T71}: r n
u 1': .. 1"-
},EJV‘wu 3 7,
J" "5 ‘
.122' ’31 1.,€¢'$’

, 51,017

. an. n. .
Avfir.‘ '

 

 

'37..r1~X""u

.1,

'23:.
. m
,

‘ ".10"...

.353 .

'_;_(‘.'5:

,_ A”. .
'm'a/gtg‘... '_

"34+-
{vbmr

.4 ._ "r? ""9.
”~=,-.!;.,-?.{_ '.’ 1’}?
'----11~.<r-.- .-
1 4"

t
a A
d”; w!
., - ,
.~«-‘A,»..
‘rr‘vl'i
.. . I.

, ..
rrp-Qv
p

.';’. '1

”VA” . .~ _,‘._
‘ - , \ .,

fi' . :1:’;". n'. w

. q tJ~>uLorr/- .

y .m; w“. ""l‘ ,

“3" )7- ,,, ._

’n. ”Art

3272;. . 1.

' 'n‘f,".1.';‘ f. 7

‘ ,1

 

.
.a:,-:}._:.::.j. :
1".‘ :71."

{49,13 .4 A

n
In
.. .

. ". Egghzxm'. .
{J flfiggéaif 5;; 3C5 >
fimr‘fiufi—M

 

5&2le

Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

1293 00916 3266

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Distribution of Pleistocene Proboscideans in
Michigan: An Update of Records and a

Co-occurrence Analysis of their Relation to
Surface Saline Water

presented by

Laura Marie Abraczinskas

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master of Science degree in Zoology

M

25%!88501’

 

Date 13W

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

___.__._.__—_,__-———

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before due due.

      
 

[M DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

till 1

MSU lo An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunlty Institution
cmmMI

 

 

THE DISTRIBUTION OF
PLEISTOCENE PROBOSCIDEAN SITES IN MICHIGAN:
AN UPDATE OF RECORDS AND A CO—OCCURRENCE ANALYSIS OF THEIR
RELATION To SURFACE SALINE WATER
By

Laura Marie Abraczinskas

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Zoology

1992

ABSTRACT
THE DISTRIBUTION OF
PLEISTOCENE PROBOSCIDEAN SITES IN MICHIGAN:
AN UPDATE OF RECORDS AND A CO—OCCURRENCE ANALYSIS OF THEIR
RELATION To SURFACE SALINE WATER
By

Laura Marie Abraczinskas

Pleistocene proboscideans from Michigan are the American mastodont
(Mammut americanum) and a mammoth (Mammuthus sp.). Previously published
Michigan records were updated, and literature and museum records were re-
examined. Duplications were consolidated and additional information on
proboscidean sites was added. New or unpublished records were reported on 6
mastodont, 2 mammoth, and 6 Proboscidea Indeterminate sites. The locations of
Michigan proboscidean and salt sites were mapped after proboscidean site totals were
computed. These included 211 mastodonts from 41 counties, 49 mammoths from 29
counties, and 11 Proboscidea Indeterminate sites from 9 counties. A spatial analysis
was conducted to examine the relationship between Michigan proboscidean and
surficial salt localities. Although 35% of proboscidean sites were located within 20
miles of a salt site, statistical tests showed that the spatial arrangement of

proboscidean sites is not significantly different from a random distribution.

For Marian Anna Oleksy

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to Dr. J. Alan Holman, Chairperson of
my Graduate Guidance Committee, who initiated the basic concept of this research,
and contributed to all phases of the project. I also wish to thank the members of my
committee, Dr. Martin Hetherington and Dr. David Long for their guidance and
assistance with editing this thesis. Dr. David Westjohn of the United States
Geological Survey provided most of the salt locality data for the analysis.

Mr. Ron Richards of the Indiana State Museum and Memorials kindly
allowed me to utilize the Indiana State Museum proboscidean collection for
comparison with Michigan material. I extend my gratitude to Mark Swartz for all of
his technical assistance with mapping and computer operations, as well as support and
encouragement throughout this project. Thanks to Joe Henig for plotting data on the
maps. I am indebted to Dr. Manfred Earl Swartz of Ferris State University for
advice and assistance with the statistical tests; and to Mr. Terry Trier, of the Zoology
Department, Michigan State University, for operating the SYSTAT statistical
programs. Mr. Walt Peebles and the MSU Instructional Media Center provided
photographic services.

I am grateful to the persons who called specific sites and information to the

attention of the Michigan State University Museum: James and John Beavers,

iv

Richard Gibson, Darrell Hughes, the late Dr. Ronald Kapp, Mildred Malkin, Steve
Mathis, Charles Martinez, Walter Morrow, Theodore Sprague, and Jerry Van Horn.
Library and information search assistance was provided by the staff of the
Government Documents Division of the Library of Michigan, Lansing; Diana Rivera
and the Staff of the Michigan State University Map Library; Diane Baclawski of the
Michigan State University Geology Library; and the Science Division of the Michigan
State University Library. The Zoology Department provided funds for a portion of
this research. Computer facilities were provided by the Mammalogy Division of the
Michigan State University Museum.

I would also like to thank the members of my family: Ray, Katherine, Diane,
Carol, and David Abraczinskas; the Oleksys; and the Pischners for their love and
support. Thanks to Nancy Hicks, Karen Remus Bauer, Sally and Joe Panek, Kathleen
Derouin Naeger, Nicole DeGalan, Jim and Mary Smania, Richard and Dawn Kemp,
Dr. Roseann Swartz, Dr. Chris Carmichael, Jamie DeWitt, and my academic siblings,
Dan Brinkrnan and Lisa Hallock for friendship, encouragement, and for believing in

me.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..............................
LIST OF FIGURES ..............................
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION ............................
II. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................

Michigan Proboscidean Sites ...................
Documentation of Proboscideans Associated with Salt . . . .
Identification of Proboscidean Skeletal Elements .......
Michigan Salt Sites .........................

III. SYSTEMATIC PALEONTOLOGY .................

Methods ................................
Identification of Material ...................
Michigan Proboscidean Locality Data ...........
Format of Records .......................
Classification ..........................

Mammut americanum ........................
Mammut americanum in North America ..........
Update of Michigan Mammut americanum Records . . .

Allegan County ......................
Berrien County ......................
Eaton County .......................
Genesee County ......................
Hillsdale County ......................
Isabella County ......................

vi

X

xii

1

10

12

15
15
16
16
18

18
18
19
19
20

29
29

Page

Chapter

Kalamazoo County .................... 31
Kent County ........................ 31
Lenawee County ...................... 32
Montcalm County ..................... 33
Newaygo County ..................... 33
Oakland County ...................... 34
Oceana County ....................... 35
Ottawa County ....................... 35
Saginaw County ...................... 36

St. Joseph County ..................... 37
Shiawassee County .................... 37
VanBuren County ..................... 37
Washtenaw County .................... 38
Wayne County ....................... 39
New Michigan Mammut americanum Records ...... 40
Barry County ........................ 4O
Eaton County ....................... 4O
Gratiot County ....................... 42
Kent County ........................ 42
Sanilac County ....................... 42
Washtenaw County .................... 43
Mammut americanum Tooth Measurements ........ 43
Mammuthus Sp. ........................... 45
Mammuthus sp. in North America ............. 45
Update of Michigan Mammuthus sp. Records ....... 47
Arenac County ....................... 47
Berrien County ...................... 48
Eaton County ....................... 48
Ingham County ...................... 49
Jackson County ...................... 49
Saginaw County ...................... 54
Shiawassee County .................... 54
New Michigan Mammuthus sp. Records .......... 55
Berrien County ...................... 55
Tuscola County ...................... 55
Mammuthus Sp. Tooth Measurements ........... 55

vii

Page

Chapter
Proboscidea Indeterminate ..................... 58
New Michigan Records .................... 58
Allegan County ...................... 58
Ingham County ...................... 58
Jackson County ...................... 58
Kent County ........................ 59
Ottawa County ....................... 59
Summary of Michigan Proboscidean Records ......... 60
IV. CO-OCCURRENCE ANALYSIS .................. 61
Methods ................................ 61
Utilization of Locality Data ................. 62
Calculation of Distances ................... 63
Frequency Distributions .................... 63
Statistical Tests ......................... 64
Results ................................. 66
Site Distances .......................... 66
Statistical Tests ......................... 68
V. DISCUSSION .............................. 71
Analytic Limitations and Suggestions ............ 73
APPENDICES ............................. 75
Appendix A Michigan Mastodont Data .......... 75
Appendix B Michigan Mammoth Data .......... 81
Appendix C Michigan Proboscidea Indeterminate Data 83
Appendix D Michigan Salt Site Data ........... 84
REFERENCES CITED ........................ 86

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Michigan State University Museum Mammur americanwn
Tooth Measurements (in mm) ................. 46

Table 2. Michigan State University Museum Mammuthus sp.
Tooth Measurements (in mm) ................. 57

ix

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

LIST OF FIGURES

The distribution of Pleistocene proboscideans
in Michigan ........................... 3
Jaws of the Keith site mastodont (MSUVP 1112) . . . . 22

Posterior view of a Keith site mastodont thoracic
vertebra with uneven wear on the zygapophyseal
facets (MSUVP 1112) .................... 23

Posterior view of a Keith site mastodont thoracic
vertebra with uneven wear on the zygapophyseal
facets (MSUVP 1112) .................... 24

Left M1 of the Mount Pleasant site mastodont
(MSUVP 1274) ........................ 30

Right Ml of the Beavers site mastodont (uncatalogued) . 41

Lingual surface of the left M3 of the Warren mammoth
(MSUVP 1276) ........................ 50

Left M3 of the Warren mammoth (MSUVP 1276)
A. Occlusal surface; B. Labial surface ......... 51

Posterior view of the Locey site mammoth jaws
(MSUVP 1283) ........................ 52

Figure 10. Hyoid bones from the Locey site mammoth

(MSUVP1283) A. Stylohyoid; B. Thyrohyoids . . 53

Figure 11. The distribution of Pleistocene proboscideans

and salt sites in Michigan .................. 67

Figure 12. Frequency distribution of proboscidean

sites relative to distance from salt .............. 69

Page

Figure 13. Frequency distributions of actual and random
proboscidean sites relative to distance from Salt ..... 70

xi

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AMNH: American Museum of Natural History

BETA-(sample number): Beta-analytic Laboratory radiocarbon date, Coral Gables,
Florida

ISM: Indiana State Museum and Memorials

M-(sample number): University of Michigan Memorial-Phoenix Project radiocarbon
date, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (Crane and Griffin, 1958)

MSUVP: Michigan State University Museum Vertebrate Paleontology Collection
UMMP: University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology

ybp: years before present

xii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The goal of this research project is to determine if there is a spatial
relationship between sites at which proboscidean remains have been discovered and
surficial salt sites. To meet this goal, the following objectives have been set:

1) to integrate previously published proboscidean records in Michigan, and provide
an update on sites as more information has become available.

2) to provide reports of new or unpublished records.

3) to map the locations of Michigan proboscidean and salt sites.

4) to examine the spatial relationship between proboscidean sites and surficial salt
localities in Michigan, by utilization of a co—occurrence analysis.

The earliest recorded proboscidean find in Michigan is an American mastodont
tooth found in 1834 or 1835 along Rice Creek in Calhoun County (Skeels, 1962). A
few years later, mammoth remains were recovered near the bank of the Paw Paw
River in Van Buren County (Lanman, 1839). MacAlpin (1940) believes this was
probably a mastodont. Since the recording of these early finds, people have
continued to recover bones and teeth of Pleistocene proboscideans in the area that is
now Michigan. Specifically, these proboscideans are the American mastodont

(Mammut americanum) and a mammoth (Mammuthus sp.).

2
Several researchers have published reports on locality records and the

distribution of proboscideans in Michigan (Dice, 1920; Hay, 1923; MacAlpin, 1940;
Skeels, 1962; Holman, et al., 1986; Holman, 1988; Holman, et al., 1988; Shoshani,
1989). All known Michigan proboscidean sites occur in the southern half of the
lower peninsula below a line termed the Mason-Quimby line (Holman, 1975; Holman,
1988; Holman et al., 1988; Holman, 1991) (Figure 1). Presently, all reported
records of extinct Pleistocene vertebrates from Michigan occur south of the Mason-
Quimby line (Holman, 1991). Radiocarbon dates indicate that the existence of
mastodonts and mammoths in Michigan was concentrated in a geologically short
period of time-between 12,000 and 10,000 years before present (ybp), and it has been
suggested that this concentration of proboscideans is possibly correlated with available
surficial salt deposits located in Michigan’s lower peninsula (Holman, et al., 1988).
Surface saline water in Michigan during the Pleistocene may have been present
in the form of salt seeps or shallow pools associated with salt springs (Holman, et al.,
1988). Salt deposits in Michigan originated mainly from Silurian and Devonian
evaporative marine waters in the Michigan Basin. Although most of Michigans’
surface is presently covered with glacial deposits, the Michigan Basin has one of the
most extensive accumulations of sodium chloride and brines in the world (Dorr and
Eschman, 1970). Historically, numerous salt spring and salt marsh localities existed
in the southern half of Michigan’s lower peninsula. This occurrence of salt springs in
the lower peninsula was known to Native Americans before the coming of European
settlers. Native Americans and early French settlers manufactured salt from a spring

on the Rouge River in Wayne County (Hubbard, 1839). Early settlers attempted to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A p 6 A
D A
D A
A A
o A ‘9
0“ g °c::
IDD ‘
A A A
A A
A L A. a
A A A
A A
A D A
A
0A U A U U-
k A A A A
A
AA DC A A“
{305 A a 3A A
(A AA 0 §
0 A d‘
A A 6 A
6 A A D
A,z A A A
A
/n AA A A A a
,- n Au CIg ’ls
l A
C] Mammoth

A Mastodont

O Proboscidea Indeterminate

 

-- Mason-Quimby Line

 

 

Figure 1. The distribution of Pleistocene proboscideans in Michigan

4

recover salt from the waters of springs near Saline in Washtenaw County, and at Salt
River in Macomb County (Cook, 1914).

In 1835, the Constitutional Convention submitted to Congress a request to
reserve areas with salt springs from public sale. By the 1837 Act of Congress
admitting Michigan to the Union, authorities were permitted to select 72 sections of
salt lands for state use. Dr. Douglass Houghton was appointed State Geologist at the
first meeting of the Legislature, and immediately began to explore areas with salt
springs (Cook, 1914). In 1837, Houghton devoted considerable work to the
examination of brine springs in the lower peninsula. He noted important indications
of saline water in five distinct areas: on the Grand River in Kent County; on the
Maple River in Clinton and Gratiot Counties; on the Tittabawasee River in Midland
County; in Macomb County; and on the Saline River in Washtenaw County
(Houghton, 1838).

Other salt springs have been reported from the Counties of Huron (Lane,
1900); Monroe (Winchell, 1861; Sherzer, 1900); Montcalm (Douglass, 1840);
Muskegon (Douglass, 1840); Saginaw (Houghton, 1838); and Wayne (Hubbard,
1839). Salt licks are known from the Counties of Huron (Lane, 1900); Lenawee
(Winchell, 1864); Tuscola (Davis, 1909); and Wayne (Hubbard, 1839). Between the
mid and late-18005, many salt works were established in these areas. In 1841 a State
salt well was drilled at the Grand River in Kent County, and another under

construction at the Tittabawasse River in Midland County (Cook, 1912, 1914).

5

The salt industry was an increasingly important part of Michigan’s economy in
the mid to late—18008. In 1860, only one Michigan salt company was in operation
and by 1886, the number of active salt companies reached a maximum at 136 (Cook,
1914). In 1905 Michigan’s salt production exceeded that of all other states, and in
1908, Michigan ranked highest for value and quantity of salt produced (Cook, 1914).
Presently, the salt deposits in Michigan are important for the manufacture of
chemicals.

Near-surface saline ground water presently exists in Michigan’s lower
peninsula (Peale, 1886; Lane, 1899a, 1899b; Long, et al., 1988). Long, et al. (1988)
reported that for ground water in the East-central Michigan basin, the source of the
salinity and the cause of its present distribution are unclear. The hypothesis was that
the source of salinity is brines advecting or diffusing upward into near-surface water
and the cause of the salinity distribution is the slow flushing of water in the
argillaceous sediments by recent meteoric water. Results of their investigations
indicated that the saline ground water is a mixture of modern-day meteoric water and
water that recharged the aquifers at a time when the climate was much cooler.

Modern proboscideans have a physiological need for sodium, and will travel to
sodium-rich areas to correct a deficit. It has been shown by Wier (1972) that the
sodium budget of elephants may be precarious, and sodium metabolism in
proboscideans is considered primitive (Parker and Toots, 1980). Studies of the spatial
patterns of elephants have shown that their distribution is based on the availability and
distribution of environmental sodium. Wier (1972) demonstrated that movements of

African elephants in Zimbabwe were governed by the availability and concentration of

6

sodium in water holes. Numbers of elephants were higher at drinking holes with
higher sodium concentrations, and smaller numbers were recorded from water holes
with lower sodium content. Few elephants were found in areas lacking in sodium,
even when suitable vegetation was present.

In addition to drinking water with a high concentration of sodium, elephants
will also consume salt-rich soil and utilize salt licks (French, 1945). Elephants were
observed removing soil from a slit in the bank of the Nile River through which
sodium-rich water was seeping (Wier, 1973). Redmond (1984) studied African forest
elephants who repeatedly descended into a cave to obtain salt. The elephants used
their tusks scrape salt deposits from the cave walls, then used their trunks to try to
catch this loosened soil before it fell to the muddy cave floor. The salt-rich soil was
transferred from the trunk to the mouth, ground with the molars and then swallowed.
Elephants are also known to consume food with high sodium levels (Dougall, et al.
1964; Laws, et al. 1975).

Numerous North American fossil localities provide evidence of extinct
proboscideans recovered directly from salt springs or salt deposits. A Pleistocene
fauna including proboscideans was excavated from sulfur and salt springs at Big Bone
Lick in Boone County, Kentucky (Schultz, et al., 1963, 1967). Numerous Pleistocene
mammals including proboscideans were recovered from salt spring deposits at
Saltville in Smyth County, Virginia (Ray, et al., 1967). Hay (1912, 1924) reported
proboscidean remains from a salt spring in Dearborn County, Indiana. Teeth of a
mammoth were excavated from salt springs near the Saline River in Gallatin County,

Illinois (Hay, 1923). Hartnagel and Bishop (1922) reported a mastodont found near a

7
salt spring at Tompkins County, New York. Hay (1924) described numerous

proboscidean remains from salt works and salt deposits in Webster, Bienville, Winn,
Iberia, and St. Mary Counties in Louisiana. Mammoth and mastodont bones were
found in a saline marsh in Benton County, Missouri (Hay, 1924). A mastodont was
discovered at Kimmswick in Eastern Missouri (Graham, et al., 1981). Saunders
(1988) listed this site as a ”mineral lick” with 40 identified vertebrate species.
Another Missouri find is a tusk recovered from a "lick" in Jackson County (Hay,
1924).

Proboscideans living in Michigan during the Pleistocene may have utilized
surficial sodium. Two operational assumptions of this project were that fossil
proboscideans had a sodium budget similar to that of modern proboscideans; and that
surficial salt existed during the time when proboscideans lived in the Pleistocene of

Michigan.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

A literature search was performed to obtain information on: Michigan
proboscidean records; proboscideans associated with salt; identification of
proboscidean skeletal elements; and Michigan salt sites.

Mi hi Pr id i

Records of proboscidean finds in Michigan are well-documented. Early
records were reported by Dice (1920), Fox (n.d.), Hay (1923), Hubbard (1840,
1841), Lane (1902, 1906), lanman (1839), MacCurdy (1920), and Winchell (1861,
1864). MacAlpin (1940) condensed the above citations and museum records and
published a census of mastodont (Mammut americanum) records from 1839 to 1939.
Skeels (1962) updated MacAlpin (1940) and reported records of both mastodonts and
mammoths from letters, news articles and museum entries. This was the first
compilation of mammoth (Mammuthus sp.) records in Michigan. The site listings of
Dice (1920), Fox (n.d.), Hay (1923), Lane (1902, 1906), Sherzer (1927), and
Winchell (1861) were incorporated into Skeels’ (1962) publication.

Researchers from Michigan museums and other institutions published
additional records of proboscidean finds. Hatt (1965b) listed fossil Proboscidea from

The Cranbrook Institute of Science. Frankforter (1966) reported new proboscidean

9
records from The Grand Rapids Public Museum. Wilson (1967) published records of

Pleistocene vertebrates in Michigan and listed additional proboscidean finds. Holman,
et a1. (1986) provided an update to Wilson (1967) and added records of Pleistocene
vertebrate discoveries since 1967. This comprehensive work included a wealth of
information on new proboscidean sites as well as pollen spectra and radiocarbon
dates. Included were updates of sites previously reported by Skeels (1962) and
Wilson (1967). Shoshani (1989) provided an update to Holman, et a1. (1986) and
listed recently recovered material and identified a previously recorded ”Proboscidea
Indeterminate” specimen as that of a mastodont.

' n f r i A i wi

In order to obtain literature on proboscideans associated with salt, a series of
computer-aided literature searches was done at the Michigan State University Library.
The databases Biological Abstracts (BIOSIS), Dissertation Abstracts, and Zoological
Record were searched for the purpose of locating relevant information. Two searches
were completed for each database. The following key words were used in the initial
search: Elephant, Proboscidea, Proboscidean, Mammoth, Mastodont, Mammuthus,
Mammut, Loxodonta africana, and Elephas maximus. A second search paired the
above-listed key words with the terms Salt, Sodium, and Saline.

These searches were run with the Dissertation Abstracts, Biological Abstracts,
and Zoological Record databases. The initial search yielded 142 sources from
Dissertation Abstracts, 2396 citations from Biological Abstracts, and 1538 documents
from Zoological Record. The second search yielded 1 source from Dissertation

Abstracts, 35 documents from Biological Abstracts, and 4 documents from Zoological

10

Record. Documents and abstracts were obtained and reviewed for information
pertinent to this study.

An additional computer—aided literature search was carried out at the Michigan
State University Library to locate information on the identification of proboscidean
skeletal material. This search utilized the Dissertation Abstracts, Biological
Abstracts, and Zoological Record databases. The terms Mammut, Mammuthus,
Mastodont, and Mammoth were paired with the terms Description, Determination,
Morphology, Osteology, and Skeletal. This search resulted in 11 sources from
Dissertation Abstracts, 47 documents from Biological Abstracts, and 76 documents
from Zoological Record. The documents and abstracts were located and reviewed for
pertinent information.
Mighiga_n Salt Sites

The majority of Michigan salt locality records were provided by Dr. David
Westjohn of the United States Geological Survey (Holman, et a1. 1988; D. Westjohn,
personal communication, November 20, 1987; June 12, 1991). These records were
compiled from early Michigan Geological Survey Reports and United States
Geological Survey files. Additional salt locality information was obtained through
literature searches carried out at the Michigan State University Library and The
Library of Michigan. The Michigan Geological index of Martin and Straight (1956)
provided references to publications on historical salt licks, salt springs, and State
springs of Michigan. More recent publications, such as Yates (1987) provided further

information on historical salt localities in Michigan. A list of surficial salt localities

11

used in this study is provided in Appendix D.

CHAPTER III

SYSTEMATIC PALEONTOLOGY

The proboscideans that lived in Michigan during the Pleistocene are the
American mastodont (Mammut americanum) and a mammoth (Mammuthus sp.). The
vernacular name for Mammut americanum is ”mastodont", which Stems from the
Greek mast (nipple or breast) and odont (tooth) and literally means ”nipple or breast
tooth”. This term describes the paired cusps on the occlusal surface of each tooth.
These paired cusps are termed lophs or ridge crests and are composed of dentine,
covered by enamel. The substance cementum is found between the lophs. Many
researchers refer to Mammut americanum as a "mastodon" but the more precise term
"mastodont" is preferred and will be used throughout this paper.

Mammoth teeth are easily distinguished from those of the mastodont. They
consist of a series of compressed plates of dentine surrounded by a layer of enamel
and held together with cementum. Dental characteristics of the third upper molars
(M’) have traditionally formed the basis of North American mammoth taxonomy.
These characteristics include thickness of enamel, lamellar frequency, and plate
number. Phyletic changes in the dentition of Elephantids include: a continuous
increase in the number of plates of individual teeth; an increase in lamellar frequency;

thinning of enamel; and an increase in crown height of unwom molars as compared to

12

13
crown width (Kurten and Anderson, 1980).

Mammoths in Michigan have been given varying names in the literature:
Elephas primigenius (Case, et al. 1935; Hay, 1923; Fox, n.d.); Elephas columbi
(Dice, 1920; Hay, 1923); Mammuthus columbi (Agenbroad, 1984); Mammuthus
jefiersoni (Frankforter, 1966; Hatt, 1965b; Holman, et al. 1986; Holman, 1988;
Holman, et al. 1988; Skeels, 1962; Wilson, 1967); and Mammuthus sp. (Holman,
1991; Shoshani, 1989). Between 1962 and 1988, researchers in Michigan museums
and institutions referred to mammoths recovered in Michigan as Jefferson mammoths
(Mammuthus jefi’ersoni). Currently, the systematics of North American mammoth
species is in a state of uncertainty, and researchers hold varying views on the validity
of mammoth species names.

Kurten and Anderson (1980) provisionally recognize four North American
mammoth species or ”stages” (Mammuthus meridionalis, Mammuthus columbi,
Mammuthus jefi’ersoni, and Mammuthus primigenius) as a series of successional
populations. Kurten and Anderson (1980) refer to Osbom’s (1922, 1942) Mammuthus
jefiersonii as being the more progressive evolutionary form, Mammuthus columbi as
an intermediate form, and consider Mammuthus imperator to be synonymous with
Mammuthus columbi. They based this arrangement on the idea that Osborn’s (1942)
name change of Mammuthus columbi to Mammuthus jefl'ersonii had been ignored.

Others (e.g., Agenbroad, 1984; Graham, 1986; Maglio, 1973) recognize three
North American species of mammoth- Mammuthus meridionalis, Mammuthus
imperator, Mammuthus columbi and the Wisconsinan immigrant, Mammuthus

primigenius, and consider Mammuthus jeflemonii to be a synonym of

l4
Mammuthus columbi. Maglio (1973) described events related to the confusion

surrounding the names Mammuthus columbi and Mammuthus jefl‘ersonii, and presented

a solution:

The great confusion associated with the name M. columbi resulted in
part from Falconer’s inadequate holotype specimen and from Osbom’s
(1922) selection of two neotype specimens (AMNH 13707) both of
which are very close to M. imperator, if not actually identical to it.
Osborn concluded that the holotypes of imperator and columbi were
probably conspecific, although in later publications he retained both
names. For the more progressive elephant material that had previously
been referred to M. columbi, Osborn proposed the specific name
jefiersonii. Although Osborn was correct in considering Falconer’s
original holotype specimen as inadequate for species diagnosis, there is
little evidence that his neotype accurately reflects the true characters of
the original. Thus it is probably best at present to retain Leidy’s name
imperator for the more primitive of these mammoths and Falconer’s
name columbi for the more progressive stages. This also conforms
with the most common usage of these names.

Mammuthus "jefirersonii" is not recognized as a valid species by Graham (1986) but
merely as a chronoclinal and/or a geoclinal variant of Mammuthus columbi.
However, it should be considered a valid biological species if contemporaneous and
sympatric populations of Mammuthus columbi and Mammuthus ”jefi’ersonii" can be
documented (Graham, 1986).

Because it is difficult to designate mammoth species names to individual teeth
or bones, as measurements often overlap, Kurten and Anderson (1980) propose that
all mammoths recovered be referred to Mammuthus sp. until a comprehensive
systematic study of mammoth taxonomy is carried out. Following Shoshani (1989)

and Holman (1991), the name Mammuthus sp. is used for Michigan mammoths

15
discussed in this paper.

A problem in the Michigan proboscidean literature is that certain sites have
been cited repeatedly with different names, resulting in numerous duplieations.
MacAlpin (1940) and Skeels (1962), for example, have duplicated reports on museum
specimens. Also, failure to document original sources has resulted in the same site
being counted more than once, some as many as five times! In addition, duplications
occurred when localities were inexactly estimated by one researcher, and then exactly
recorded by another. Thus, locality information on Michigan proboscideans needed
to be re-examined and each site traced through the literature to obtain an accurate
total number of proboscidean finds in Michigan. Once the locality information was

corrected and brought to date, it could be used in the co-occurrence analysis.

Methods

The methods for identification of material, compilation of Michigan
Proboscidean locality data, formatting of records, and classification are described in
this section.
Idantifigatign gf Material

Proboscidean material in the Michigan State University Museum, as well as
new specimens brought in for identification were studied and all mastodont and
mammoth teeth identified. Mastodont tooth placement was determined by using the
methods of Hay (1912), with the symbols of Osborn (1936) to indicate specific teeth.
The mastodont teeth were measured following the techniques of Saunders (1977).

Mammoth teeth were measured with techniques of Maglio (1973). Skeletal elements

16

were identified by utilizing comparative material from the Michigan State University
Museum Vertebrate Paleontology Collection (MSUVP), the Indiana State Museum and
Memorials (ISM) Pleistocene Vertebrate Collections, and the publications of Hay
(1912), Olsen (1972), Osborn (1936, 1942), and Warren (1852). Fragmentary
skeletal material (including tusks) that could not be identified as Mammut americanwn
or Mammuthus sp. was designated Proboscidea Indeterminate.
Mighigaa Prgbgscidm mama Data

Published proboscidean sites were traced through the literature. Plat books,
county atlases, and historical county records were used to locate specific site data
when the names of land owners were published (e.g. Hay, 1923; and Lane, 1902;
1906). Romig (1986) was used to locate names of Michigan places that have changed
or disappeared from maps since the publication of early records. A database of
Michigan records was compiled and duplications noted. Updates of Michigan
proboscidean records and reports of new sites are presented in this chapter. Compiled
lists of all known Michigan mastodont, mammoth and Proboscidea Indeterminate sites
are presented in tabular form in Appendices A, B, and C, respectively.
F rm f r

The following lists of records update the summary of Shoshani (1989), and use
the format established by Holman et al. (1986). In several cases, previously
published proboscidean records have been re-discussed if more information has
become available. Records for material in the Michigan State University Museum
Vertebrate Paleontology Division, and for new specimens I have observed are fully

listed. Sites with minor updated information are partially listed, with references to

17
the primary citations.

These records are listed under alphabetically arranged Michigan counties. The
specific elements included under each heading are described below.

Site Name: When bones are discovered on public property, sites are named on
the basis of an associated geographical feature, but when sites are discovered on
private property, they are usually termed after the owner. Recent sites (e.g. ,
Holman, et al. 1986; Shoshani, 1989) have been predominately named after land
owners, whereas sites in earlier records (e.g., Hay, 1923; Skeels, 1962; and
MacAlpin, 1940) generally were named on the basis of geographical features such as
cities, towns, rivers, lakes, bogs, or islands.

Township Name: Current survey township names for Michigan Counties were
obtained from Mapbook of Michigan Counties (Lansing: TwoPeninsula Press, 1984).
In cases where townships have been incorporated into expanded city limits, and do
not appear on current maps, older plat books or atlases were used to locate townships.
In instances where sites were located within limits of cities, only the city name is
listed.

Section Number and Coordinates: The section number follows the Township
name, with quarter sections designated if available. For sites described as distance in
miles from a certain town or landmark, the section number was estimated and the
locality designated as "approximate". Tier (T.) and Range (R.) coordinates of the
Political Land Survey System were obtained from Mapbook of Michigan Counties
(Lansing: TwoPeninsula Press, 1984), or county atlases and plat books. These

coordinates designate survey townships.

18
Age: The age of the site is designated on the basis of radiocarbon dates (with

laboratory reference number included) or stratigraphic occurrence.

Material: Skeletal elements and teeth from each site are described, and known
museum numbers are provided. Names of persons who discovered specimens, the
situation in which the material was recovered, and the date of collection are included.

Remarks: Remarks include the present location of the fossils as well as any
additional clarifying comments.

Literature: All known associated literature including journal papers, certain
news articles, and personal communication citations are listed.

Classifigatjgn
The classification presented in this paper follows Simpson (1945) and Olsen

(1972) for the American mastodont, and Simpson (1945) for the mammoth.

Class MAMMALIA Linnaeus, 1758
Order PROBOSCIDEA Illiger, 1811
Family MAMMUTIDAE Cabrera, 1929
Genus MAMM UT Blumenbach, 1799

MAMM UT AMERICANUM (Kerr, 1792) American mastodont

WW
Remains of the American mastodont (Mammut americanum) have been found
throughout the United States (e.g., Lundelius, et al. 1983; King and Saunders, 1984),

Canada (Dreimanis, 1967; Harington, 1977; McAndrews and Jackson, 1988; Osborn,

19
1936), and Mexico (Irwin-Williams, 1967). Both mammoth and mastodont teeth have

been recovered from the continental shelf of the Atlantic (Odale, et al. 1987;
Whitrnore, et al. 1967). Teeth have been dredged from submerged shorelines as deep
as 120 meters. Mastodonts commonly inhabited lowland areas, but Miller (1987)
reported remains of two mastodont individuals recovered from a Utah sinkhole site
2,981 meters (9,780 feet) in altitude. This is the highest elevation on record for a
mastodont site.

Mastodonts in Michigan are usually recovered from low boggy areas. It is
currently thought that these animals became mired after falling through the vegetation
layer of quaking bogs, and their bones were preserved in the acidic sediments
(Holman, 1975; 1991). Recent expansion of industrial and agricultural practices, and
construction of subdivisions and highways has precipitated additional discoveries Of

mastodonts in Michigan.

WWW
ALLEGAN COUNTY

1. Keith Site, near Plainwell, Gunplain Township, SE 14, NW 14, NW ‘A of Section
10, T. l N., R. 11 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: (MSUVP 1112) right Mh
many vertebrae, ribs, sacrum, and many fragments found at a depth of 1.68 meters
(5.5 feet) in marl by Mr. Dale Keith while digging a drainage ditch in September,
1945. Remarks: This site was originally published by Skeels (1962) who listed an
additional lower jaw with teeth and many foot bones that presently cannot be located.

An extensive file, including maps and photos of the Site and the lower jaw (Figure 2)

20

is located in the Michigan State University Museum Vertebrate Paleontology Division
records. Several of the thoracic vertebrae exhibit uneven wear on the zygapophyseal

facets (Figures 3 and 4). Literature: Skeels (1962).

2. Fleser Site, four miles west Of Door, Salem Township, approximately Section 24,
T. 4 N., R. 13 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: jawbone with teeth secured by
Frank Fleser and others around 1900. Remarks: This site was reported by Hay
(1923), Lane (1902) and MacAlpin (1940) as "...four miles west of Door...”.
According to the 1895 Illustrated Atlas of Allegan County (Racine: Kace Publishing
Co.), Mr. Fleser owned land in Section 24 of T. 4 N., R. 13 W., which is exactly
four miles west of Door. Assuming that Mr. Fleser found the mastodont jaw on his
property, this site is estimated to be in Section 24 of T. 4 N., R. 13 W. Literature:

Hay (1923), Lane (1902), and MacAlpin (1940).

BERRIEN COUNTY

1. Eau Claire, Pipestone Township, Section 32, T. 5 S., R. 17 W. Age: late
Pleistocene. Material: (MSUVP 1277) right M2, left M2 with part of lower left jaw
ramus collected at Eau Claire by B.L. Comstock on August 17, 1896. Remarks:
According to the State Agricultural College Museum Ledger, ”...six molars, part of
lower jaw, and other bones from B.L. Comstock; collected at Eau Claire, August 17 ,
1896”. Only the two molars and part of the lower jaw remain in the Michigan State
University Museum Vertebrate Paleontology Collection. The whereabouts of the four

additional teeth, and the other bones is unknown. Dice (1920) stated that " . . .about

21

Figure 2. Jaws of the Keith site mastodont (MSUVP 1112)

22

 

23

 

5 5.13

Figure 3. Posterior view of a Keith site mastodont thoracic vertebra with
uneven wear on the zygapophyseal facets (MSUVP 1112)

24

 

Figure 4. Posterior view of a Keith site mastodont thoracic vertebra with
uneven wear on the zygapophyseal facets (MSUVP 1112)

25
1897 the teeth of a mastodon were dug up by a dredge within the village limits of Eau

Claire. Their disposition is unknown”. Fox (n.d.) reported that ”...about 1897 the
teeth of a mastodon, (number unknown) were dug up by a dredge within. the village
limits of Eau Claire. The teeth were taken to Benton Harbor and for a time exhibited
in a store there. Their final disposition is unknown" . It is highly probable that
MSUVP 1277 was reported by Dice (1920) and Fox (n.d.). Hay (1923), Lane
(1902), and MacAlpin (1940) have briefly reported on this specimen. Hay (1923)
remarked that ”the teeth are extraordinarily large. . . " Literature: Dice (1920) Fox

(n.d.), Hay (1923), Lane (1902), and MacAlpin (1940).

2. Terre Coupe (Dayton), NE V4 of Section 7, T. 8 S., R. 18 W. Age: late
Pleistocene. Material: right lower jaw ramus with a supemumerary molar M)
collected at Terre Coupe by A. H. Taylor in 1854. Remarks: This site has been
reported in Hay (1923), Lapham (1855), Warren (1855) and Winchell (1864), but
section and township information were not provided. Hay (1923) stated "this place
has disappeared from the maps; but it is said to have been situated on the railroad, 11
miles west of Niles, not far east of Galien". Terre Coupe was located in the NW 14
of Section 7, T. 8 S. R. 18 W. (1929 Atlas and Plat Book of Berrien County,
Michigan. Rockford: The Thrift Press Map Makers), and was renamed Dayton
between 1853 and 1860 (Fox, 1924; Romig, 1986). I believe this specimen is the
same as that reported by MacAlpin (1940) as "Galien, approximately Section 1, T. 8
S., R. 19 W.” MacAlpin’s (1940) approximation is adjacent to the actual site

location. Literature: Hay (1923), Lapham (1855), MacAlpin (1940), Warren (1855),

26
and Winchell (1864).

EATON COUNTY

1. Narrow Lake Site, Brookfield Township, approximately Section 33, T. 1 N., R. 4
W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: righth collected by Mr. Ozeltine in 1918.
Remarks: The material was "...found in marl while digging a channel to Narrow
Lake" (M. Malkin, personal communication). MacAlpin (1940) reported that ”teeth
and bones" were found at this Site. Mildred Malkin of Haslett, Michigan is in
possession of the right M2, and received it from Loren Ozeltine (grandson of the
person who found it) on February 6, 1968. The whereabouts of the remaining
material originally reported in MacAlpin (1940) is unknown. Literature: MacAlpin
(1940); Mildred Malkin, personal communication, May 9, 1991, when the mastodont
tooth from Narrow Lake was brought to the Michigan State University Museum for

identification.

2. Cummings Farm Site, near Bellevue, Bellevue Township, SW 14 of Section 5, T.
1 N., R. 6 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: bones; including a femur, tusk, and
four upper teeth. Remarks: Hay (1923) reported that mastodont remains were
"...found on the farm of Mr. Charles Cummings. It [the animal] was a large one, the
femur having a length of 3 feet 10 inches and one tusk was over 12 feet in length.
Four teeth belonged to the upper jaw. The remains must have been found before
1879." The bones were found ”...in 1876 in a piece of swamp near his home...”

(1891 Portrait and Biographical Album of Barry and Eaton Counties, Michigan.

27
Chicago: Chapman Bros., pp. 458-459). The Cummings’ farm was located in the

SW 1A of Section 5, T. l N., R. 6 W. (1873 Atlas of Eaton County, Michigan.
Philadelphia: C. O. Titus Publishers). MacAlpin (1940) listed a tusk, teeth and
bones of a mastodont from Bellevue, in Section 28, T. l N., R. 6 W. I believe these
Bellevue sites reported by Hay ( 1923) and MacAlpin (1940) to be the same.

Literature: Hay (1923) and MacAlpin (1940).

3. Van Neste Farm Site, near Mulliken, Roxand Township, NE 1A of NE 1A of
Section 6 or NW 1/4 of NW 1A of Section 5, T. 4 N., R. 5 W. Age: late
Pleistocene. Material: (MSUVP 1290) left lower jaw ramus with M2 and M3, with
many fragments of ribs and vertebrae, found in July, 1959 by Mr. Van Neste, and
excavated by R. Carroll, V. Hogg, and H. Klippell on July 9, 1959. Remarks:
Skeels (1962) reported this specimen as Michigan State University Museum No.1130,
found 2 miles west and 1 mile north of Mulliken, Ionia County. The site is located in
Baton County, not Ionia County as originally reported. The Van Neste Farm was
located in the NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 6 and the NW 1,4 of NW ‘A of Section 5, T.
4 N., R. 5 W. (195 7 Farm Plat Book, Eaton County, Michigan. Rockford:

Rockford Map Publishers). The specimen is currently on exhibit at the Michigan

State University Museum. Literature: Skeels (1962).

4. Parker Site, near Mulliken, Roxand Township, SW V4 of Section 20, T. 4 N., R.
5 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: (MSUVP 1269) right M2 and proximal left

humerus collected by Tom Nelson on October 31, 1966. Remarks: This site was

28
reported in Holman et a1. (1986). Additional parts of the skeleton are present at the

Alma College Department of Biology. The material in the Michigan State University
Museum Vertebrate Paleontology Collection was received from Mr. Keith Warner on

November 1, 1966. Literature: Holman et al. (1986).

GENESEE COUNTY

1. Johnson Site, Richfield Township, Section 9, T. 8 N., R. 8 E. Age: 12,500 :I:
500 ybp (Shoshani, 1989). Material: Material and excavation details are listed in
Holman et al. (1986) and Shoshani (1989). Remarks: This site was reported as
Section 9, T. 7 N., R. 8 E. by Holman et al. (1986) and Shoshani (1989). The actual
locality is Section 9, T. 8 N ., R. 8 E. (1979 Land Atlas and Plat Book, Genesee
County, Michigan. Rockford: Rockford Map Publishers). Literature: Fisher

(1984b); Holman et a1. (1986); and Shoshani (1989).

2. Cullen Site, near Davison, Richfield Township, NW 1/4 of Section 34, T. 8 N .,
R. 8 E. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: left femur collected by Mr. A. B. Cullen.
Remarks: Hay (1923) and MacAlpin (1940) reported this site but the section and
township data were not included. A. B. Cullen owned the NW 14 of Section 34, T. 8
N ., R. 8 E. (1889 Atlas of Genesee County, Michigan. Caro: E. R. Cookingham
Publishers). Assuming that Mr. Cullen found the bone on his land, the site is
estimated to be in section 34 of T. 8 N., R. 8 E. Literature: Hay (1923); MacAlpin

(1940).

29
HILLSDALE COUNTY

1. Stafi’ord Farm, near Church, Wheatland Township, NE ‘A of Section 27, T. 6 S.
R. l W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: skull, lower jaws, 1 tusk, proximal part of
other tusk, 7 cervical vertebrae, 17 thoracic vertebrae, 3 lumbars, sacrum, 11
caudals, 30 ribs, part of sternum, pelvis, right forelimb, and numerous foot bones
found in 1901 in a swamp, and acquired by the United States National Museum.
Remarks: This site has been reported by Gilmore (1906), Hay (1923), Lane (1902),
and MacAlpin (1940). Gilmore (1906) and Hay (1923) have referred to this site as
"...the farm of Levi Wood...” Since this name does not appear on the plat maps,
Wood may have been the collector of the specimen, rather than the owner of the
farm. MacAlpin (1940) estimated this site to be approximately in Section 21, T. 6
S., R. 1 W. As of 1894, A. Stafford’s farm was located in the NE 1A of Section 27,
T. 6 S., R. 1 W. (1894 Plat Book of Hillsdale County, Michigan. Chicago: The
American Atlas Co.). Literature: Gilmore (1906); Hay (1923); Lane (1902);

MacAlpin (1940).

ISABELLA COUNTY

1. Near Mount Pleasant, Fremont Township, SW 1/4, SW ‘A of Section 24, T. 13
N., R. 5 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: (MSUVP 1274) left Ml (Figure 5)
collected from muck on gravel by John Gott, November 1, 1938. Remarks: The
specimen was briefly listed by MacAlpin (1940) as "one tooth”. A pelvis (UMMP
44432) was recovered from the same section of Fremont township and was reported

in Holman et a1. (1986). It is not known if MSUVP 1274 and UMMP 44432 are

 

MSUVP 1274

m
_

—_
Z-:-_—_l

W3

Figure 5. Left Ml of the Mount Pleasant site mastodont (MSUVP 1274)

31

from the same individual. Literature: MacAlpin (1940).

KALAMAZOO COUNTY

1. Vanmiddlesworth Site, near Climax, Climax Township, Section 1, T. 3 S., R. 9
W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: molar tooth. Remarks: The site was reported
in Holman et al. (1986) as T. 2 S., R. 9 W. Climax Township is located in T. 3 S.,
R. 9 W. (1983 Farm Atlas and Plat Book, Kalamazoo County, Michigan. Rockford:

Rockford Map Publishers). Literature: Holman et a1. (1986).

KENT COUNTY

1. Dutmer Site, at Cannonsburg, Cannon Township, SW 1.4 of Section 27 , T. 8 N.
R. 10 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: left M3 found by Henry Dutmer.
Remarks: Hay (1923) reported this specimen to be "in the Kent Scientific Museum at
Grand Rapids..." (The Grand Rapids Public Museum). MacAlpin (1940) estimated
this site to be in Section 23 of Cannon Township. Henry Dutmer owned land in the
SW 1A of Section 27 , T. 8 N. R. 10 W. (1907 Standard Atlas of Kent County,
Michigan. Chicago: George A. Ogle and Co.). Literature: Hay (1923); MacAlpin
(1940).

2. Shaw Farm Site, Tyrone Township, NE 1A of Section 6, T. 10 N., R. 12 W.
Age: late Pleistocene. Material: two teeth and several bone fragments were found in
April of 1988 while digging a drainage ditch. Remarks: This site was reported by

Frankforter (1991), but section and township data were not provided. The Shaw farm

32
is located in the NE 1A of section 6, T. 10 N., R. 12 W. (1988 LandAtlas and Plat

Book, Kent County, Michigan. Rockford: Rockford Map Publishers). Literature:

Frankforter (1991).

LENAWEE COUNTY

1. Gregg Site, at Clinton, SE 1,4 of Section 7, T. 5 S., R. 4 E. Age: late
Pleistocene. Material: teeth and bones including foot bones. Remarks: Hay (1923)
and Lane (1902) reported that "...at Clinton, Lenawee County, Mr. P. B. Gragg
[Gregg] had found several teeth and bones of a mastodon.” MacAlpin (1940)
reported that mastodont foot bones had been found at Clinton, in Section 7, T. 5 S.,
R. 4 E. P‘. B. Gregg owned the land in the SE 1/4 of Section 7, T. 5 S., R. 4 E.
(1893 Atlas of Lenawee County, Michigan. George B. Cadwell and Co. Publishers).

Literature: Hay (1923); Lane (1902) and MacAlpin (1940).

2. Decker Site, Northwest of Adrian, Adrian Township, Section 7, T. 6 S., R. 3 E.
Age: late Pleistocene. Material: cranium, 5 molars, tusks, 2 caudal vertebrae,
scapulae, femora, tibiae, fibula, calcanea, humeri, radius, carpals, tarsals,
metacarpals, metatarsals, 3 ribs. These elements were found two feet below the
surface of a small peat bog (Winchell, 1864) on the farm of Uri Decker (1874 New
Historical Atlas of Lenawee County, Michigan. Chicago: Everts and Stewart).
Remarks: This site was reported by Hay (1923), MacAlpin (1940) and Winchell
(1864). Hay (1923) incorrectly listed the Range as 4 East. MacAlpin (1940) listed

the locality as being "...7 miles northeast..." of Adrian but provided the correct

33
section and township information. Hay (1923) reported that ”in the U. S. National

Museum (No. 188) there a lower jaw of a mastodon found...in the same locality as
the Decker mastodon. . . " This lower jaw and the above-listed skeletal elements
probably belong to the same animal. Winchell (1864) stated that many years ago the
place was known as a "deer lick”. Literature: Hay (1923); MacAlpin (1940);

Winchell (1864).

MONTCALM COUNTY

l. Hodges Site, near Stanton, Evergreen Township, in the SW 1A of Section 9, T.
10 N., R. 6 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: teeth found in 1911 by L. C.
Hodges. Remarks: Hay ( 1923) listed that mastodont teeth were found near Stanton in
1911 by Mr. L. C. Hodges. MacAlpin (1940) listed this site as being in the NE
comer of T. 10 N. R. 7 W. L. C. Hodges owned land in the SW ‘A of Section 9, T.
10 N. R. 6 W. (1921 Standard Atlas of Montcalm County, Michigan. Chicago: Geo.

H. Ogle and Co., Publishers). Literature: Hay (1923) and MacAlpin (1940).

NEWAYGO COUNTY

l. Jolman Site, Sheridan Township, Section 10, T. 12 N., R. 14 W. Age: late
Pleistocene. Material: right scapula. Remarks: An incorrect Range for Sheridan
Township was given in Holman et al. (1986). The coordinates for Sheridan township
are T. 12 N ., R. 14 W. (1984 Mapbook of Michigan Counties, Lansing:

TwoPeninsula Press). Literature: Gilbert (1981); Holman et al. (1986).

34
OAKLAND COUNTY

1. Calwell Farm Site/Fenton, Rose Township, Section 6, T. 4 N ., R. 7 E. Age:
late Pleistocene, Material: In 1862, a tooth was found on the farm of D. Calwell
"in a marshy place” and was described as having ”two prongs with the crown of the
tooth pretty well worn down” (The Detroit Free Press, January 9, 1862). Remarks:
This site was listed in Winchell (1864), as being from Fentonville, Oakland County.
Section and township details weren’t included. This is the same site reported by Hay
(1923) and MacAlpin (1940) as being from Fenton, Genesee County. MacAlpin
(1940) estimated this site to be in Section 36, T. 5 N ., R. 7 E. The Calwell farm
was located in Section 6, T. 4 N., R. 7 E. (1872 Atlas of Oakland County, Michigan.
New York: Beers and Co.). Literature: Charles H. Martinez, Michigan
Archaeological Society, personal communication to J. A. Holman, January 12, 1982,
with news article from The Detroit Free Press, page 1, January 9, 1862; Hay (1923);

MacAlpin (1940); Winchell (1864).

2. Green Site, near Eames, Orion Township, approximately Section 33, T. 4 N ., R.
10 E. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: (UMMP 60454) partial scapula, pelvis, and
vertebrae (Holman et al., 1986). Remarks: Holman et al. (1986) listed this site as
”near Eames, Pontiac Township, Section 33, T. 3 N ., R. 9 E.” This information is
in error: Eames is located in Orion Township, not Pontiac Township, and T. 3 N ., R.
9 E. coordinate with Waterford Township (1984 Mapbook of Michigan Counties,
Lansing: TwoPeninsula Press). Essentially, information pointing to three different

townships has been provided. I have been unable to find Nobi Green listed on a plat

35

map of Oakland County, and will assume that this site is in Section 33 of Orion

Township, T. 4 N., R. 10 E. next to Eames. Literature: Holman et al. (1986).

OCEANA COUNTY

1. Huls Site, near Rothbury, Grant Township, SW 1A of the SW 1A of Section 12, T.
13 N., R. 17 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: ”palate fragment with right and
left M2 plus right and left M3 and two ribs...discovered by Adrian Huls, September
1963 in peat and mud...” (Holman et al. 1986). Remarks: This specimen was
donated to the Muskegon County Museum in Muskegon, Michigan. It has been
catalogued with Museum numbers X87.89.1 (skull) and X87.89.2-7 (photos).
Literature: R. A. Gibson, personal communication in letter of October 20, 1988;

Holman et a1. (1986).

OTTAWA COUNTY

1. Jonio Farm Site, near Conklin, Chester Township, S 1h, NW 1A of Section 19,
T. 9 N., R. 13 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: (MSUVP 1289) tusks, foot
bones, ribs, vertebrae, humerus, pelvis, and leg bones discovered by John Jonio in
May of 1938, and excavated by the Grand Rapids Public Museum. Remarks: All
bones were reported to have been found in muck on top of light-colored till. Material
was donated to the MSU Museum by the Grand Rapids Public Museum on June 10,
1947 for the purpose of ”filling out" a mastodont specimen that was to be articulated
and mounted for an exhibit. This specimen was listed in the mastodont census of

MacAlpin (1940) as ”about a hundred bones". I believe that this is the Kent County

36
site referred to by Skeels (1962) as ”...exact locality unknown. Parts of a skeleton.

Specimens at the Michigan State University Museum." A label on the bones refers to
the Grand Rapids Public Museum, Kent County, but the actual site where the bones

were excavated is in Ottawa County. Literature: MacAlpin (1940), Skeels (1962).

SAGINAW COUNTY

1. Willis Farm, St. Charles Township, Section 6, T. 10 N., R 3 E. Age: late
Pleistocene. Material: distal tusk, lower jaw, and ribs (Lane, 1902). Remarks: Hay
(1923) and Lane (1902) reported mastodont remains from the "Willis farm” but
locality data were not provided. The Willis farm was located on Section 6, T. 10 N .,
R. 3 E. (1900 Plat Book of Saginaw County, Michigan. Rockford: W. W. Hian

and Co.). Literature: Hay (1923) and lane (1902).

2. Mauer Site, near Frankenmuth, Birch Run Township, Section 9, T. 10 N ., R. 6
E. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: mandible with right third molar collected from
the Raymond Mauer farm. Remarks: Reported by Holman et al. (1986) as
”Frankenmuth Township, Section 9, T. 10 N ., R. 6 E.” This site is actually located
in Birch Run Township, Section 9, T. 10 N., R. 6 E. (1974 Atlas and Plat Book,
Saginaw County, Michigan. Rockford: Rockford Map Publishers). Literature:

Holman et al. (1986).

37
ST. JOSEPH COUNTY

1. Prairie Lake, Sherman Township, approximately Section 13, T. 7 S., R. 10 W.
Age: late Pleistocene. Material: ".. .two bones.. ." (MacAlpin, 1940). Remarks:
MacAlpin (1940) lists this site as being in the East V2 of T. 7 S., R. 10 W. (Sherman
Township). Prairie Lake extends into Sherman Township in Sections 13 and 24, with
the larger part being in Section 13 (I930 Plat Book of St. Joseph County, Michigan.

Rockford: W. W. Hixson and Co.). Literature: MacAlpin (1940).

SHIAWASSEE COUNTY

1. Warren Site, near Bancrofi, Shiawassee Township, Section 36, T. 6 N., R. 3 E.
Age: late Pleistocene. Material: tusk, teeth, ribs, and many other bones. Remarks:
Lane (1906) listed the remains as being found near the line between Sections 36 and
25, but did not designate the actual Section that the specimen was found in. An
incorrect Range coordinate was also given. The Warren land was located in Section
36, T. 6 N. R. 3 E. (1915 Standard Atlas of Shiawassee County, Michigan. Chicago:

Geo. A. Ogle and Co.). Literature: Hay (1923), Lane (1906), MacAlpin (1940).

VAN BUREN COUNTY

1. Heuser Site, three miles east and one mile south of Hartford, Hartford Township,
Section 24, T. 3 S., R. 16 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: (MSUVP 792) right
M2 and M3 and several small skull fragments with sinuses, collected by Robert Heuser
from a peat bog during June, 1958. Remarks: specimens were briefly reported by

Skeels (1962) as Michigan State University Museum number 5296. The section

38

number was not given. E. Heuser owned land in Section 24, T. 3 S., R. 16 W.
(1954 Farm Plat Book, Van Buren County, Michigan. Rockford: Rockford Map

Publishers). Literature: Skeels (1962).

2. Near Hartford, Hartford Township, T. 3 S., R. 16 W. Age: late Pleistocene.
Material: (MSUVP 1285) a partial right scapula. Remarks: The specimen was said
to have been found while digging a farm pond, and was reported in Holman et a1.
(1986) as Proboscidea Indeterminate. The specimen was compared with proboscidean
material from the Indiana State Museum (ISM catalog number 71.3.3913), and

identified as Mammut americanum. Literature: Holman et a1. (1986).

WASHTENAW COUNTY

1. Kuhl Site, near Ann Arbor, Lima Township, Section 33, T. 2 S., R. 4 E. Age:
late Pleistocene. Material: a list of skeletal elements (UMMP 59936) appears in
Holman et a1. (1986). Remarks: This site was cited by Holman et al. (1986) as
"...Scio Township, Section 33, T. 2 S., R. 4 E.” The correct township is Lima,
Section 33, T. 2 S., R. 4 E. (1970 Triennial Atlas and Plat Book, Washtenaw
County, Michigan, Rockford: Rockford Map Publishers, Inc.). Literature: Holman

et al. (1986).

2. Killin Gravel Pit Site, Ann Arbor, Scio Township, Section 25, T. 2 S., R. 5 E.
Age: late Pleistocene. Material: (UMMP 61427) piece of tusk. Remarks: This site

was cited by Holman et al. (1986) as "...Ann Arbor Township, Section 25, T. 2 S.,

39
R. 5 E." The correct township is Scio, Section 25, T. 2 S., R. 5 E. (1964, 1967,

1970, 1981/82, 1985 Land Atlas and Plat Book, Washtenaw County, Michigan,

Rockford: Rockford Map Publishers). Literature: Holman et a1. (1986).

3. Darling Farm Site, seven miles southeast of Ypsilanti, Augusta Township,
Section 12, T. 4 S., R. 7 E. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: lower jaw with teeth,
teeth of the upper jaw, parts of the cranium, vertebrae, ribs, and some limb bones
found on the farm of Albert Darling, 7 miles southeast of Ypsilanti (Hay, 1923).
Remarks: Hay (1923) listed this site, but did not include section and township
information. MacAlpin (1940) estimated the location as Section 1 of T. 4 S., R. 7 E.
The Darling farm was located in Section 12 of T. 4 S., R. 7 E. (1874 Combination
Atlas Map of Washtenaw county, Michigan. Chicago: Everts and Stewart).

Literature: Hay (1923); MacAlpin (1940); Russell and Leverett (1908).

WAYNE COUNTY

1. Shattuck Site, near Plymouth, Plymouth Township, approximately Section 26, T.
1 S., R. 8 E. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: tusk and teeth (Hay, 1923).
Remarks: Both Hay (1923) and Winchell (1861) reported that Mr. Shattuck had
exhumed a mastodont tusk and some teeth near Plymouth. Assuming that the
specimen was found on his land, the locality of this site is Section 26, T. 1 S., R. 8
E. (1876 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Wayne, Michigan. Chicago: H.

Belden and Co.). Literature: Hay (1923), MacAlpin (1940), and Winchell (1861).

40

BARRY COUNTY

1. J. Beavers Site, Assyria Township, SE 14, NE 14, SE 14 of Section 28, T. 1 N.,
R. 7 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: a well-worn right M1 (Figure 6) collected
May 9, 1987 by James and John Beavers. Remarks: found on the surface of dredged
pond matrix that was spread with a bulldozer. The specimen is currently at the

Michigan State University Museum for examination.

EATON COUNTY

l. Vermontville Site, Vermontville Township, NE1/4, SE 14, SW 14 of Section 14,
T. 3 N., R. 6 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: three teeth found in the summer
of 1945 by Dale Cotton and Milton Sprague. Remarks: Dale Cotton found one of the
teeth (a third molar) while using a tractor to plow the land. Sometime later, Milton
Sprague, who owns land adjacent to the corn plot where the tooth was found,
recovered two additional teeth (one a second molar). The corn field is on the edge of
what was once a large swamp. One tooth (the second molar) remains in possession of
Theodore Sprague, who is Milton Sprague’s son. One tooth was stolen and the
whereabouts of the third tooth is unknown. Literature: Theodore Sprague, personal

communication, letters of April 5, 1989, and June 21, 1989.

41

 

Figure 6. Right M, of the Beavers site mastodont (uncatalogued)

42
GRATIOT COUNTY

1. Lentz Site, Farm of Lee and Bertha Lentz, Pine River Township, NW 14, NW
14 of Section 19, T. 12 N., R. 3 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: left M3
recovered in 1970 by Mr. Lentz while tiling, and a femur collected in 1941 in the
same vicinity by Mr Lentz’ father. Remarks: The femur is believed to be in
possession of Anderson College, Anderson, Indiana. It was donated to them by Fred
Lepperin. Literature: Ron Kapp, personal communication in letter of March 30,

1989.

KENT COUNTY

1. Plainfield Heights Site, Plainfield Township, SW 14 of Section 33, T. 8 N., R.
11 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: one tooth. Remarks: found by Walter
Morrow in August, 1989 in a peat bog. The tooth has since disintegrated.

Literature: Walter Morrow, personal communication, March 4, 1991.

SANILAC COUNTY

1. Ellembaum Site, Ralph Ellembaum Farm, 10 miles south of Deckerville,
approximately Section 20, T. 11 N ., R. 15 E. Age: late Pleistocene. Material:
(MSUVP 1268) left M, collected in June, 1962 by Ralph Ellembaum. Remarks: The

tooth was turned over by a plow on the Ralph Ellembaum farm.

43
WASHTENAW COUNTY

1. Scio Farms Estates Site, Scio Township, SE 14, NW 14, SE 14 of Section 20, T.
2 S., R. 5 E. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: (MSUVP 1288) left scapula, 2
thoracic vertebrae, 1 lumbar vertebra, rib fragments, and many tusk fragments
collected by Darrell Hughes in 1987. Remarks: The bones were collected from muck
that had been spread on the surface of an area that was being paved.
Warns

Both tusks and cheek teeth develop in American mastodonts. The tusks are
second incisors and are composed of dentine. Tusks from the upper jaw (maxilla) are
most prevalent, although specimens are occasionally found with short tusks in the
lower jaw (mandible). Hay (1912) reported that mandibular tusks were probably
indicative of male mastodonts. However, Haynes (1991) found mandibular tusks in
both sexes. Six cheek teeth develop in each side of the upper and lower jaws. The
first three of these teeth are milk teeth or deciduous premolars, and the last three are
permanent molars. Osborn (1936) used the symbols Dp for deciduous premolars and
M for molars, with an upper case numeral to indicate upper teeth, or a lowercase
numeral for lower teeth. The cheek teeth of the upper jaw are numerically designated
as: Dpz, Dp3, Dp‘, M‘, M’, M3; and teeth of the lower jaw are: Dpz, Dp3, Dp4, M,,
M2, M3. Some researchers utilize the scheme followed for modern elephants: M1,
M2, M3, M4, M5, M6. This system makes reference to teeth according to their
order of appearance, rather than their ancestry (Haynes, 1991). When referring to
both upper and lower teeth, both numerical designations are included (e. g., M1/l). an

R or L may be placed before the symbol to indicate a right or left tooth.

44

Each molar tooth has a number of paired cusps called transverse ridges, ridge
crests or lophs. Dp2/2 and Dp3/3 have two ridge crests. Dp4/4, M1/1, and M2/2
have three lophs. M3/3 has four lophs and a "vestigial heel” (Skeels, 1962), or five
lophs may be present. Saunders (1977) used terms to indicate specific lophs of
mastodont teeth: Protoloph, Metaloph, Tritoloph, Tetartoloph, and Pentaloph indicate
the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth lophs respectively. The suffix -id is added to
indicate teeth of the lower jaw.

The measurement techniques of Saunders (1977) included the application of
Simpson’s (1949) definitions of length and width. For measuring teeth, Simpson
(1949) defines length (L) and width (W) as:

L= maximum length between planes tangential to the enameled crown

and at right angles to the long axis of the tooth series as determined by

the median sulcus.

W= the maximum width between vertical planes tangential to the sides

of the enameled crown and parallel to the long axis of the tooth series

as determined by the median sulcus and with the tooth oriented (in the
jaw or as if it were) with the tooth series horizontal.

The Mammut americanum cheek teeth in the Vertebrate Paleontology division
of the Michigan State University Museum were examined and measured with a pair of
Sylvac-Fowler electronic calipers. Tooth placement was determined using the
methods of Hay (1912), and noted with Osbom’s (1936) symbols. Techniques and
terminology follow Saunders (1977). The tooth measurements are in millimeters and

are presented in Table 1.

45

All Mammut americanum teeth in the Michigan State University Museum were
determined to be permanent molars (Ml/1, M2/2, or M3/3). Hay (1912) noted that
occasionally the last deciduous premolar is difficult to distinguish from the first
permanent molar. MSUVP 1268 and MSUVP 1274 were provisionally placed as M,
on the basis of measurement ranges of other Michigan mastodont teeth (Skeels, 1962).
Because MSUVP 1268 and MSUVP 1274 are isolated teeth, it is possible that one or
both is Dp4, and not M,. MSUVP 1274 consists of a crown only (Figure 5). The
pulp cavity is evident and no roots were preserved. Specimen MSUVP 1004 consists
of a partial cranium (Holman 1979). By utilizing the descriptions of Osborn (1936), I
have determined MSUVP 1004 to be a female. This is an MSU specimen that can be
positively sexed on the basis of Osbom’s (1936) cranial and palatal features. Because

the Beavers Site tooth is not catalogued, it is unnumbered.

Class MAMMALIA Linnaeus, 1758
Order PROBOSCIDEA Illiger, 1811
Family ELEPHANTIDAE Gray, 1821
Genus MAMMUYHUS Burnett, 1830
MAMMUIHUS sp. mammoth
Wing
Agenbroad (1984) studied the distribution of mammoths in the New World and
reported that "...the heartlands for mammoth localities are in Alaska, the prairie
provinces of Canada, and in a band of southwestern and central states in the United

States". Records of finds in Mexico are apparently numerous, and the southem-most

46

use—fig 103358 0 magma 355% +
88: See: a 3:83 38%. as... 2.. a 58. a sea a £33.. 58: 583. 3. 32°58... as.
"ax: 595m 5% aces"? .amfiuq. 58: 838 3e. 238% 38.8% 58. .finq Janene.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. 8 +3 +8_ +3 +2: +3” .24 .82
a a 8 a 2: f4 .82

mm 8 a S a .5 :2

one 0% on... 0% 8 .5 $2

a: 08 us 08 M; .2: S :

0% as 0% 0% 3 .3. e268

S 3 P g x: as: :32

s S R ; x: .2”. :48_

2 S 2 8 8 s. .5 :48.

m. s a a No v: .5. :43

S a 2.. a a E .5 E.

R R a: 8 8_ 82 E .23. N2
08 o: o; o: 2. Eu «2

”a 03 o; 08 v: .3: Eu

92.. z: a: a. 2. 9:. E.

3 a 2 a a _ E SE

gin—35$ e-\:n_o,_oE<Eh 94538:: BEmQfiamz 945389: .3 a FszmoflE :53:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.95. .5 3582382 508. 5:23:33 35:33 858:2 €914.35" 28m 53:22 A 032.

 

47
reliable record is El Salvador, Central America (Stirton and Gealey, 1949). The

frequency of mammoth distribution is greatest in Alaska, followed by Texas and the
central plains. Mammoths are also abundant in the Pleistocene deposits of the west
coast and an area extending northeast from Arizona to Minnesota. In addition,
Florida is observed as an isolated, high—frequency area (Agenbroad, 1984). As
mentioned before, both mastodont and mammoth teeth have been recovered from the
Atlantic continental shelf (Odale, et al. 1987 ; Whitmore, et al. 1967).

Mammoth sites in Michigan are found in geologic settings similar to those of
the mastodont. The usual stratigraphic sequence from bottom to top is glacial sands
and gravels, bluish-gray clay, marl, peat, humus and topsoil. Proboscidean bones and
teeth are normally recovered between the marl and the peat (Holman, 1988; 1991). A
mammoth was recently reported from an unusual stratigraphic setting for Michigan.
The bones were recovered from a beach sand-blackish organic sand contact (Holman,
1991). Mammoth localities are less abundant than mastodont sites in Michigan.

f Mi hi an M m R rd

ARENAC COUNTY

1. Van Horn Site, near Alger, Moffatt Township, SE 1/4, NE 14, NW 14 of Section
8, T. 20 N., R. 3 E. Age: 11,280i70 ybp (Beta-32130) (Holman, 1991). Material:
(MSUVP 1219) left M3, found by Chris Van Horn who stepped on the tooth while
wading in a pond, and the proximal end of a rib, found in a spoil bank by Jerry Van
Horn, in August, 1988. Remarks: Specimens were found when the landowners were
expanding a pond, and bulldozing the spoil. The tooth was recovered from the west

side of the pond, and the rib was found on the bank near the southwest end of the

48
pond. On August 18, 1988, J. A. Holman, D. Parmley, and L. Abraczinskas, from

the Michigan State University Museum visited the site. The Van Horn family donated
the specimens to the Michigan State University Museum.

Literature: Holman (1991).

BERRIEN COUNTY

1. E. K. Warren Site, Two miles southeast of Three Oaks, Three Oaks Township,
NW 14 of Section 24, T. 8 S., R. 20 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: (MSUVP
1276) right and left M3; right and left M3 (Figures 7 and 8) found by Ed Ingert on the
Warren farm around 1900. Remarks: The teeth, along with a few other bones, were
recovered while digging post holes. The specimens were originally deposited in the
Chamberlain Memorial Museum. Upon the closing of this Museum, the teeth were
cataloged into the Michigan State University Museum Collection, and are presently
located in the Vertebrate Paleontology Collection. The whereabouts of the other
bones is unknown. Dice (1920), Fox (n.d.), Hay (1923), Sherzer (1927), and Skeels
(1962) briefly reported this site, but section and township information were not given.
The Warren farm was located in the NW 1/4 of Section 24, T. 8 S., R. 20 W. (1929
Atlas of Berrien County, Michigan. Rockford: Thrift Press). Literature: Dice

(1920), Fox (n.d.), Hay (1923), Sherzer (1927), Skeels (1962).

EATON COUNTY
l. Fajnor Farm, near Eaton Rapids, on Wilcox Road, Brookfield Township, NW 1/4

of Section 11, T. l N., R. 4 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: (MSUVP 1282)

49
partial molar found by Milton Fajnor in 1951 in debris piled up during the dredging

of a ditch. Remarks: The specimen had been collected from a muck field. The site
was briefly listed in Skeels (1962), but no section or township data were furnished.
The Fajnor farm was located in the NW 14 of Section 11, T. l N., R. 4 W. (1953
Plat Book of Baton County, Michigan. Rockford: Lawson’s Atlases and Plat Books).

Literature: Skeels (1962).

INGHAM COUNTY

1. Near Leslie, three miles west of Leslie, approximately Section 24, T. 1 N ., R. 2
W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: (MSUVP 1218) right scapula left femur, right
tibia, and right ulna collected in 1960. Remarks: The specimen was found under
peat in marl. This site was briefly reported in Skeels (1962). Literature: Skeels
(1962).

JACKSON COUNTY

1. Locey Farm, southeast of Eaton Rapids, Tompkins Township, in Section 17, T. 1
S., R. 2 W. Age: 12,2001700 ybp (M-507) based on associated wood (Crane and
Griffin, 1958). Material: (MSUVP 1283) lower jaws with right and left M2 and M3
(Figure 9), two lengths of a tusk, atlas, axis, cervical vertebrae, 7 thoracic vertebrae,
12 ribs, scapulae, proximal humerus, hyoids (Figure 10), 8 wrist or ankle bones,
several fragments, and leg bones dug from a marl pit. The bones were collected by
John W. Hope of the MSU Museum from November 1954 to October, 1955.

Remarks: This specimen was reported by Skeels (1962) as Michigan State University

50

 

Figure 7. Lingual surface of the left M3 of the Warren mammoth
(MSUVP 1276)

 

Figure 8. Left M, of the Warren mammoth (MSUVP 1276)
A. Occlusal surface; B. Labial surface

52

 

Figure 9. Posterior view of the Locey site mammoth jaws (MSUVP 1283)

53

 

Figure 10. Hyoid bones from the Locey site mammoth (MSUVP 1283)
A. Stylohyoid; B. Thyrohyoids

54
Museum Number 8238. Literature: Crane and Griffin (1958); Skeels (1962).

SAGINAW COUNTY

1. Pere Marquette Shafl No. 2, West Saginaw, Saginaw Township, Section 28, T.
12 N ., R. 4 E. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: tooth found three feet below the
surface. Remarks: Hay (1923), Lane (1902), and Skeels (1962) listed this site but
did not include section and township information. According to Mills (1918), the
Pete Marquette Coal Company sunk a shaft ”...beyond the City limits between
Gratiot and Brockway Streets. This mine was known as Pere Marquette Shaft No. 2,
and soon mining was commenced on a large scale". The mine was located in Section

28 of Saginaw Township. Literature: Hay (1923), Lane (1902), and Skeels (1962).

SHIAWASSEE COUNTY

1. Dysinger Farm, near Perry, one mile away, Perry Township, Section 22, T. 5
N., R. 2 E. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: (MSUVP 1281) partial Left M3
collected by Floyd Dysinger in September of 1953, while spreading a ridge of dirt on
a field. Remarks: A drainage ditch which parallels the field was dredged during the
winter of 1951, and it is believed that the tooth was uncovered at that time. The site
was briefly listed by Skeels (1962), as Michigan State University Museum Number
8115, but section and township data were not listed. The Dysinger farm was located
on Section 22, T. 5 N ., R. 2 E. (1956 Farm Plat Book, Shiawassee County,

Michigan. Rockford: Rockford Map Publishers). Literature: Skeels (1962)

55
i hi M r
BERRIEN COUNTY
1. Harbert Site, Approximately 1/4 mile east and Va mile north of Harbert,
Chikaming Township, in the SE 14, SE 14, SW 14 of Section 10, T. 7 S., R. 20 W.
Age: late Pleistocene. Material: (MSUVP 1275) left M2 found 20 feet below the
surface of a gravel pit, on September 5, 1925. Remarks: The specimen was donated
to the Chamberlain Memorial Museum of Three Oaks, in December of 1925, by Mrs.
J. Frankfort. When the Chamberlain Memorial Museum closed, the specimen was
cataloged into the Michigan State University Museum collection in 1952. Literature:

News article in The Berrien County Record, December 2, 1924.

TUSCOLA COUNTY

1. Knight Site, near Mariette, 2 miles north and 3 miles west, Koylton Township,
SW 14 of Section 22, T. 11 N., R. 11 E. Age: late Pleistocene. Material:
(MSUVP 749) partial left scapula, rib fragments, partial fibula, pieces of tusk, and
other fragments, collected by R. K. Knight on July 15, 1973. Remarks: The bones
were said to have been collected from the surface.
Mammuthus sp. Tooth Mgsgrements

Like the mastodont, mammoths have six teeth in each half of both the upper

and lower jaws. The first three of these are milk or deciduous teeth and the last three
are true molars. Mammoth teeth are composed of a series of compressed plates
(called lamellae) of enamel covered dentine held together with cementum. The

symbols used to denote mammoth teeth are the same as those used for the mastodont

56
(Skeels, 1962).

The Mammuthus sp. teeth in the Michigan State University Museum Vertebrate
Paleontology Division were examined and measured with Sylvac-Fowler electronic
calipers. Tooth placement was determined and noted with symbols (e.g. LM3 for left
third upper molar). The metrical procedure of Maglio (1973) was used to obtain
measurements of length (L), width (W), height (H), plate number (P), lamellar
frequency (LF), and enamel thickness (ET). The number of plates in the occluded
portion of the tooth (NOP) was also recorded, after Richards (1984).

The length (L) measurement was taken perpendicular to the average lamellar
plane. Width (W) was taken at the widest part of the tooth. The plate number at
which this value was recorded appears as a superscript. Such references to individual
plates are referred to as P1, P2, etc. when counted from the front, and PI, PI], etc.
when the plates are counted from behind. The maximum crown height (H) is taken
vertically along the plate from the enamel base to the highest point on its apex. The
plate number is recorded as a superscript of this measurement. The plates were
counted, and the lamellar frequency (LF) measured. This LF is a standard
measurement of the average number of plates in a distance of 10 cm (= 100mm) along
the anteroposterior axis of the tooth. The most accurate LF measurement is an
average of the LF’s taken at the bases and apexes of the lingual and buccal surfaces
of the tooth. The thickness of enamel (ET) was averaged from a series of 10
measurements from the crown. The number of plates on the occlusal surface (NOP)
was counted and recorded. MSUVP 1283 consists of lower jaws with partially

erupted M33 (Figure 9), and it was not possible to take all measurements. Metrical

57

data for mammoth teeth in mm are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Michigan State University Museum Mammuthus sp. Tooth Measurements

(in mm).

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[173m # PLACEMENT L w: H P ET

"1276 RM’ 305 103*"5 164P14 24 2 14
1276 LM’ 301 104P8 183'" 24 7.5 2 16
1276 RM, 351 94" 145m 24 7 2 15
1276 LM, 344 95” 140’“ 24 7 2 15
1219 LM’ 270 102 165 29 9 2 14
1275 LM, 197 71P10 115P14 19 10 2 17
1001 RM, 325 99” 146?” 24 8 2 19
1283" LM, - 88“ - - - 3 9
1283” LM, - 87” - - - 3 10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L=1ength; W=width; H=height; P=p1ate number; LF=lamellar frequency;
ET= enamel thickness; NOP=number of plates on occluded portion of tooth
‘data after Holman (1991)

t’partially erupted teeth in jaw

Pplate number at which measurement was taken

-missing data

58

Proboscidea Indeterminate
' hi R
ALLEGAN COUNTY
l. Mathis Site, Otsego Township, SW 14, NW 14 of Section 1, T. 1 N., R. 12 W.
Age: late Pleistocene. Material: distal part of a femur, found by Steve Mathis in
1987 while expanding a pond; pelvic fragment; and several small bone and tusk
fragments were collected by J .A. Holman, G. Larson, and L. Abraczinskas on April
15, 1988. Remarks: This material was found on the surface of pond matrix that was
spread with a bulldozer. The femur was damaged by the bulldozer. The specimen is

currently at the Michigan State University Museum for examination.

INGHAM COUNTY

1. Wilcox Road Site, one half mile west of Aurelius Road on Wilcox Road, Delhi
Township, Section 22, T. 3 N., R. 2 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: one
broken tusk, and 2 bones collected by Lloyd Ketchum on September 23, 1965.
Remarks: This locality information was obtained from Michigan State University

Museum files. The whereabouts of this material is unknown.

JACKSON COUNTY

1. Near Jackson, six miles northwest, Sandstone Township, approximately Section
11, T. 2 S., R. 2 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: (MSUVP 1279) poorly
preserved portion of tusk and several tusk fragments collected by Leon B. Walling on

September 1, 1948. Remarks: This specimen was reported by Skeels (1962) as a

59
broken mastodon tusk, Michigan State University Museum 7745. This partial tusk

was identified here as Proboscidea Indeterminate due to its incomplete and fragmented

condition.

KENT COUNTY

1. Gravel Pit at Grandville, approximately Section 17, T. 6 N., R. 12 W. Age:
late Pleistocene. Material: (MSUVP 1267) poorly preserved portion of tusk
uncovered by Clyde Denslow in November, 1950. Remarks: The specimen was
uncovered with a shovel and is in the Michigan State University Museum Vertebrate

Paleontology Collection.

2. Gravel Pit in Cannon Township, SE 1/4, NE 1/4 of Section 26, T. 8 N., R. 10 W.
Age: late Pleistocene. Material: (MSUVP 1113) well-preserved portion of tusk
excavated from sand in a gravel pit by Tom and Bernard Skipper in the summer of

1985. Remarks: The site was said to have been a gravel pit with a marsh next to it.

OTTAWA COUNTY

1. Cedar Road Site, Robinson Township, NE 14, SE 1/4 of Section 1, T. 7 N., R.
15 W. Age: late Pleistocene. Material: partial shaft of left femur (MSUVP 1286)
collected by Austin Dobson in the Fall of 1966. Remarks: The specimen is in the

Michigan State University Museum Vertebrate Paleontology Collection.

60

Summary of Michigan Proboscidean Records

The Michigan mammoth and Proboscidean Indeterminate records indicate that
only one individual was recovered per site. For the mastodont sites, a few records
indicate that more than one individual was recovered per site. These include: six
specimens from Bakerstown Marsh, Berrien County (Dice, 1920; Fox, n.d.; Hay,
1923; Lane, 1902; MacAlpin, 1940); possibly two individuals from the Paw Paw
River Bed, Berrien County (Hay, 1923; Hubbard, 1840,1841; MacAlpin, 1940);
possibly two specimens from the Johnson site, Genesee County (Shoshani, 1989);
parts of three specimens from south of Alma, Gratiot County (MacAlpin, 1940); and
two individuals from Henderson in Shiawassee County (Skeels, 1962). The accuracy
of these records has not been determined; some may reflect duplications of original
reports, or material from one animal recovered by several persons. Until this is
examined further, only one individual from each site will be counted.

After tracing the Michigan Proboscidean records through the literature, and
noting the numerous duplications, new totals of Michigan Proboscideans were
computed. This report includes 33 updated and 6 new mastodont sites; 7 updated and
2 new mammoth sites; and 6 new Proboscidea Indeterminate sites. The new and
updated records presented this report and the list of Michigan Mammut americanum,
Mammuthus sp., and Proboscidea Indeterminate sites in Appendices A, B, and C
respectively, bring the total number of sites to: 211 mastodonts from 41 counties; 49
mammoths from 25 counties; and 11 Proboscidea Indeterminate records from 9

counties.

CHAPTER IV

CO-OCCURRENCE ANALYSIS

It was suggested that the large concentration of Pleistocene proboscideans in
the southern part of the lower peninsula may be correlated with the occurrence of
available surficial salt (Holman et al. 1988). Thus, the existence of a positive
statistical correlation might enhance further research on the distribution patterns of
Pleistocene proboscideans in the Great Lakes Region. Therefore, the third thesis
objective was to examine the spatial relationships between proboscidean and salt sites
by means of a co-occurrence analysis. Thematic maps and frequency distributions
were used to show relationships between Michigan Pleistocene proboscidean sites and
salt sites. The analysis involved the calculation of minimum distances from known
Michigan Proboscidean sites to known salt sites. High non-random frequencies of
proboscidean sites occurring near salt sites would support the hypothesis that
proboscideans in Michigan utilized them.

Methods
The analysis methods include information on utilization of locality data,

calculation of distances, frequency distributions, and statistical tests.

61

62
'1' ' f i D

Michigan proboscidean locality data from Appendices A, B, and C, and
Michigan salt locality data from Appendix D were used in the analysis. This locality
data exists in varying levels of spatial resolution: some sites are reported to quarter-
quarter—quarter section designations, and others are only given as township names or
as an unknown locality in a given county. The majority of sites reported included the
section number. Because of this, the section, which is equivalent to one square-mile,
was chosen as a minimum mapping unit. Sites with approximated sections were
looked upon as equivalent to sites with known sections. Sites with missing section
data were eliminated from the analysis. All sites were assigned code numbers.

Most of the salt locality records were provided by Dr. David Westjohn of the
United States Geological Survey (Holman et al. 1988; D. Westjohn, personal
communication, November 20, 1987; June 12, 1991). Only naturally-occurring salt
sites that were reported as salt or saline springs, or salt licks were used in this study.
Numerous records of saline wells are present in Geological Survey literature (e. g.
Lane, 1899b;l900), but human-made entities such as drilled wells and borings were
eliminated from the analysis, as many were drilled through layers of the bedrock and
reached depths of a thousand or more feet. Because of this choice, and the fact that
mastodont and mammoth sites were updated, the plotted map presented in Holman et
al. (1988) and this study differ.

After selecting proboscidean sites with section data present, and omitting sites
without this data, the numbers of sites used in the analysis were: 174 mastodont sites

from 40 Michigan counties; 42 mammoth sites from 24 counties; 9 Proboscidea

63

Indeterminate sites from 8 counties; and 34 salt sites from 14 counties. These data
were assigned location codes to ultimately determine the distances between
proboscidean and salt sites. Data encoding maps were used to assign geographic
location codes to Tier (T), Range (R), and section data from the proboscidean and salt
sites. Each site was encoded with a 3-digit county code, a 2—digit political township
code and a 2-digit survey township code. These codes were merged with locational
information provided by the Michigan State University Center for Remote Sensing
Kilometer Database. Coordinates locating the center of each identified section were
determined from this database.
Calculafign gf Distances

Distances from each proboscidean site to each salt site were calculated from
the coordinates, and the minimum distance from a proboscidean site to the nearest salt
site was determined. The coordinates were transferred to the CMAP program and a
thematic map was generated. The minimum distance choices were visually confirmed
by comparing mapped locations with calculated distances.
Frmuengy Distributions

Frequency tables depicting numbers of mastodont, mammoth, and Proboscidea
Indeterminate in relation to the minimum distance from salt sites were generated.
There were no apparent differences between mastodonts, mammoths and Proboscidea
Indeterminate groups in the separate frequency diagrams. Locality data for all
Michigan proboscideans were used to generate a single frequency diagram with 5-mile

increments of separation, and percentages of occurrence noted.

64
In order to determine if the actual Michigan proboscidean data differed from a

random set of data, a set of section localities were randomly generated by the
computer. The sections corresponding to these computer-generated proboscidean sites
were located in the southern half of Michigan’s lower peninsula, south of the Mason-
Quimby line. The procedures outlined above were used to determine the minimum
distances between the random set of proboscidean sites and the actual Michigan salt
sites. A frequency distribution of the distances between the random proboscidean
sites and the salt sites was produced. The frequency distributions of the actual and
random proboscidean site distances were compared.
Statisticallcsts

A statistician was consulted for recommendations on statistical methods. At
first, a t—test on the actual and random proboscidean site distances was suggested.
The t-test is valid for data samples from a normal distribution. After further
examination of the data, it was decided that a t-test would be invalid because the
frequency tables show the data as having non-normal distribution. Nonparametric
statistical approaches are used when data do not conform to a normal distribution.
Nonparametric statistical methods were explored, and it was determined that the
Kolmogorov-Smimov Two Sample and Kruskal-Wallis (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Two
Sample) tests are valid for these data. These tests are used for two independent
samples of data (Wilkinson, 1990). The tests were carried out with the SYSTAT
computer program for statistics, and the methods of Beyer (1974), Mendenhall,

(1983), and Runyon and Haber (1984) for large sample sizes were applied.

65

The Kolmogorov—S mirnov Two Sample Test is a general test of differences
between populations; it is sensitive to any differences in form or location between the
groups (Campbell, 1989). This test calls for two independent samples and tests the
null hypothesis that they have been drawn from the same population or from
populations with the same distribution (Beyer, 1974). The data are ranked, sample
cumulative distribution functions are calculated, and maximum numerical differences
between them are compared (Steel and Torrie, 1980). A value (D) for the maximum
difference for pairs of variables is calculated. This calculated D value is compared
with a table of critical D values. The null hypothesis is rejected if the calculated D
exceeds the value from the table. The SYSTAT computer program ranked the data
and calculated the D value. The table of critical values of D in the Kolmogorov-
Smimov Two Sample Test for large sample sizes (n,>15 and n, >15) from Beyer
(1974) was used to obtain the tabular D value. Tabular values at the significance
levels ct=.05 and a=.10 were obtained. The calculated and tabular D values were
compared to determine rejection or non-rejection of the null hypothesis.

The Kruskal-Wallis k-Sample Test is equivalent to the Wilcoxon-Mann-
Whitney U—test for k=2 (Steel and Torrie, 1980). This is one of the most powerful
nonparametric statistical tests, since it utilizes most of the quantitative information that
is inherent in the data (Runyon and Haber, 1984). It is most commonly employed as
a nonparametric alternative to the t-test (Runyon and Haber, 1984). This tests the
null hypothesis that the population relative frequency distributions for two samples (A
and B) are identical (Mendenhall, 1983). The observations from both samples are

ranked from smallest to largest and added together. These rank sums (TA and T3) are

66
used to calculate the U-statistic value (Mendenhall, 1983). For large sample sizes

(n, > 20 and n, > 20), the distribution approaches a normal curve, and the z-statistic
may be used to evaluate the significance of rank differences (Runyon and Haber,
1984). The 2 value is calculated and compared to a tabular 2 value. If the calculated
value exceeds the tabular value, the null hypothesis is rejected. The SYSTAT
computer program ranked the data, and calculated the rank sums (TA and TB) and the
U-statistic value. The T and U values were applied to the z-statistic formula from
Mendenhall (1983) to obtain the calculated and tabular 2 values. The calculated and
tabular 2 values were compared to determine rejection or non-rejection of the null
hypothesis.
Results

Results of the site distances, frequency distributions, and statistical tests for the

co-occurrence analysis are presented.
i Di e

The distribution of Michigan mastodont, mammoth and Proboscidea
Indeterminate sites in relation to the salt sites was mapped (Figure 11). The number
of calculated distances between actual Michigan proboscidean sites and salt sites was
225. The greatest distance from a proboscidean site to a salt site was 91 miles
(146.42 km). The smallest distance was 0 miles (0 km). This is because there were
two occurrences of proboscidean sites and salt sites in the same section.

The number of calculated distances between random proboscidean sites and
actual salt sites was 225. The greatest distance from a random proboscidean site to a

salt site was 90 miles (144.81 km). The smallest distance was 2 miles (3.22 km).

“a

£1
/ :1 A“

 

 

 

67

—_ —.-_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DD

 

 

 

A

 

 

It

 

 

D Mammoth

o Proboscidea Indeterminate

Figure 11. The distribution of Pleistocene proboscideans and salt sites
in Michigan

A Mastodont

 

 

-- Mason-Quimby Line
x Salt

 

 

DO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

68
Thirty-five percent of Michigan proboscidean sites were located within 19.9 miles of

a salt site (Figure 12). Twenty-nine percent of the random proboscidean sites were
located within 19.9 miles of a salt site (Figure 13).
S . . l I

The Kolmogorov-Smimov Two Sample method tests the null hypothesis that
the two samples come from identical distributions. The value D for the maximum
differences for pairs of variables was calculated by SYSTAT to be .058. The tabular
D values are .1282(a=.05) and .1150(a=.10). Since the calculated D value does not
exceed either tabular D value, the null hypothesis is not rejected. The calculated
values are not significant at the levels a=.05 and ct=.10.

The Kruskal-Wallis (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U) tests the null hypothesis that
the frequency distributions for the two samples are identical. The rank sum values
are TA=51434.0 for the random site distances; and TB=50041.0 for the actual site
distances. The U—statistic is 26009.0. The calculated 2 value is .5049, and the
tabular 2 values are l.96(a=.05) and 1.645(a=.10). The tabular 2 value for a=.50
is .674. Since the calculated 2 value does not excwd any of the tabular 2 values, the

null hypothesis is not rejected.

69

 

:8 Eat 353:. 2 033.2 «37. 5028305 Lo :ouBEmmu 3:032...— .N~ 2:»an

62E Law .855 see 8:965
03332588 $89.88 8882 2 m o

o\o_. o\ —o\o_. o\o_.
o\oN o\oN o o\oN -m
o\om. o\om o\om

6% -2

o\om

“You
nx.m

o\om
o\o _. ”\oO _. 1mm

6:
N
eouarrnooo 10 Aouenberzj

6%4 F
nxm F -mm

 

0v

 

70

  

 

=8 88.. 853:. 2
03:22 8% 5828265 83:8 25 338 he neonanEmG moeoscocm .2 Semi
282% D .2394 I

62E cam 32:5 58 68965
888355308889.888889 2 m o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eouannooo 10 Aouenber :1

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

The goal of this project was to determine the spatial relationship between
surficial salt sites and sites where proboscidean remains have been found. Four
objectives were met in pursuit of this goal:

1) Previously published Michigan proboscidean records were updated. The
literature and museum records were reexamined, duplicated records were
consolidated and additional information on 33 mastodont and 7 mammoth sites was
added.

2) New or unpublished records were reported on 6 mastodont, 2 mammoth,
and 6 Proboscidea Indeterminate sites. These sites were compiled from older
Michigan State University Museum records, and from persons who notified the
Michigan State University Museum upon discovering proboscidean remains.

3) The locations of Michigan proboscidean remains and salt sites were mapped
after proboscidean site totals were computed. These include 211 mastodonts from 41
counties, 49 mammoths from 25 counties and 11 Proboscidea Indeterminate sites from
9 Michigan counties. All of the salt and proboscidean sites are located in the

southern half of Michigan’s lower peninsula, below the Mason-Quimby line.

71

72

4) A spatial co-occurrence analysis was conducted to examine the relationship
between Michigan proboscidean sites and surficial salt localities. Although thirty-five
percent of Michigan proboscidean sites were located within 20 miles of a salt site, the
results of the co-occurrence analysis show that the spatial arrangement of
proboscidean sites and surficial salt sites is not significantly different from a random
distribution.

Although these results do not support the idea that the concentration of
proboscideans in Michigan is related to surface salt sites, they do not invalidate it.
Moreover, the idea that the primitive sodium metabolism in proboscideans may have
been related to their high rate of extinction during the Pleistocene is worthy of further
study. The validity of this idea and need for continued study is emphasized by Parker
and Toots (1980), who stress the importance of utilizing trace elements in skeletal

components as paleobiological indicators:

Evolution of physiological adaptations does not necessarily
parallel evolution of skeletal parts and dentition. Proboscideans
are highly advanced in the evolution of their dentition but are
primitive in their sodium metabolism. Because of the latter fact,
distribution of elephants in modern Africa is closely correlated
with high environmental sodium levels (Weir, 1972), and
elephants are known to depend on food that is particularly rich
in sodium (Dougall et al. 1964; Laws et a1. 1975). This is also
reflected in the high sodium levels of fossil proboscideans
(normalized mean Na percentage .= 0.68) and may be a factor
in the unusually high rate of extinctions of proboscideans during
the Pleistocene. One should keep this factor in mind when
theorizing about the extinction of such high sodium groups of
mammals as titanotheres or oreodonts, as an animal with a
poorly developed sodium metabolism would be more vulnerable
to environmental stress, and at a disadvantage in competition
with better—adapted animals (Parker and Toots 1976).

73
imi ' n u 'on

There are limitations to this analysis that relate to both the proboscidean sites
and the salt sites. An obvious restriction in studies involving extinct animal remains
is the absence of observable living animals. In essence, this spatial analysis was
based on localities where the animals died and became preserved; which for various
reasons might be rather remote from their salt-procuring areas.

The number of utilized sites may have restricted this analysis, as only 34 salt
sites and 225 proboscidean sites were considered valid. A conservative approach was
taken in considering the validity of the salt sites as only sites reported as salt or saline
springs, or salt licks were used and many human-made borings and drilled wells were
not considered. Thus, the salt localities plotted in Holman et al. (1988) and this
analysis differ. Moreover, 46 proboscidean records were not used because they could
not be accurately assigned to the proper section.

The early work of State Geologist Douglass Houghton included documenting
72 sections of land exhibiting evidence of surface saline water (Cook, 1914). Some
of these sections are documented in early state geological reports (Houghton, 1838;
Hubbard, 1839; Douglass, 1840) but a comprehensive list of these could not be
located. A continued search for these salt sites and a re-examination of the salt data
may provide additional valid salt localities, and possibly different results.

Repeating this analysis with additional salt and proboscidean sites may give
more supportive evidence relative to the distribution of proboscideans around salt
sites. An analysis that incorporated Douglass Houghton’s list of 72 salt sections, and

re—examined salt data would be worthwhile. Also, the elimination of approximated

74

and estimated sites from the analysis could remove error and may produce different
results. The completed co-occurrence analysis included only one randomization that
was compared with the actual data and tested for significant differences between the
groups. A comparison of several randomizations with the actual data would be
interesting and also may produce different results. Hopefully, more proboscidean and

salt sites will come to light and additional analyses can be made.

APPENDICES

75

3623636

6663637.

§6ca6i6fié¢6=i agaflcgvaa. 66. .58
68:... a 83.6:

6425—266:

85367.82
s.§§a<&:é§.§_§3€=.§6_:£
84635828528335

6...... Sage—.285
.Ga_!§3.6§§6282é3ave-561.562.:
633.582.8663812962582328=85
sx_vaazoaz.§vx6m.s~6:85
66633824962622.81638285
842332662

€66.36._§.§6c._. .6 656.6:
£263.83_§6282..86_§.§6_52.836.66.62:35
AS63636.

8663562662

36632636.

3669.695
onia<§x861§384§625
§2§6266Z§6383

86635626.:

83.3.6222

nmuonu <1—
5655;86:661A36362.662.5626:
86636326.:

3623696

86636326.:

.2665 3566.369..."

6.8ng

Ba

3v
3»
Ba
Ba

.IN-‘du-‘u-I—fl—O

9.

>5—

>3—
3%
32
>22
3:
3:
3:
3w—
3:
mm
Ev
>5
>5

3m—
30—
30—
3:
3:
3&2 MOE

~~~—————n—i~—_—ufl—_—fl—I°‘

—

2h 9N
m— *—
mh @—
wn. on
8 6'
ma o—
n» h
an n
we on
no onN
mo 5—
mn @—
mw NM
mm. 00
mv .—
wn NN
an —
z: n
22 —
2v 1
Zn 00—
72 an
2? VN
ZN o— _
2— an
2— I
Z— O—
E 205mm

m2

Mm

m2
m2
:6
26

um

:—

<H<Q HZOQOHm<2 Z<O~EUE

< Kan—Zm—mm/w

m2

m2

3—

6mm 6.3. .622

“.665 8e. 9.67.

mm 32.6. .636:
Sam Goa—an

8% 33 {2.62

33 52 6 62.6666

68 .65. a... a:

is: 6.6535 8...... .6 m

66:6 .6 35368065...
53%.: 666.333.

366m

65". 38:36.8 ..6 a

626m

35 e88

830 in

Eau— nag

3:363 .6 mm

3a... 62.158. :9:

so. 3.63.3

£5636... 5:236:63...

26.62.63".

35636... 63.66 £38

.953:

mm ea :38:
.68 .6 23% 686$

6:356". c6 3m

:23: 550% MO 2

.33“ 6:0

mm €556.26 53.
E m5: mum

76

83.8.5.8:

6...... .6 6.3.6:

.16... 5.3.0.38...

6.2.... .6 6.6.6:

68.38...

6.2.... .6 6.6.6:

.8...6.a.6=.§...... .6 6.8.6..

8.2.6.28...

38.366...
5655.86.06.5azag.E..§.:.=..8.0266...0
8.606.582.5625

56:8... 8.8.0.8822600.Z§o06.28.2820»...
6.6:... .66..6.6=.a.6..&.x .6. 6.6:

3.05 5

G....... .6 6.6..6:
8805582....06.25.2525:
a8....66.....§..&§ 66. 8.0
.88...2=06.2.§...6....<6.2.G.oa... .6 6§.6=...~.....=
a......§....82.... .6 636.6:

3.6.366...

.8...6....<6.2

.8238...

3.2.266...

5.2.6326...

3.2.... .66..6.6............6...E

3.2.266...

...6...5.83:6...26.2.§6.:.=
:3...3.380.628.4680... .0 6.6..6...¢.6.6...6......
88.366...

.3...6....<...z

3.3:... .6 6.8.6:

52.66....» .86.... .6 8.6.6:

.8... 3.8.2.... .6 666.6:

.85 3.38.366...

8.2.6.25...

3.05 5

...6...5.6.2.63282882...
a.....6....<o.z.a8...61...§.:.:

.3... 5.6306326...

n~_~~~_~~~—~——_~

fi.

6‘
~——~——~—~_—IN~—t—I—~~_———

@—
3m
3m
>20

N—

Na

Mo
:5
3—
3'
3*
:5
3n
3v
3n

3N
3N
3N
3N. _

ma
”.2.
Na
mu
N»
mm
m»
mm
Mm
3m
3m
3m
30
30
3n
:5

mm
2m—
2m—

2m

2v
2N
22
ms
we
2N—
2N—
2N—
Zn—
2:
2:

2:
2:
2:
25

20
20
2m
2m
2n
2»
25.
20
20
2V
2v
2..
2n
2—
2—
2—

on
om
Va
0
QN
v
mm
cu
n
3
I
w.

_ _
onn

3m

m2

:3

m2

m2
3m

m2

3m
32
3m
3m
3m
32

66... 66.... 6.... .66..

66.? =6...

3. 996682.338... .2 =62
6... .36....

6:86.36... .6 3 0.166. $65.60

6... .36.. 8......

6... 5.65.6...

3.32.6. :8 66....

6.3 .6256: .82

6...". 8.3832866

01203“

6... a... 6...

.2 m. 6... 3:2:
32 6... 566a
6... .6......

m2 66... .6 .666.

3m 8.... 58m
852 .0 23.... 3.63.3—

mm m8 n 6.31— ..m

atop—38m .80 5:80— 8505...:

=03>an .80 3.82.5051...—

.EE .8: 0:80— 0305—0:

0:350

85 .0332.

05636... 6.6.2....

603.60 .8235 8:30

35 60.53..

6... .552...

00.3.0

38 6.00

6... 26.. 5.

can .3...—

32 2.. .8..— 882 8>
8::2 .0 32

«gm o__.>.:0.Eu>

E... 86.565.33.3—
8>=O .0 885.02

S... 8280.33 308.2

mm m2

AQmDZFZOUV <H<Q 220909.322 720—2022

EOIH
3.6....
3.2....
..66.
8......—
8......—
8...»...
Saga:
63......
63......
8....0
8....0
8......
3.660
.6......
«0:80

.0580
.0380
.0380
$3030
3880
082.00
00880
3.280
3880
3880
00.8.00
00880
00880
38:00
8880
68am
00.0m—
cSom
00.0m—
Exam
:S-N
:33..—

77

sx~§a<8§§~§A§E£
523.55.68.23 8 Eat:
svavaaiazégii

68c... .0 25o:
A§_.§s=£§?é§!&<o£.§ezi
683035

8339282

833538!

38—38%

son—538.363.3582
83.397.22.8a25

68:... .0 3%:
3355.3»9385.833382é825
@8393

83:53.82
3855.63.Enioixsavadxflexé
8335582

3855.?

.68assaméaeéixaoci 33353832:

68:... 83353255....
68.38%...

63:55::

8335522

€83.13.“

.12.. 35898.55".

3:05 (1-
.msefiéxssazoigaexi
8892158855555.
98.38;.A8oEouefifi
83$3582.88395:3.33235
38383.0.

:85 5.68:... .9 3%:
633525.!

8335582

683:3.“

88:209..“

8335255

6335.582

63%:582

od—flu-QI-Q—‘o-Q—I-‘H—l—l—‘I-i-l—I—c-t

——~—~~—~_~—_~~—_—~~_~

mt
we
fit
No
No
NV
mm

Nu

m—
mm

mv
mv
m:

m:
me
No—
No
No
3N—
3:
30—
3a—
3:
32
>3
3o
3:
3:
30
30
>1
3—
3—

Zn

2—
Z—
Z—

smeswaa

mm.
mm
mm
22

Zo—
7F
7:.
2o
20

20—
Zn
2»
20
20
Zn
Zn

mm
mm
mm
mm
m—
an
mnfi
mm

on
Bu
0:

Na
9%

S

2
mm

a
an
3
mm
a

an
5N
u—
0N
VM
5; _

N3.
:38
a

.3m

mm

mm

3%

m2
3m
3m

2 3358.5— 88-3qu
9% :53.

3.8: he 5

98 $5 .33 son
3 880

£33... 3.5....
833 “a m

888

2.158. 38cm
5.3.

856

36 can 3630
:63 .3 22589
38.5.89 .o mz
gash.
83633 320
.550 =8 :38.—

mz 3% 3.2.3.
38 9:08 5>

.8.5 .0 385:8

33 as... «a

3...:

.23. Eco .0 2 .ga

28 5:... 3:6

ea .33»: 203.:

3:. .§§8=§§.o

2a 525

5.5 09.5.5 “.86 “.3935:—
Ed 252533.

2.3.38. 838 .o 5m mz

3a €oio_§=a.>

~25— oonuEu—J— go in ho=a>
83.3

8:383. baa: 5:6 Eu
33 8:58 .o a.» .83

833—. 302

83.8. =8 2:82 58%:
x080 canton— ao >580. 9.55.5

Eszonov 5.3 9280522 23:63

at?
8:35
:33

8333. .
8333

3380..—
8330‘.—
«oi-do:
33304
8333
3333
33:84

noon-\—

noon:
32.1.—
82.1—
3&1.—
boom-\—
Eav—
28v—
33.
38—
Env—
and.
38—
33—

03353—
con-835—

use...
6383..
838—.

78

68.3%82..§:....
.12..<...68:..86.68.§...<8:
88:829.:

68:......»

68:....28...

68:... .o .88..

.12.. 3.68:... .o 5......

68:63.26

68:... 83.68:...596.68:... .o 883..
68.1.86

.12.. 5.68:... .o .88..
.133...8:=38§.68.§&<82..§:.£
6.68:3.

.8.Ea..8.8... 328336.668. 68:....
68:... .o homage... .0 .88..

68:... a .88..

668:3.

68.61.28:

68:63.6 .8. 8.0

68:... 3.83....88:§16

68:..86

6.2.5.28:

.12.. 3.88:... .0 S..........8:=3..o
68...o..§.88.§...<o.2..88:84...8:..:..§.rocafiam
68:582....

68.6.8.6

.12..<....32§...<82..§:..:
68:63.86
66..:..2.§?.68:.1..<2:.§8:3.
8.2.5.282

.3..:=....<..2

68:... .0 85...:

68:...»...

68.§.29.z...3..2.£==
68:..2.§?.§o:a....<32..82.....
68:582....

68.38....

68:582....

68.6.3.8:

Empzfizou. <55 50853. 7.5.5.2

_
~
Z
a
_
q
~
~
~
_
~
~
~
~
_
_
_
~
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
~
_
~
_
_
_

MN—
un—
me
me

Z0
Z0
Zh
Zn
Z:
Zh—
Zn.
Zn
Zn
Zn
Zv
Zv
Zn
Zn
Zn
ZN
ZN
ZN
ZN
Z—
Zn—
Z n.
ZN—
Ze—
20
Z:—
Zo—
ms.
an
z:
2:
ZS
Zn
ZN
21
Z1

3
—N
La

N—

n—

NnkKN
inn

3%

3m

3m

um

mZ

.Bm

m2

3m
3m

m2

Mm

3m
3%
Mn

3m

mZ

.16 .o a...

3:80.36 .8... 38.
288....

8.8.. 8 m

no.8:

.5... .82

36 a...

36 .218.

36 8.26

so: .8...

.83.. .8236 .86
88.36 .8... =22...
0.68.. E 0.65..

.88.. .o .881...

36 a... 36358.20

68.. 6.0. 2.8.5. 8...
81.53 .29

688.8...

88...: a... 2.668...
8.3.. 3.2 .32

.85.". .o 3...

68.3.63 :8 8.18.388:
36 88.0.

s6 .£o§.182 .8 z

.2. 89.3". .582 SS...
18:16 .8: 5:83 1303::
36 38:28.6

s6 081......

939.30..—

2.3.0

.3 8.6.: a. 3.8. .38....
8...... .82

8.0 5.80 8.6.3.

.8 8.8.: a. 3:8. .38....
8.5.8.". £83.33, a 82.6
.8506 .2 .o 6

8.5.8.. .82 618.918....
.3 2.2.... a. 3.8. .58....
8.8»...

.385

35-0
3.3.0
3335
3.390
3.35
.3335

133.0
aux-302

cum->62
cum-302
sues-:2
canon-:2
8.8302
3.18.82
818.62
85.02
02:02
31—22
.3322
1532
£83.:
46032
4.8an
818.5
8186...
818.5

79

83.8.3282

83:33.82

83:... 8 88...:

83:28.8

.33:5...<82

83.8.8282

83.8.3202

83:28.8

83:..88
.33..q....<..2..33:..=
83.8.8282
..8...<...§3:......<..2..83:81...33:3.
83:28.8

83:... 8 5......
83.2.3282

83:28.8
83:..88..3..:... 8 58...:
52.8....282 .8. 83323:... 8 58...:
8.2.3.282

.3... .1.

83:... 8 .55....
83:5..282

:8... 3233:5352
83:... 8 55...:
.33........<..2

83:... 8 85...:
.33........<..2

.33........<..2

83.8.3282

83:38.8

83:28.8
.3.........<82.83:81...33:3.
83.8.8282

83:28.8

.33........<..2

:8... 5.83:... 8 58...:
...2..<...83:81...33.:.:
.33.§...<..2

83:5..282

5.3.2.928: .5... 5808.2 2.5.5.2

III!d—nc-I—t—tc—‘c—Gu—n—u-n—u-I—c-fl—i—v-l—I‘d—d—Q—i—O—H—Iu—Nu-‘u-lI-‘fi—‘I-‘I—it-fl

39
30—
33
39
m:
m:
E
mm
mu
9.
MN
Mn
mv
mm

mm—
m:
mu—
Mn—
N..—
MN—
32
3o
30
30
m:
m2
Mn
mm
mm
we
we
Na
mm
mm
m—

mm

Z3
Zn—
Zn—
Zn
Zn

Zo
Zn
Zn

22
22
ZN—
2:
ZS
Zo—
ms
an
we
mm
Zn
Zn
22
Zn—
2:
22
22
22
20—
20
20

omn
to

an

LN

QN
@—
~N
QVN

90
{ON
0—
m
on—
NN..O—N
VN
5N
own
N
am
ON
9mm
NM
oVN
o

o
to

32

3m

.851—

203 we BZ

8% 83w

8.3.5... .88....

b... 8.0 =8 .883 58......
b... :6 .o 8

28.5

3.580 .32

.8833:

8mm gaonxoomao>

.8830

«28.385 .8933

coin .38 5:18— 5.3.2.5
3mm com3a>

.88.... $8.8:

=an§0 .8: 8:80— 5.5.2.5
38 8.8.3.... 8.82

38 8b..

8:3... .8 mz

3% 63380:."—

38 8.6.5.... ...m

0301.2

8.1— 05-...—

85 .o=oN

.830 a. mm

88 83m

80cm .55: .8 8:30..— 8305...:
.55: co.— .. 223 .55: 8.1—
830 .5 mo 2

3..an .5 .3: 8:30— :39
8.38...— .82

3335 he 32

588...... .o m

55.5.0.3..."—

ca... n88 :0 mz

SE .282

8.3.— .55»

98.82....

.3 5...... a. 5.18.388:

:83 aa>
=83 .3>
683 5>
.855 .3>
8083.
803:9
303:9
coon-3.3m
33.3.3.5
03333.8
coon-3.2%
88-3...“
003.335
3.3335
3:65
3:56
055m
3.33
3:55
3:56
3:52...
0225
.88... .8
9.8... .8
.38... .8
£8... .8
830 4m
850 4m
850 ..m
BEES
3.53m
3333
35.3.5
38.35
33:96
3338
3.5m}.
BSZMum
35.35

80

3.8.3...
a8:..§...88:5...<82...8:5.
88:535.:

5855... 88.2.8.3..3...5...<..2.§8:3.
68:... a .35.:

58:38...

5.3.. 5.38.338... .8......3..88:5...<..2..88:3.
8.2.5.2....

88:558....

88:555.:

88 :5...<..2

68:... .o .35...

.8...5...<..2.§8:..:

.3...5...<..s.

38:38...

2.8:... .. .85....383. 355.083.38.305...
88 :5...<..s.

38:38...

5.3.. 5.88:... .o .35.:

3.05 3

...3.. 5.68:... .o .35...

88:535.:

88 :5...<..:.

68:... .. .§.o=...8:...3..ou 8. 8......
5.3.. 5.38:... .o .35.:

3.3.. 5.88.8.8...

68:... .o 5.5....

88:55....

_—I_—I—~~—I——fl—i—~_—I——l~_——~~~—__—

wo-
wo—
m:
mm
mm
ms.
uh
mm
mm
mm
mm
mo
mm
mm
mm
mv
NV
.5.
mm
mm
NV

3:
32
3o—
33
3:

mm

0:”
N—

oON
«—
0N
N—
mm
90—
9:
ON.
2
50m
MN
2
ON
a

9.
mm
ON
mm

V—
VN
#—
QCN

m2

Mm

3%

m2

mm

3m

3m

3%

m2

3858.. 5... 5 .3... 833835 3.. H5.3.. 5
3.6 .53.: ..
5.83 3.83.23... .

mm

Emszfizoo. <53 588...: 25.5.2

good .8..— .u0 3

couoawcognc-m Bogggah

m. z. .8 5 5.33 .38....
3.. 3.838338... .82
3.. 5...:

3...: .82

:5... 8.59.8383 .o m.
ecu-2 .80 m2

8.... .o 3

8.... .o 3.

8.... .o .

3.. 353...

8....

55.3.... .8.

5.8.8... .8.

3.. 3.... 33.3..

88:00 flowed

5.8.8.. 58.3".

3.. 5.. .830 5...:

3.. .33... an... 5..

3.. Ba.

.0550 a. 3:80— 3323::
33 3&3... :8 3...... 5...:
3.. 386..

288.2 .302

85 32.0:

3.. .86 8...

3: .3:2. .25— 3‘ 3st

88.3

8.5.3

8.5.3

8.5.3

8.».3
38.8.1.3
38.8.1.3
38.8533
38.8.1.3
38.8.1.3
38.8433
38.8.1.3
38.8.3.3
3885-3
3385-3
38.8.1.3
38.8.1.3
38.8.3.3
3385.3
38.8.1.3
38.8.1.3
=88 =a>
99:5 =u>
:85 ca>
:25 =a>
:85 E5
:25 =a>
=85 ca>

81

689.8%

389.8%

agifimégroefim

68s.: a 88%:
.woefiéoosaaaménzzeco B. 8:0
68:... .0 53o:

sagas..."

63:... s§a=.§ocfia_o:

.12.. 5.38:..8fi

52!..5502 1: 853x82; .0 583:
€83.36

acoc._§_m.§er§£m

Gauge. 3. sagsos... .0 58...:
383:3.“

aeocgooxméoocawzngshfi

:35 3.30238“;
a::gfiaégrfiofiéoosafiéaifi
aoazsxméas... .0 36
68_vgosaafivxouégcafi
3853.68_Eoeaéa9835.88Eigvavxomégcafi
agzsxfigxoméa:85
38385882.:

3.05 <1—

38:28“;

Abacusgxsoc... .0 assoméacfiao
ceasesggsoc... .o 58...:

68303;.

:35 5.283553:

@838“;

mmozmfimmu—

—
~
_
_
~
_
_
u
_
~
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
~
_
~
_
_
_
_
_

3o
3N—
Ba
Ba
M»
3m
m—
3N
MN—
3v
3—
mm

3v
3m
3m—
3cm
>23
32
Bow
3o—
3:
3:
E
mm
mo

:62 MOE

2o
20
m—
m—
ZNN
Zn
ZN
7:
Zn—
Zo—
2»—
2h

7:
2—
ms
mm
mm
mm
2.
me
me
mm
2—
low
20—

.0
cu—
m
h—
«—
0N—
—
ovN
an
N
to
_n

:
96—
NM
9N
o
n
o—
n
h—
w—
a
.—

gh ZO—Bmm

<P<O EOEE<E Z<O~m0=z

m 592mam<

m2

E

E

:5

ii?

3—

.3. 3 .615— 85 m2
.23. 3.5 .3 386 5::
5580 8304 .3 E 80562

3% son

8.3m >03

35 be»:

“.85 ii a. 338.23%:
35 ‘82

£3 .82

85 A3025

8:2 mo 3

3.650 =8 3.8. 5.5.85
35 35853

3.2.26 =8 3.8. 58%:
as. 5.50%... 8.5 .8 z
.23. Sam .aziam .83
2;. 53:5. 83

32.8 a: 25:82
5:83 38!: :8 5E3
85 58.3

9c. 5:625". casemesoom
i=2 gaseous

3% 5?:

9:. 33 3 .5 3m

35. 55:2

«0:38;, .302

:52 .o z

36 so: 55

.20 3. .o 2

as.
:3.
scan
soon
6300—.
8.3
:8—
63.»...
83»:—
:95:
8:20
5326
33:00
cod-m
Exam
Exam
scam
mono
5E8
8E3
8E8
3E3.
8E8
8.58
8E8
8:5.
b5.
033.3
3:92

miz gm E300

82

883.352...

38.38....

68:28.3

8.3:... .o .553.

38333....

$205 <1—

38:28.5

38:28....

:85 ideoczfim
gsgégcssxmé83:228....845232
28228.82...

33: 68:...:

aoocafimégEefim

68:... .0 agoxéacaa.
:8_52.8.9.9:328.5..«8381220:3.
88:... .o 583:

83:... .0 3:32

88.2.8.6

38:28....

38:28.3

_
_
_
—
_
_
_
~
_
_
_
_
u
_
_
_
_
_
~
_

mm
mm
32
3:
3n—
“: _
MN
mm
m:
NV
3n _
Mu
MK
3N
mo
mN
mm

3:

mm
mm
mv
mm
3
z _ _
2h
2w
Zn
ZN—
Zn
2..
ZN
20—
2—
mm
mm

20

on
m—
{NN
_

_
NN
m—
cm
NN
mm
mm
Ohm
9mm
NN
L _
a
9mm

oon

2.0832. 35 E can: noun—E85 can ":35 <4
:5 3.32 ..
.533 22.229? .

5.5 33 .538: .82

252328.06

5.80 .o B

35 8.5.2

.552 .o m

an 38 2.3.
as: :6 3.: 8.95

8.5.2 m 8:2 8::

Pub .3735:— .oufiuan

9. «Ba 38.52 a...

3.... E .25. 3m

.E .380 2:53.093.

:33: 302 .20 z

3.... 36 .23.
318.58%:

.E .9220 .Sauaww< sow—0:2

35 as... 323w

2250qu .3 m

.23. 2:02.82 0:: 8.2

2.58...

23.2.28. <53 2.82:2: 25.222

383583
3385.3
:85 :->
:23 =¢>
:85 =~>
2035.
083333
083355
033335.
3.53m
.385
Baa—«O
9335
3.222
9.5an
camara—
0035.3
3330‘—
2.3—

Eav—

83

335:3:

canoe <3—
£833.:
38:... .o 5.8.3.
:85 3

:35 3

:35 Ségzsxm
:35 3

68:... .0 58...:
38:... .0 5.5a:
:85 5

mmUZmMm—mm—M

8.2.5. I

€31 580m 23 _
Jug. m_ _
380n— 3w
3.5% 30—

32; 32

xnsh BM

#25. Ba

LE 3m

35.“. 3:

can. .580"— 3N—

AmvPZmEAm NOS

Zh
Zn
20—
2m
20
mm
Zn
2v
mm
2—

_

2
on
or—
0:
mm
3N
nN

_

”Hm—u. 206mm

mm

m2

3—

a§=8u .2. E .33. 8:253... 25 £85 5
35 «£5: ..

8:8. .2. so... 382...: . 3.: 83: €282 .
5:83 3:529? .

and m6

m2 35 33m 330
02m ace—030:2

8% cause-N

mm mm .380 E cog-U
.E .380 2:23.95

cos—0a.. .302

can 30M 30:3

25 3.—

SE 7.2.0:an

26 3mm £532

v: v: mz<z gm

<H<Q mH<ZH§mHmQZ~ <mQ~UmOmO~E Z<O~m0=2

U XHQZmEm<

5305?:
2585
8.35
578602
.3.
an:
cos—0a..
as»...
:33..—

SEom .

cane—2

EDOU

84

88:83:88:

88:22.3:
28258888828388:.§::8=
283.85

88:89:88:

88:89:88:

88:32:80

88:32:33

88:22:89

88:22:28
§25§8§8§8§§
c8288528838388.8988:
88:82:88:

88:82.»

88:82.»

58:82;
2893:8583::8J.88::2::8=
a82885.88::8J.88:=2::8=
88:82:88:

88:89:88:

88.52.85»

88:82:88:

88:82:88:

88:81:

88:83

88:81

88:83

88:83

88:89:83:

88:82:82

88:83:88:

Na
Na
Mn

at
”n
3m—
3m—
3m—
3»
Us.
3—
3~
um
um
>5
m:
m:
mn—
mn—
Mn
3N—
3N—
mm—
m:
m:
m:
mo—
3m
3n
3?

WmUZmMMn—MM maul:

<P<Q mam H.186 Z<O~ZU=Z

Q XHQZWAE’:

ma

Z3
Z2
Z2
Z2
ZO—
Za
Zo
ms.
Zn—
Zn—
z:
z:
2:
Zn
Zn
Zn
Zn

Zo
20
Zn—
Zn—
ZS
2:
ZS
29
20
Zn

g

3
FM
on
2
206mm

8:8 8:8 :3 8.52
.288 8:: :2. 2:52
8:8 8:8 :3... 8:8

2.2.: :8 :3 .885

.288 8:: E 22:38.:
.818 8:: E :86 :28
N 52.8 8:8 :2. 82.8.8
_ 88:8 8:8 :2. 82:28
5:88 8:8 :2. 52:8
88:8 2:8 :3 822m
8:8 :8 :3: 2:

admin cam—am 95,—. 0880—.
8:8 8:8 :3 8.2:

N 8:8 :8 :3 8222

_ 8:8 :8 :3: 8222
28:8 :8 :3. 82

N 88:8 8:8 :3 20:35.6
_ 82:8 8:8 :3: 20:88.6
:5: 5:88 :3... 8.8.2
:52 .2288 :3: 8.28
3.0.: 88 :2. 5:3.

N .818 8:8 22:2: 8.5

2 85.8 8:8 22:2: .820
28.3 51m 3 .3033—

:on :8 :3: 23

8:8 :8 :3: .2826
22:8 .3288 :3... .2826
8:8 :8 :2. 2:326

N :52 8:8 :2. 89:55.3
_ :52 8:8 :3 83:25.3
:5: 28 :3. 8883
$.22 88

8.5.3
oak-3
3385-3
3033.
382:8
38:88
gonna-=2
822.32
nous—2.2
818:0:
92:02
3322
.3522
98:22
15.22
93:22
28032
283:2
:80an
3:332
8382.—
ES—

:3:
:83.—
:95:
:82:
:95:
:82:
6:80
8:80
5:35
E900

85

Aug—Vinson: m: m 2
8332333 m2 9. ON
aha—viafial mg .04 um

AQmDZFZOUV <H<Q gm H136 Z<0~ID~2

as: 9:. :33»..ch
«cram gum E =§32m
«saw 8:6 .5... 283.

can?
06%.?
a???

REFERENCES CITED

REFERENCES CITED

Agenbroad. L. D. 1984. New World Mammoth Distribution. IN: P. S. Martin and

R. G. Klein, (eds.), Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Bearss, R. E. and R. O. Kapp. 1987. Vegetation Associated with the Heisler

Mastodon Site, Calhoun County, Michigan. Michigan Academician 19:133-
140. -

Beyer, W. H. (ed.) 1974. Handbook of Tables for Probability and Statistics.
Cleveland: The Chemical Rubber Co.

Campbell, R. C. 1989. Statistics for Biologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Case, E. C., I. D. Scott, B. M. Badenoch and T. E. White. 1935. Discovery of
Elephas primigenius americanus in the Bed of Glacial Lake Mogodore, in Cass

County, Michigan. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and
Letters 20:449-454.

Case, E. C. and G. M. Stanley. 1935. The Bloomfield Hills Mastodon. Cranber
Institute of Science Bulletin 4: 1-8.

Cook, C. W. 1912. The Salt Industry of Michigan. IN: Allen, R. C. (ed.), Mineral
Resources of Michigan with Statistical Tables of Production and Value of
Mineral Products for 1910 and Prior Years. Michigan Geological and
Biological Survey Publication 8 (Geological Series 6), Lansing: Wynkoop
Hallenbeck Crawford Co. , State Printers.

Cook, C. W. 1914. The Brine and Salt Deposits of Michigan: Their Origin,

Distribution, and Exploitation. Michigan Geological and Biological Survey
15: 1-188.

Crane, H. R. and J. B. Griffin. 1958. University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates H.
Science 127:1098-1105.

86

87

Davis, C. A. 1909. Report on the Geology of Tuscola County, Michigan. Report of
the State Board of Geological Survey of Michigan for the year 1908. Lansing:
Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford, Co., State Printers.

Dice, L. R. 1920. The Mammals of Warren Woods, Berrien County, Michigan.
Occasional Papers of the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology 86:3-20.

Dorr, J. A. and D. F. Eschman. 1970. Geology of Michigan. Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press.

Dorr, V., N. Goebel, J. Haslock, K. Lehto, J. Shoshani, P. Sujdak, M. A. Vaerten,
F. Zoch, and P. Zoch. 1982. A Guide to the Groleau-White Lake Mastodon.
Oakland Community College Press: 1-19.

Dougall, H. W., Drysdale, V. M., and P. E. Glover. 1964. The Chemical
Composition of Kenya Browse and Pasture Herbage. East African Wildlife
Journal 2:86-121.

Douglass, C. C. 1840. Report of C. C. Douglass, Assistant Geologist. Third
Annual Report of the State Geologist. 1840 State of Michigan Senate
Document Volume 11(7).

Dreimanis, A. 1967. Mastodons, their Geologic Age and Extinction in Ontario,
Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 4:663-675.

Fisher, D. C. 1984a. Mastodon Butchery by North American Paleo-Indians. Nature
308:271-272.

Fisher, D. C. 1984b. Taphonomic Analysis of late Pleistocene Mastodon
Occurrences: Evidence of Butchery by North American Paleo-Indians.
Paleobiology 10:338-357.

Fisher, D. C. 1990. Age, Sex, and Season of Death of the Grandville Mastodont.
IN: T. J. Martin and C. E. Cleland, (eds.), Pilot of the Grand: Papers in
Tribute to Richard E. Flanders, Part 1. fire Michigan Archaeologist 36: 141-
160.

Fox, G. R. 1924. Place Names of Berrien County. Michigan History Magazine 8:6-
35.

Fox, G. R. (no date). Mammoth and Mastodon Remains in Berrien County.
Unpublished paper from the possession of Judge Ira Butterfield of Bay City.
A copy of the paper is present in the Michigan State University Vertebrate
Paleontology Division.

88

Frankforter, W. D. 1966. Some Recent Discoveries of Late Pleistocene Fossils in
Western Michigan. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science Arts and
Letters 51:209-220.

Frankforter, W. D. 1991. On the Trail of the Mighty Mastodon. Museum (Public
Museum of Grand Rapids) 1:43.

French, M. H. 1945. Geophagia in animals. East African Medical Journal 22:103-
110; 152-161.

Garland, E. B. and J. W. Cogswell. 1985. The Powers Mastodon Site, Van Buren
County, Michigan. Michigan Archaeologist 31:3-39.

Gilbert, S. 1981. The Jolman Mastodon Site. Cofiinberry Bulletin of the Michigan
Archaeological Society 28:32.

Gilmore, C. W. 1906. Notes on Some Recent Additions to the Exhibition Series of
Vertebrate Fossils. Proceedings of the U. S. National Museum 30:607-611.

Graham, R. W. 1986. Taxonomy of North American Mammoths. IN: G. C. Prison
and L. C. Todd (eds.), The Colby Site: Taphonomy and Archaeology of a

Clovis Kill in Northern Wyoming. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.

Graham, R. W., C. V. Haynes, D. L. Johnson, and M. Kay. 1981. Kimmswick: A
Clovis-Mastodon Association in Eastern Missouri. Science 213:1115-1117.

Green, A. R. 1967. Paleo—Indian and Mammoth were Contemporaneous. Michigan
Archeologist 13:1-10.

Harington, C. R. 1977. Pleistocene Mammals of the Yukon Territory. Doctoral
Dissertation. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Hartnagel, C. A. and S. C. Bishop. 1922. The Mastodonts, Mammoths and Other

Pleistocene Mammals of New York State. New York State Museum Bulletin
241-242zl-110.

Hatt, R. T. 1963. The Mastodon of Pontiac. Cranbrook Institute of Science
Newsletter 32:62-64.

Hatt, R. T. 1965a. The Littlest Mastodon. Cranbrook Institute of Science
Newsletter 35:20-23.

Hatt, R. T. 1965b. Fossil Proboscidea at Cranbrook. Cranbrook Institute of Science
Newsletter 35:24-25.

89

Hay, O. P. 1912. The Pleistocene Period and its Vertebrata. Indiana Department of
Geology and Natural Resources, 36" Annual Report. 1911:540-784.

Hay, O. P. 1923. The Pleistocene of North America and its Vertebrated Animals
from the States East of the Mississippi River and from the Canadian Provinces
East of Longitude 95 Degrees. Carnegie Institute of Washington 322: 1-499.

Hay, O. P. 1924. The Pleistocene of the Middle Region of North America and its
Vertebrated Animals. Carnegie Institute of Washington 322A: 1-385.

Haynes, G. 1991 . Mammoths, Mastodonts, and Elephants: Biology, Behavior, and
the Fossil Record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Held, E. R. and R. O. Kapp. 1969. Pollen Analysis at the Thaller Mastodon Site,
Gratiot County, Michigan. The Michigan Botanist 8:3-10.

Holman, J. A. 1975. Michigan’s Fossil Vertebrates. Publications of the Museum,
Michigan State University, Educational Bulletin 2: 1-54.

Holman, J. A. 1979. New Fossil Vertebrate Remains from Michigan. Michigan
Academician 11:391—397.

Holman, J. A. 1986. The Dansville Mastodont and Associated Wooden Specimen.
National Geographic Research 2:416.

Holman, J. A. 1988. Michigan’s Mastodonts and Mammoths Revisited. IN: G. L.
Larson and G. W. Monaghan (eds.), Wisconsinan and Holocene Stratigraphy
in Southwestern Michigan. East Lansing: Department of Geological Sciences,
Michigan State University, one-time publication only.

Holman, J. A. 1991. New Records of Michigan Pleistocene Vertebrates With
Comments on the Mason-Quimby Line. Michigan Academician 23:273-283.

Holman, J. A., L. M. Abraczinskas, and D. B. Westjohn. 1988. Pleistocene

Proboscideans and Michigan Salt Deposits. National Geographic Research
4:4-5.

Holman, J. A., D. C. Fisher, and R. O. Kapp. 1986. Recent Discoveries of Fossil

Vertebrates in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Michigan Academician
18:431-463.

Houghton, D. 1838. First Annual Report of the State Geologist. 1838 State of
Michigan House of Representatives Document 24.

90

Hubbard, B. 1839. Report of Bela Hubbard, Assistant Geologist. Second Annual
Report of the State Geologist. 1839 State of Michigan House of
Representatives Document 23.

Hubbard, B. 1840. Report of Bela Hubbard, Assistant Geologist. Third Annual
Report of the State Geologist. 1840 State of Michigan Senate Document 11(7).

Hubbard, B. 1841. Report of Bela Hubbard, Assistant Geologist. 1841 Annual
Report of the State Geologist. 1841 State of Michigan Joint Documents [(11).

Irwin-Williams, C. 1967 . Associations of Early Man with Horse, Camel, and
Mastodon at Hueyatlaco, Valsequillo (Puebla, Mexico). IN: P. S. Martin,
and H. E. Wright, Jr., (eds.), Pleistocene Extinctions: the Search for a
Cause. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kapp, R. O. 1970. A 24,000-Year-Old Jefferson Mammoth from Midland County,
Michigan. Michigan Academician 3:95-99.

Kapp, R. O. 1985. Late-Glacial Pollen and Macrofossils Associated with the

Rappuhn Mastodont (Lapeer County, Michigan). American Midland Naturalist
116:368-377.

King, J. E. and J. J. Saunders. 1984. Environmental Insularity and the Extinction of
the American Mastodont. IN: P. S. Martin and R. G. Klein, (eds.),
Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution. Tucson: University of
Arizona Press.

Kurten, B. and B. Anderson. 1980. Pleistocene Mammals of North America. New
York: Columbia University Press.

Lambie, A. S. (editor) 1933. Cranbrook Institute of Science Newsletter 3:5.

Lane, A. C. 1899a. Water Resources of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. United
States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 30: 1—97.

Lane, A. C. 1899b. Lower Michigan Mineral Waters: a Study into the Connection
between their Chemical Composition and Mode of Occurrence. United States
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 31: 1-97.

Lane, A. C. 1900. Geological Report of Huron County, Michigan. Geological
Survey of Michigan 7(part 2): 1-329.

Lane, A. C. 1902. Report of the State Board of Geological Survey of Michigan for
the Year 1901. 3:252-253.

91

Lane, A. C. 1906. Report of the State Board of Geological Survey of Michigan for
the Year 1905. 7:553.

Lanman, J. H. 1839. History of Michigan, Civil and Topographical in a
Compendious Form; with a View of the Surrounding Lakes. New York: E.
French Publishers.

Lapham, I. A. 1855. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History 5:133.

Laws, R. M., Parker, 1. S., and R. C. B. Johnstone. 1975. Elephants and their
Habitats. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Long, D. T., T. P. Wilson, M. J. Takacs, and D. H. Rezabek. 1988. Stable-Isotope
Geochemistry of Saline Near-Surface Ground Water: East-Central Michigan
Basin. Geological Society of America Bulletin 100:1568-1577.

Lundelius, E. L. Jr., R. W. Graham, B. Anderson, J. Guilday, J. A. Holman, D. W.
Steadman, and S. D. Webb. 1983. Terrestrial Vertebrate Faunas. IN:
Wright, H. E. Jr., (ed.), Late-Quaternary Environments of the United States,
Volume I: The Late Pleistocene. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.

MacAlpin, A. 1940. A Census of Mastodon Remains in Michigan. Papers of the
Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 25:481-490.

MacCurdy, H. M. 1920. Mastodon Remains found in Gratiot County, Michigan.
Annual Report of the Michigan Academy of Science 21:109-110.

Maglio, V. J. 1973. Origin and Evolution of the Elephantidae. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society (New series) 63: 1-149.

Martin, H. and M. T. Straight. 1956. An Index of the Geology of Michigan, 1823-
1955 . Michigan Geological Survey Publication 50:1-461.

McAndrews, J. H. and L. J. Jackson. 1988. Age and Environment of Late
Pleistocene Mastodont and Mammoth in Southern Ontario. IN: R. S. Laub,
N. G. Miller, and D. W. Steadman (eds.), Late Pleistocene and Early
Holocene Paleoecology and Archeology of the Eastern Great Lakes Region.
Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 33: 161-172.

Mendenhall, W. 1983. Introduction to Probability and Statistics. Boston: Duxbury
Press.

Miller, W. E. 1987. Mammut americanum, Utah’s First Record of the American
Mastodon. Journal of Paleontology 61:168-183.

92

Mills, J. C. 1918. History of Saginaw County, Michigan. Vol. 1. Saginaw:
Seemann and Peters Publishers.

Odale, R. N., F. C. Whitmore Jr., and J. R. Grimes. 1987. Elephant Teeth from
the Western Gulf of Maine and Their Implications. National Geographic
Research 3:439-446.

Olsen, 8. J. 1972. Osteology for the Archaeologist: The American Mastodon and
the Woolly Mammoth. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology, Harvard University 56:1-47.

Oltz, D. O. and R. O. Kapp. 1963. Plant Remains Associated with Mastodon and
Mammoth Remains in Central Michigan. American Midland Naturalist
70:339-346.

Osborn, H.F. 1922. Species of American Pleistocene Mammoths: Elephas
jefi‘ersonii, new species. American Museum Novitates 41:1-16.

Osborn, H. F. 1936. Proboscidea: a Monograph of the Diversity, Evolution,
Migration and Extinction of the Mastodons and Elephants of the World.
Volume 1. New York: American Museum of Natural History.

Osborn, H. F. 1942. Proboscidea: a Monograph of the Diversity, Evolution,
Migration and Extinction of the Mastodons and Elephants of the World.
Volume 2. New York: American Museum of Natural History.

Parker, R. B. and H. Toots. 1976. Sodium in Teeth of Fossil Vertebrates as a
Paleobiological Tool. Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science,
Proceedings 11:87.

Parker, R. B. and H. Toots. 1980. Trace Elements in Bones as Paleobiological
Indicators. IN: A. K. Behrensmeyer and A. P. Hill, (eds.) Fossils in the
Making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Peale, A. C. 1886. Lists and Analyses of the Mineral Springs of the United States.
Bulletin of the United States Geological Survey 32: 1-235.

Ray, C. E., Cooper, B. N., and W. S. Benninghoff. 1967. Fossil Mammals and
Pollen in a Late Pleistocene Deposit at Saltville, Virginia. Journal of
Paleontology 41:608-622.

Redmond, I. 1984. Underground Elephants. Animal Kingdom 87 :30-37.

93

Richards, R. L. 1984. The Pleistocene Vertebrate Collection of the Indiana State
Museum With a List of the Extinct and Extralocal Pleistocene Vertebrates of
Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 92:483-504.

Romig, W. 1986. Michigan Place Names: the History of the Founding and the
Naming of More than Five Thousand Past and Present Michigan Communities.
Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Runyon, R. P. and A. Haber. 1984. Fundamentals of Behavioral Statistics. New
York: Random House.

Russell, 1. C. and F. Leverett. 1908. United States Geological Survey Folio 155:9.

Saunders, J. J. 1977. Late Pleistocene Vertebrates of the Western Ozark Highland,
Missouri. Illinois State Museum Reports of Investigations 33:1-118.

Saunders, J. J. 1988. Fossiliferous Spring Sites in Southwestern Missouri. IN: R.
S. Laub, N. G. Miller, and D. W. Steadman (eds.), Late Pleistocene and
Early Holocene Paleoecology and Archeology of the Eastern Great Lakes
Region. Bulletin of the Buflalo Society of Natural Sciences 33:127-149.

Schultz, C. B., L. G. Tanner, F. C. Whitmore, Jr., L. L. Ray, and E. C. Crawford.
1963. Paleontologic Investigation at Big Bone Lick State Park Kentucky: A
Preliminary Report. Science 142:1167-1169.

Schultz, C. B., L. G. Tanner, F. C. Whitmore, Jr., L. L. Ray, and E. C. Crawford.
1967. Big Bone Lick, Kentucky-A Pictoral Story of the Paleontological
Excavations at this Famous Fossil Locality from 1962 to 1966. University of
Nebraska Museum Notes 33.

Sherzer, W. H. 1900. Geological Report on Monroe County, Michigan. Geological
Survey of Michigan 7(part 1):1-240.

Sherzer, W. H. 1927. A New Find of the Woolly Elephant in Michigan. Science
65:616.

Shipman, P., D. C. Fisher, and J. J. Rose. 1984. Mastodon Butchery: Microscopic
Evidence of Carcass Processing and Bone Tool Use. Paleobiology 10:358-
365.

Shoshani, J. 1989. A Report on the Shelton Mastodon Site and a Discussion of the
Numbers of Mastodons and Mammoths in Michigan. Michigan Academician
21: 1 15-132.

94

Shoshani, J ., D. C. Fisher, J. M. Zawiskie, S. J. Thurlow, S. L. Shoshani, W. S.
Benninghoff, and F. H. Zoch. 1989. The Shelton Mastodon Site:
Multidisciplinary Study of a Late Pleistocene (Twocreekan) Locality in
Southeastern Michigan. The University of Michigan Contributions from the
Museum of Paleontology 27:393-436.

Simpson, G. G. 1945. The Principles of Classification and A Classification of
Mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85: 1-350.

Simpson, G. G. 1949. A Fossil Deposit in a Cave in St. Louis. American Museum
of Natural History Novitates 1408: 1-46.

Skeels, M. A. 1962. The Mastodons and Mammoths of Michigan. Papers of the
Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 47:101-133.

Steel, R. G. D. and J. H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A
Biometrical Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Stirton, R. A., and W. K. Gealey. 1949. Reconnaissance Geology and Vertebrate
Paleontology of El Salvador, Central America. Geological Society of America
Bulletin 60:1731-1754.

Stoutamire, W. P. and W. S. Benninghoff. 1964. Biotic Assemblage Associated
with a Mastodon Skull from Oakland County, Michigan. Papers of the
Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 49:47-60.

Warren, J. C. 1852. Description of a Skeleton of the Mastodon giganteus of North
America. Boston: John Wilson & Son.

Warren, J .C. 1855. Supemumerary Tooth in Mastodon giganteus. American
Journal of Science 19:349-353.

Weston, D. and K. McMillion. 1973. Elephant Hunting in Michigan. Michigan
Natural Resources 42: 18-21.

Whitmore, F. C. Jr., K. O. Emery, H. B. S. Cooke, and D. J. P. Swift. 1967.
Elephant Teeth from the Altantic Continental Shelf. Science 156:1477-1481.

Wier, J. S. 1972. Spatial Distribution of Elephants in an African National Park in
Relation to Environmental Sodium. Oikos 23:1-13.

Wier, J. S. 1973. Exploitation of Water Soluble Sodium by Elephants in Murchison
Falls National park, Uganda. East African Wildlife Journal 11:1-7.

Wilkinson, L. 1990. SYSTAT: The System for Statistics. Evanston: SYSTAT, Inc.

95

Wilson, R. L. 1967. The Pleistocene Vertebrates of Michigan. Papers of the
Michigan Academy of Science Arts and Letters 52:197-257.

Winchell, A. 1861. First Biennial Report of the Progress of the Geological Survey
of Michigan, 1860. Lansing: Hosmer and Kerr.

Winchell, A. 1864. Notice of the Remains of a Mastodon Recently Discovered in
Michigan. American Journal of Science (2“ Series) 38:223-224.

Wittry, W. L. 1965. The Institute Digs A Mastodon. Cranbrook Institute of Science
Newsletter 35: 14-19.

Yates, D. L. 1987. Salt of the Earth: A History of Midland County, Michigan.
Michigan: Midland County Historical Society.

lllllllllllllllli