Medium 9780253351982

A Sea without Fish: Life in the Ordovician Sea of the Cincinnati Region

Views: 554
Ratings: (0)

The region around Cincinnati, Ohio, is known throughout the world for the abundant and beautiful fossils found in limestones and shales that were deposited as sediments on the sea floor during the Ordovician Period, about 450 million years ago—some 250 million years before the dinosaurs lived. In Ordovician time, the shallow sea that covered much of what is now the North American continent teemed with marine life. The Cincinnati area has yielded some of the world's most abundant and best-preserved fossils of invertebrate animals such as trilobites, bryozoans, brachiopods, molluscs, echinoderms, and graptolites. So famous are the Ordovician fossils and rocks of the Cincinnati region that geologists use the term "Cincinnatian" for strata of the same age all over North America. This book synthesizes more than 150 years of research on this fossil treasure-trove, describing and illustrating the fossils, the life habits of the animals represented, their communities, and living relatives, as well as the nature of the rock strata in which they are found and the environmental conditions of the ancient sea.

List price: $49.99

Your Price: $39.99

You Save: 20%

Remix
Remove
 

18 Slices

Format Buy Remix

2 Science in the Hinterland: The Cincinnati School Of Paleontology

ePub

Figure 2.1. Members of the Cincinnati School of Paleontology who were amateur paleontologists: A. U. P. James, publisher and owner of the James Book Store. B. S. A. Miller, attorney. C. Charles Faber, realtor. D. C. B. Dyer, who, after he retired as a maker of soap and candles, devoted himself to fossil collecting. Photograph of Dyer from an old album in the possession of Richard Arnold Davis (© Richard Arnold Davis); all others from the Department of Geology, University of Cincinnati.

 

The rocks beneath and around Cincinnati were deposited in an interval of time universally called the Ordovician Period. This time unit was proposed formally in 1879. In the second half of the nineteenth century, beginning even before the Ordovician Period was named, there was in the region of Cincinnati, Ohio, a group of paleontologists who have been called the “Cincinnati School of Paleontology.” There is no single, definitive list of the members of the Cincinnati School, and different authors have included different people as members, depending on the purposes of their compilations. Nor is there a definitive list of iron-clad criteria as to who should be considered a member and who should not. Nonetheless, the individuals included in the body of this chapter have a number of characteristics in common.

 

3 Naming and Classifying Organisms

ePub

 

When people from a number of different countries endeavor to communicate with one another, eventually there is a problem, namely, language. Different peoples have different names for the same animal; for example, “chat,” “felix,” “gato,” “gatto,” and “Katze” all refer to the animal we call “cat.” Moreover, the same word may be used to designate more than one kind of animal; for instance, we use the word “cat” when talking about a house cat, or a lion, or a tiger, or a bobcat, or a mountain lion, or. . . .

Beginning well over two centuries ago, it gradually was recognized that, if scientists around the world were to communicate with one another successfully, each kind of plant and animal must have its own unique name, and that each name must refer to one, and only one, kind of plant or animal. At that time, all educated Europeans knew Greek and, especially, Latin, so it was suggested that these plant names and animal names be in one of these classical languages; that way, no one modern language would be favored. For simplicity, however, it was decided that Greek letters would not be used; hence, only Roman letters were employed in these scientific names.

 

4 Rocks, Fossils, and Time

ePub

Figure 4.1. Cincinnatian stratigraphic nomenclature from 1955 through 1986. From Davis and Cuffey (1998). From Schumacher (1984, figure 2), courtesy of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Geological Survey. This chart shows stratigraphic subdivisions of the Cincinnatian Series proposed by different researchers for different parts of the Cincinnati Arch region. Subdivisions in the Caster et al. (1955) column were based largely on differences in fossil content. Broader subdivisions such as those of the Brown and Lineback (1966), Hatfield (1968), Gray (1972), Peck (1966), and Lee (1974) columns were based on general characteristics of the rocks (lithology) and bedding. Hay (1981) and Tobin (1986) used both lithologic as well as paleontologic aspects. In the Hatfield column, the vertical lines indicate parts of the section excluded from his study. Units separated by jagged lines indicate lateral changes in rock characteristics (facies).

 

Fossils in many collections and museum exhibits are often impressive for finely preserved detail and even beauty, because they have undergone painstaking preparation by which every trace of the stony matrix has been removed. However, a fossil so isolated from its embedding matrix also loses much of its significance as a means by which to understand when and how it lived. Only through investigation of the fossil in the rock can we attain a clear understanding of the significance of the abundant Ordovician fossils of the Cincinnati Arch region, or any fossils for that matter. In this chapter we will explore the nature of the rocks in which Cincinnatian fossils are found, the means by which they are subdivided, and the applications of this study to understanding the environments in which they were formed and to determining their geologic age.

 

5 Algae: The Base of the Food Chain

ePub

Figure 5.1. A–C. Cincinnatian acritarchs, all Edenian, Kope Formation, Wayne County, Indiana. A. Veryhachium edenense Colbath, × 569 (from Colbath [1979, plate 13, figure 1]). B. Ordovicium gracile Colbath, × 507 (from Colbath [1979, plate 8, figure 4]). C. Multiplicisphaeridium micraulaxum Colbath, × 1038 (from Colbath [1979, plate 7, figure 10]). A–C reprinted by permission of E. Schweizerbart’sche. Note: in all figures, × indicates the magnification factor. D–F. Cincinnatian chitinozoans, all Maysvillian. D. Cyathochitina sp. cf. C. campanulaeformis, OSU 32534, × 147 (from Miller [1976, plate 5, figure 6]). E. Hercochitina turnbulli Jenkins, OSU 32568, × 516 (from Miller [1976, plate 13, figure 2a]). F. Conochitina hirsuta Laufeld, OSU 32542, × 287 (from Miller [1976, plate 8, figure 1]). G–I. Cincinnatian dasycladacean algae. G. Lepidolites dickhauti Ulrich, William Heimbrock collection, Edenian, Kope Formation, Kenton County, Kentucky, × 3.8. H. Cyclocrinites darwinii (Miller), Stephen Felton collection, Maysvillian, Mt. Auburn Formation, Butler County, Ohio, × 1.3. I. C. darwinii, surface detail of H, polygonal facet diameter ~0.4 mm.

 

6 Poriferans and Cnidarians: Sponges, Corals, and Jellyfish

ePub

Figure 6.1. A simple sponge, showing a cross-section of the body wall. Inset shows a magnified view of incurrent canals (ostia), collar cells and collar-cell chambers. Drawing by John Agnew.

 

Although sponges are regarded as the least specialized, hence most primitive of multicelled animals, they play an essential role as “sanitary engineers” in aquatic environments, living as active suspension feeders or filter feeders (Plate 3A). By removing minute organic particles from the water, sponges prevent decay products from poisoning the environment. This is a long-running role, as sponges first appear in the fossil record during the late Precambrian, over 540 million years ago.

Sponges

The body of a sponge lacks distinct cell layers, but is composed of different specialized types of cells that perform different life functions. The fundamental sponge cell is the collar cell, equipped with a waving flagellum that draws water into a cone formed of microvilli (Figure 6.1). The simplest sponge is a hollow tube, open at one end. Collar cells line the interior of the tube and create a feeding current that passes through the body wall via openings called ostia and tubular cells called porocytes. The collar cells remove food particles that are digested by amebocytes. The feeding current carries wastewater, depleted of nutrients, out of the sponge cavity through one or more chimney-like openings called oscula. Because sponges are fixed to the substratum and do not move about, they are often regarded as inert or nonliving. In fact they are actively circulating water and processing it for nutrients (Plate 3A).

 

7 Bryozoans: “Twigs” And “Bones”

ePub

Figure 7.1. A. Fragments of bryozoan colonies are the most abundant fossils in the type-Cincinnatian. Parvohallopora ramosa (d’Orbigny), CMC IP 27957, Bellevue Limestone, Cincinnati, Ohio. Scale in mm. B. Surface of bryozoan colony showing minute openings (zooecia) on the left and a cross-section through a broken surface on the right. Each of the openings leads to a tube that was home to a tiny, individual animal. Trepostome bryozoan, Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, CMC IP 51107, Bellevue Limestone. Cincinnati, Ohio. Diameter of individual openings (zooecia) about 0.2 mm.

 

The rocks in the Cincinnati region are loaded with fossils. Visitors to the area commonly are struck by all the “things” in the rock that look like small twigs, or, with a stretch of the imagination, small pieces of bones (Figure 7.1A). They are the most common fossils in the bedrock of the area. Indeed, if you were to pick up a fossil in the Cincinnati region at random, chances are that it would be one of these objects. But they are neither twigs nor bones. They are, in fact, the remains of a group of organisms called bryozoans (Plates 3D, E).

 

8 Brachiopods: The Other Bivalves

ePub

Figure 8.1. Comparison of a brachiopod with a pelecypod. A and B, pelecypod. C and D, Platystrophia ponderosa showing sulcus and fold. Drawings from Meek (1873), courtesy of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Geological Survey.

 

Brachiopods are among the most common fossils in the Ordovician rocks of the Cincinnati area. Only fossils of bryozoans are more numerous to the naked eye. In a study of type-Cincinnatian limestones, Martin (1975) reported that brachiopods and bryozoans together constitute about 60 percent of the fossil fragments comprising the limestones. There even are some layers, for example, in the Bellevue Limestone, in which the rock is a veritable coquina, in this case consisting of complete and nearly complete shells of large, flat brachiopods of a single genus. These aptly named “shingled Rafinesquina beds” commonly are thought of as remains of very shallow water deposits reminiscent of the shingled beaches of today. Although they have been living on Earth since the Cambrian Period, brachiopods are not well-known animals to most of us. In fact, many folks confuse them with that group of molluscs that includes the clams. Members of the phylum Brachiopoda and those of the molluscan class Pelecypoda are bivalved animals, that is, each has a shell that consists of two valves. But there the resemblance ends. The brachiopods and pelecypods are otherwise strikingly different animals.

 

9 Molluscs: Hard, But With a Soft Center

ePub

Figure 9.1. Gastropod mollusc, showing internal features. Drawing by Kevina Vulinec.

 

Everyone knows molluscs—the oh-so-familiar snails and slugs, the clams, mussels, scallops, and oysters, the octopus, and the squid. But the mollusc story is not a simple one. There are more kinds of molluscs than of any other group of animals, save the arthropods. So what links all the molluscs together?

The word “mollusc” is derived from the Latin word “molluscus,” meaning “soft.” This refers to the fact that every mollusc has a soft, fleshy body. But that, of course, is not the image conjured up in the mind’s eye at the mention of snails, clams, and oysters. In most of the molluscs, the soft parts are enclosed within a hard shell. And it is on the basis of differences in the shells that the molluscs of the type-Cincinnatian are differentiated from one another.

One might be tempted to sort the shelled molluscs into three groups, at least with respect to their shells. The animals of one group have basically a single shell; take, for example, the coiled cone of most snails or that of the pearly nautilus. In contrast to these univalved molluscs are those in which the soft parts are enclosed between two “shells” (strictly speaking, each of the two is called a “valve”). The bivalved molluscs that leap most readily to mind are the clams, mussels, oysters, and their kin. In a third group, and a relatively small one at that, the shell consists of a number of plates arranged so that the animal, at first glance, appears to be segmented. (In this case, looks are deceiving, because, unlike the annelid worms and the arthropods, molluscs are not truly segmented.) The present-day chitons exemplify the polyplacophoran group (literally, “many plate bearing”).

 

10 Annelids and Worm-Like Fossils

ePub

Figure 10.1. Cincinnatian worms and worm-like fossils. A. Tentaculites richmondensis (Miller), CMC IP 17551, Waynesville Formation, Clinton Co., Ohio. Slab showing parallel alignment of shells. Scale in mm. B. Annelid worm, Protoscolex ornatus Ulrich, CMC IP 37990, Kope Formation, Covington, Kentucky. This is a rare case in the Cincinnatian of soft-body preservation. × 7.5. C. Tubes of Cornulites sp. attached to the column of the crinoid Iocrinus subcrassus, University of Cincinnati collections, Corryville Formation, Hamilton Co., Ohio. Scale in mm. D. The machaeridian Lepidocoleus sp. cf. L. jamesi (Hall and Whitfield), University of Cincinnati collections, Corryville Formation, Boone Co., Kentucky. Scale in mm.

 

Because worms are largely soft-bodied, their fossil record is rather limited. Nonetheless, numerous fossils occur in the Cincinnatian that can be attributed to the Phylum Annelida or related worms. Annelids, the segmented worms, include predominantly freshwater and terrestrial leeches and earthworms, and the predominantly marine polychaetes. In the modern oceans polychaetes are highly diverse and abundant and play many important ecological roles. Throughout the Cincinnatian common tooth-like microfossils called scolecodonts indicate that polychaetes were also components of the Ordovician marine ecosystem (Eriksson and Bergman 2003). Although they resemble conodonts, another category of tooth-like fossils, in size and form scolecodonts are distinct in having a jet black appearance in contrast to the amber color typical of conodonts (Plate 5). The definite polychaete affinity of scolecodonts is established by rare cases (not Cincinnatian) of scolecodonts found with the body fossil of a polychaete worm as assemblages of paired tooth-like elements forming a jaw apparatus. In modern polychaetes an entire apparatus consists of three pairs of different individual elements. Because scolecodonts usually occur as dissociated elements, their taxonomy has been complicated by assignment of separate names for each element. In recent work the recognition of likely associations of elements has begun to alleviate this problem.

 

11 Arthropods: Trilobites and Other Legged Creatures

ePub

Figure 11.1. The Ordovician trilobite Triarthrus. Left, dorsal view, right, ventral view. Drawings by Kevina Vulinec.

 

In terms of sheer abundance, species diversity, and exploitation of habitats, arthropods rank as the most successful of all living animals. More than 750,000 species (mostly insects) inhabit a vast range of environments on land, in the sea, and in fresh water. Living arthropods include the insects, crustaceans, horseshoe crabs, arachnids, centipedes, and millipedes. During the Ordovician, arthropods had not yet invaded the land, but trilobites were abundant and diverse in the sea, along with the eurypterids, ostracodes, and a few other minor groups.

Despite their bewildering variety of form, all arthropods share certain basic features. Like their close relatives, the annelid worms, arthropods have a segmented body. Unlike the annelids, the body and its appendages are encased in an exoskeleton composed of the protein chitin. The exoskeleton is much like a suit of armor in having rigid components articulated by flexible joints. (The name arthropod means “jointed legs.”) Not only does the exoskeleton shield the internal organs from predation and some environmental hazards, but it also provides rigid points for muscle attachment. Consequently, arthropods are capable of rapid locomotion by walking, swimming, or flying. The nature of the exoskeleton has two important implications for the fossilization potential of arthropods. First, because the chitinous exoskeleton decomposes after death, many arthropods are poor candidates for fossil preservation. However, arthropods that have thicker exoskeletons or incorporation of calcium carbonate into their skeletons (such as some crustaceans and trilobites) will have enhanced potential for preservation. Second, all arthropods grow by periodically shedding the exoskeleton and forming a new skin that accommodates growth. Each individual arthropod can contribute numerous shed exoskeletons (molts) as potential fossils during its lifetime. Molting may thus explain in part the abundance of some arthropod fossils.

 

12 Echinoderms: A World Unto Themselves

ePub

Figure 12.1. One skeletal element of a modern crinoid, showing the porous microstructure (stereom) typical of all echinoderms. The arm of a crinoid is composed of a series of these elements, connected by muscles and ligaments. Comactinia sp., Caribbean. Scanning electron micrograph,×79.

Figure 12.2. Arm of modern crinoid (dark) with pinnules (light branches) bearing fine tube feet in feeding posture. Pinnule length about 1 cm. Aquarium photo, comasterid crinoid, Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles

 

Echinoderms are among the rarest and most sought-after fossils in the Cincinnatian rocks. Not only are they complex in form and structure, but they also possess a certain beauty and mystery that never fail to attract interest. Anyone who has visited the seashore is familiar with living echinoderms such as sea stars or starfish (asteroids), sea urchins, and sand dollars (both echinoids) (Plate 9). Other living echinoderms found in deeper marine waters are the sea lilies and feather stars (crinoids), brittle stars (ophiuroids), and sea cucumbers (holothuroids) (Plate 9). There are about 6650 living species of echinoderms, and over 3500 genera and 13,000 described fossil species.

 

13 Graptolites and Conodonts: Our Closest Relatives?

ePub

Figure 13.1. A. Graptolite morphology. Drawing by Kevina Vulinec. B, C. Geniculograptus typicalis (Hall). B. Single rhabdosome, courtesy of Daniel Goldman. C. Cluster of partly parallel-oriented rhabdosomes, MUGM 29469, Cincinnatian, Butler Co., Ohio, scale in mm.

 

Graptolites

Graptolites are among the most distinctive fossils found in Cincinnatian strata and are also uniquely significant. Graptolites are commonly preserved in shales in a highly flattened condition, appearing like black pencil markings with a saw-toothed margin (the name graptolite in fact means “written stone”; Figure 13.1C). In some Cincinnatian limestones graptolites can be preserved in an uncompacted, three-dimensional condition. Because their skeletal structure (periderm) is organic these “inflated” graptolites can be etched free of the matrix using acid to reveal exceptional structural details (Figure 13.1B). Graptolites represent the skeletal sheath of a colonial, soft-bodied marine invertebrate whose soft parts are not preserved. Graptolite colonies existed as free-floating plankton (order Graptoloidea) or as branching, benthic colonies (order Dendroidea). The colonial skeleton (rhabdosome) housed many soft-bodied zooids each within a cup-like theca (Figure 13.1A). The walls of the thecae are constructed in a unique way that is of great importance in establishing the nature of the graptolite organism: narrow half-rings (fusellae) alternate to form a zigzag suture along the thecal tube. An outer cortical layer of collagen fibrils reinforces the fusellar layer by criss-crossing the surface; hence these are called cortical bandages. In planktic graptoloids, thecae are arranged as branches or stipes either in a single linear series (monoserial), a double series (biserial), or even triserial or quadriserial. Stipes were attached singly or in multiples by the thread-like nema to vane-like structures or possibly to gas-filled bulbs that provided flotation. Although it was once thought that graptoloids attached by means of the nema to other floating material like seaweed, it is now generally accepted that planktic graptoloids used their own means of flotation, but there is debate as to whether flotation was actively or passively maintained (Rigby and Fortey 1991).

 

14 Type-Cincinnatian Trace Fossils: Tracks, Trails, and Burrows

ePub

Figure 14.1. A. Repichnia of the trilobite Isotelus, Asaphoidichnus trifidum Miller, CMC IP 37569, Edenian, Kope Formation, Cincinnati, Ohio, × 1. B. Repichnia of the trilobite Cryptolithus, similar to Cruziana, CMC IP 37622, horizon and locality unknown, × 1. C. Trilobite trail, intermediate between Rusophycus and Cruziana, Maysvillian, Corryville Formation, Clermont Co., Ohio (from Osgood [1970, plate 66, figure 3]), × 0.8. D. Paschichnia, ?Paleodictyon, CMC IP 17431, Edenian, Kope Formation, Cincinnati, Ohio, × 3. E. Fodinichnia or domichnia, the “turkey track,” Trichophycus venosum Miller, CMC IP 37575, Campbell Co., Kentucky, × 0.4. From Osgood (1970, plate 60, figure 7). C, E reprinted by permission of the Paleontological Research Institution.

 

The Cincinnatian is renowned for its abundance of well-preserved shells and skeletons of Ordovician marine invertebrates, and because these fossils represent the remains of long-dead organisms, at first glance one would not expect them to yield much information about the activity and behavior of these animals during life. Of course, we can deduce a great deal about the life habits of Ordovician animals directly from the morphology of shells and skeletons (body fossils) by comparisons to their living relatives, but a vast range of evidence about ancient behavior also comes from a completely different source, namely the trace fossils that are both abundant and diverse in Cincinnatian strata.

 

15 Paleogeography and Paleoenvironment

ePub

Figure 15.1. Divisions of type-Cincinnatian strata. Geologists have traditionally defined sedimentary rocks on the basis of time, usually inferred from fossil assemblages, and on the basis of rock type. The Cincinnatian has been traditionally divided into three stages, shown at the far left, and there is currently disagreement over the relative durations of these three stages. A fourth stage, indicated by “G” and called the Gamachian Stage, is not present in the Cincinnati area. The divisions based on rock type are shown at the right. Most of those in modern usage are shown, but dozens of different named divisions have been proposed over the years and are not shown. The names currently used by the Ohio and Kentucky geological surveys differ, and dashed vertical lines indicate these “stateline stratigraphic divisions.” The Indiana Geological Survey recognizes the Kope, Whitewater, and Saluda Formations, and assigns all strata between the Kope and Whitewater to the Bull Fork Formation (not shown). Type-Cincinnatian strata have also been divided into six units that reflect cycles of sedimentation produced by the rise and fall of sea level. These depositional sequences, numbered C1–C6, are bounded by unconformities shown in gray that reflect falls in sea level that drained the seas from the Cincinnati area, resulting in no deposition of sediments. The actual duration of these unconformities is poorly known.

 

16 Life in the Cincinnatian Sea

ePub

Figure 16.1. A. Internal mold of nautiloid, Treptoceras duseri (Hall and Whitfield), with crinoid Xenocrinus baeri (Meek) preserved within body chamber. Richard Arnold Davis collection, Waynesville Formation, Adams Co., Ohio, collected by Thomas T. Johnson. B. Ophiuroid, Taeniaster spinosus (Billings), MUGM 28187, preserved on internal mold of nautiloid, Waynesville Formation, Butler Co., Ohio, scale in mm. C. Trilobites, Acidaspis sp., preserved on internal mold of nautiloid, ?Treptoceras sp., CMC IP 2257, Cincinnatian, vicinity of Cincinnati, Ohio, × 0.9. D. Trilobites, Flexicalymene meeki (Foerste), preserved on internal mold of nautiloid, ?Treptoceras sp., OSU 50329, Cincinnatian, vicinity of Cincinnati, Ohio, × 2.6. C, D from Davis et al. (2001, figures 2, 5), and reprinted by permission of Blackwell Publishing.

 

 

Epilogue: Diving in the Cincinnatian Sea

ePub

 

Many paleontologists, ourselves included, became fascinated with fossils and embarked on scientific careers long before we ever encountered living marine animals. For many of us, the greatest thrill has been our first encounters with living representatives of the animal groups we knew first only as grey, lifeless forms encased in rock. Both of us have been privileged to examine firsthand living relatives of animals of our favorite groups of fossils—crinoids for Meyer and nautiloid cephalopods for Davis. Our experiences have fueled a curiosity that affects practically anyone who contemplates the fossil richness of the Cincinnatian or other comparable fossiliferous strata. Many times, in the field, we stand on a Cincinnatian outcrop where fossils are abundant in almost every rock, and we wonder: what did the Cincinnatian sea actually look like? How did these creatures behave when alive? If we could travel back in time to dive into the Cincinnatian sea, what would we see?

In his book The Crucible of Creation, the paleontologist Simon Conway Morris (1998) takes the reader on a journey through time in an imaginary time machine that lands on the shores of the Cambrian sea in western Canada of 520 million years ago. The time machine then descends into the sea and enables time traveling scientists to view the varied and bizarre animals found as fossils in the famous Burgess Shale. Conway Morris recreated the environment of the Cambrian sea and the life within it from the evidence of the fossils and rocks, but he embellished the scenario with a measure of speculation and fantasy.

 

Appendix 1. Resources: Where to go for more information

ePub

 

Paleontology textbooks

There are many textbooks in paleontology, but we restrict the following list to some of the most recent as well as one older, classic work.

Fossil Invertebrates (Boardman et al. 1987)

Principles of Paleontology, 3rd ed. (Foote and Miller 2007)

Invertebrate Fossils (Moore et al. 1952)

Invertebrate Palaeontology and Evolution, 4th ed. (Clarkson 1998)

Publications of Geological Surveys

Ohio Fossils (La Rocque and Marple 1955)

Fossils of Ohio (Feldmann and Hackathorn 1996)

Exploring the Geology of the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Region, 2nd ed. (Potter 2007)

Locally published books

Encyclopedic works

Cincinnati Fossils (Davis 1985, 1992) and its predecessors (Caster et al. 1955, 1961)

Index Fossils of North America (Shimer and Shrock 1944) Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology

Internet websites

 

Appendix 2. Individuals and Institutions Associated with the type-cincinnatian

ePub

 

The following is a list of the names of individuals and institutions associated with the Cincinnati region, and, especially, its geology and paleontology. Some of the individuals listed were members of the Cincinnati School; most were not.

There are some potential problems with this list. In some instances, there are two people with similar, but different names, but who may not be different people. For example, different sources refer to a J. H. Hall and a John W. Hall associated with the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, and there is I. Harris, I. H. Harris, and I. M. Harris, all of Waynesville, Ohio. George Vallandingham and George Vallandigham are almost certainly the same person, and the latter probably is the correct spelling, but maybe not.

In this volume, we present photographs of some of the people discussed. Many of the individuals portrayed are sufficiently well known that there is little question of identification. In some instances, however, a photograph is the only one of which we are aware that is supposed to represent the person in question. The identification may be based on a hand written notation on the photograph or on the album page that bears the photograph, with no independent verification. We hope that such identifications are correct.

 

Details

Print Book
E-Books
Slices

Format name
ePub
Encrypted
No
Sku
B000000031837
Isbn
9780253013491
File size
29.9 MB
Printing
Allowed
Copying
Allowed
Read aloud
Allowed
Format name
ePub
Encrypted
No
Printing
Allowed
Copying
Allowed
Read aloud
Allowed
Sku
In metadata
Isbn
In metadata
File size
In metadata