G10d (run 4) 4.55 G10d (run 5) 4.22 GREFCO CARBON/CARBONATE DATABASE (continued) 2 3 1 INTERVAL TOTAL CARBON by i . | comments combustion ! CaC03 by acid digestion CARBON by acid digestion carbon by acid/ carbon by bum RATIO G10d (run 6) ' G10d (run 7)" GlOd (run 8) 4.48 4.48 4.43 4.417 ------------- ------------ ----------- ---- ----- _ ------------- AVG G10d 31.08 3.730 0.84 G11 (run 1) 2.47 no burn 28.33 3.4 G11 (run 2) 2.46 no burn 27.25 3.27 G11 (run 3) 1.05 no burn 27.83 3.34 G11 (run 4) 4.22 G11 (run 5) 3.68 G11 (run 6) 3.69 G11 (run 7) 3.85 G11 (run 8) 4.01 G11 (run 9) 3.74 G11 (run 10) 3.89 AVG G11 3.869 27.81 3.337 0.86 G11a (run 1) 3.12 24.50 2.94 G11a (run 2) 3.15 21.67 2.6 G11a (run 3) 3.09 22.67 2.72 G11a (run 4) 22.67 2.72 AVG G11a 3.120 22.87 2.745 0.88 G12 (run 1) 3.40 25.08 3.01 G12 (run 2) 3.35 25.50 3.06 AVG G12 3.375 25.29 3.035 0.90 G12' (run 1) 4.24 32.67 3.92 G12' (run 2) 4.22 31.08 3.73 G12' (run 3) 31.25 3.75 AVG G12' 4.230 31.67 3.800 0.90 G13 (run 1) 2.81 22.00 2.64 G13 (run 2) 2.91 21.75 2.61 G13 (run 3) 2.93 21.75 2.61 AVGG13 2.883 21.83 2.620 0.91 GREFCO CARBON/CARBONATE DATABASE (continued) 2 3 2 INTERVAL TOTAL CARBON by combustion comments CaC03 by acid digestion CARBON by acid digestion carbon by acid/ carbon by burn RATIO G13a (run 1) 3 2 3 22.83 2.74 G13a (run 2) 3.26 23.92 2.87 G13a (run 3) 3.19 | 24.50 2.94 G13a (run 4) i I 23.25 2.79 AVG G 13a 3.227’ 23.62 2.835 0.88 G14 (run 1) 2.96 21.50 2.58 G14 (run 2) 2.98 21.00 2.52 G14 (run 3) 2.89 AVG G14 2.943 21.25 2.550 0.87 G15 (run 1) 3.38 25.50 3.06 G15 (run 2) 3.18 late burn 25.75 3.09 G15 (run 3) 3.31 G15 (run 4) 3.36 AVGG15 3.350 25.62 3.075 0.92 G16 (run 1) skipped 26.17 3.14 G16 (run 2) 3.69 28.42 3.41 G16 (run 3) 3.74 26.33 3.16 G16 (run 4) 28.08 3.37 G16 (run 5) 27.42 3.29 AVG G16 3.715 27.28 3.274 0.88 GREFCO CARBON/CARBONATE DATABASE (continued)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Quartz Grain-Shape Variation Within An Individual Pluton: Granite Mountain, San Diego County, California
PDF
Lateral variability in predation and taphonomic characteristics of turritelline gastropod assemblages from Middle Eocene - Lower Oligocene strata of the Gulf Coastal Plain, United States
PDF
The characterization of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach through Fourier grain-shape, grain-size, and longshore current analyses
PDF
Evolutionary paleoecology and taphonomy of the earliest animals: Evidence from the Neoproterozoic and Cambrian of southwest China
PDF
Helicoplacoid echinoderms: Paleoecology of Cambrian soft substrate immobile suspension feeders
PDF
Barnacles as mudstickers? The paleobiology, paleoecology, and stratigraphic significance of Tamiosoma gregaria in the Pancho Rico Formation, Salinas Valley, California
PDF
Cyclostratigraphy and chronology of the Albian stage (Piobbico core, Italy)
PDF
Distribution And Transport Of Suspended Matter, Santa Barbara Channel, California
PDF
Early Jurassic reef eclipse: Paleoecology and sclerochronology of the "Lithiotis" facies bivalves
PDF
Grain-size and Fourier grain-shape sorting of ooids from the Lee Stocking Island area, Exuma Cays, Bahamas
PDF
Marine Geology Of The Baja California Continental Borderland, Mexico
PDF
Biotic recovery from the end-Permian mass extinction: Analysis of biofabric trends in the Lower Triassic Virgin Limestone, southern Nevada
PDF
Dynamic Development Of Jurassic-Pliocene Cold-Seeps, Convergent Margin Of Western North America
PDF
Late-Neogene Paleomagnetic And Planktonic Zonation, Southeast Indian Ocean - Tasman Basin
PDF
Early Diagenesis In Southern California Continental Borderland Sediments
PDF
Wave-Induced Scour Around Natural And Artificial Objects
PDF
The Aleutian-Kamchatka Trench Convergence: An Investigation Of Lithospheric Plate Interaction In The Light Of Modern Geotectonic Theory
PDF
Petrology And Depositional History Of Late-Precambrian - Cambrian Quartzites In The Eastern Mojave Desert, Southeastern California
PDF
Fourier grain-shape analysis of quartz sand from the Santa Monica Bay Littoral Cell, Southern California
PDF
Characterization of geochemical and lithologic variations in Milankovitch cycles: Green River Formation, Wyoming
Asset Metadata
Creator
Britt, Sanford Lloyd
(author)
Core Title
Preservation Of Fossil Fish In The Miocene Monterey Formation Of Southern California
Degree
Master of Science
Degree Program
Geological Sciences
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Geology,OAI-PMH Harvest,paleontology
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Bottjer, David J. (
committee chair
), Fischer, Alfred G. (
committee member
), Gorsline, Donn S. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-10552
Unique identifier
UC11357609
Identifier
1379574.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-10552 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
1379574-0.pdf
Dmrecord
10552
Document Type
Thesis
Rights
Britt, Sanford Lloyd
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
paleontology