Genus Telmatornis Marsh, 1870
Type-Species.—Telmatornis priscus Marsh, 1870, by subsequent designation (Hay, 1902:528).
Included Species.—Type species only.
Telmatornis priscus Marsh, 1870
Figures 5b-j, 6c,e,g, 7a,d,g,j,n
Holotype.—Distal end of left humerus (Figure 5e,h), YPM 840; collected in pits of the Cream Ridge Marl Company, near Hornerstown, New Jersey by J.G. Meirs. Navesink Formation, Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous (Baird, 1967).
Referred Specimens.—Distal end of right humerus (Figure 5f,g), YPM 845 (holotype of Telmatornis affinis Marsh 1870); same data as holotype of T. priscus.
Proximal end of right humerus (Figure 5b-d), YPM 850, with distal end of right carpometacarpus (Figure 5i) and several fragments of shafts of long bones apparently associated (holotypical material of Graculavus pumilis Marsh, 1872); collected near Hornerstown, New Jersey, by J.G. Meirs; probably from the basal Hornerstown Formation, Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous.
Distal end of left tibiotarsus (Figure 7n), ANSP 13361 (holotype of Palaeotringa vetus), collected near Arneytown, on the Monmouth-Burlington county boundary, New Jersey; Basal Hornerstown Formation, Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous (Baird, 1967).
Left humerus lacking proximal end (Figure 6c,e,g), ANSP 15360; collected in 1971 from the Inversand Company marl pit, Sewell, Gloucester County, New Jersey, by Keith Madden. Basal Hornerstown Formation, Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous.
Distal end of left tarsometatarsus (Figure 7d,g,j), NJSM 11853; collected 27 March 1975 by David C. Parris from the main fossiliferous layer of the Inversand Company marl pit.
Right pedal phalanx 1 of digit II (Figure 7a), ANSP 15541; collected in 1972 by Richard White at the Inversand Company marl pit.
Proximal end of right ulna (Figure 5j), NJSM 11900; collected 14 July 1978 from spoil piles near junction of Routes 537 and 539, near Hornerstown, Upper Freehold Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey, by Gerard R. Case; presumably from the Hornerstown Formation but whether from Cretaceous or Tertiary sediments is not known.
Miller (1955) lists an additional specimen from near Arneytown under the name Palaeotringa vetus (YPM 2808). This was cataloged in 1937 as "part of a tibia" of "Eocene" age but the specimen cannot now be located in the Yale collections and its age and identity must be considered very doubtful.
Measurements (in mm).—Distal ends of humeri (YPM 840, YPM 845, ANSP 15360, respectively): distal width 10.9, 10.1, 11.3; depth through dorsal condyle 5.7, 5.2, 5.5; width of shaft at proximal extent of brachial fossa 6.3, 5.5,6.4; length from distal end of pectoral crest to ventral condyle (ANSP 15360 only) 45.1; shaft width at midpoint (ANSP 15360 only) 4.7.
Proximal end of humerus YPM 850: proximal width through dorsal and ventral tubercles 13.1; depth through bicipital surface and ventral condyle 7.5, depth of head approximately 3.5.
Proximal end of ulna NJSM 11900: depth through dorsal cotyla 7.0.
Distal end of carpometacarpus YPM 840: depth at distal end 5.3; shaft width 2.9.
Distal end of tibiotarsus ANSP 13361: shaft width 3.5, approximate depth through medial condyle 6.9.
Distal end of tarsometatarsus NJSM 11853: distal width 6.1+; shaft width 2.7.
Pedal phalanx 1 of digit II: length 14.6; proximal width 3.0.
Comparisons.—This is evidently the most abundant bird in the New Jersey Cretaceous deposits. Hitherto it had been known only from the two distal ends of humeri that are the holotypes of Telmatornis priscus and T. affinis. Marsh (1870) did not clearly place Telmatornis with any living family but mentioned species of Rallidae, Scolopacidae, and Ardeidae in his comparisons. Hay (1902:528) listed the genus under the Rallidae. Shufeldt (1915:26) considered that Telmatornis was not a heron but might be related either to rail-like or charadriiform birds, the material, according to him, being insufficient for positive determination. He (1915:27) also described a larger species, Telmatornis rex, which we have removed to a new genus. Lambrecht (1933:489) maintained Telmatornis as a genus incertae sedis in his order Ralliformes. Brodkorb (1967) placed the genus in the family Rallidae, subfamily Rallinae, without comment. Cracraft (1972) established that Telmatornis did not belong in the Rallidae but was instead very similar to the Burhinidae. He synonymized T. affinis with T. priscus and created a new family, Telmatornithidae, for T. priscus and T. rex.
We concur in synonymizing T. affinis with T. priscus. The holotypes and the new specimen of humerus (ANSP 15360), which is instructive in that it preserves much more of the shaft (Figure 6c), are indeed very similar to the humeri in the Burhinidae. In size they are closely comparable to the small living species Burhinus vermiculatus (cf. Figure 6g,h). The fossils differ from Burhinus in having (1) the shaft less curved, both in dorsal and in lateral views; (2) brachial depression shorter, wider, and slightly more distally located; in distal view (3) the ventral condyle smaller and less rounded; and (4) the dorsal tricipital groove shallower.
The distal portion of the humerus of Telmatornis is similar to that in Presbyornis but differs in having (1) the dorsal condyle decidedly more elongate; (2) olecranal fossa much shallower; (3) ventral epicondyle in ventral view less distinctly demarcated but (4) more protrudent in lateral or medial view.
The proximal end of humerus (YPM 850) that is the holotype of Graculavus pumilis was considered by Shufeldt (1915:19) definitely to be from a limicoline charadriiform. It is from a bird exactly the size of Telmatornis priscus and its coloration and preservation would not be incompatible with its being the opposite end of the same bone as the holotype of T. affinis (Figure 5b,c,f,g). The following differences between the holotypical humeri of G. velox and _"G." pumilis establish that these belong to different genera: (1) in velox the area dorsal to the ventral tubercle and distal to the head is much more excavated, undercutting the head; (2) the dorsal tubercle is more pronounced; (3) there is a distinct excavation distomedial to the ventral tubercle, lacking in pumilis; (4) the ventral tubercle in ventral view is much more produced in velox than in pumilis.
The holotype of G. pumilis is very similar to the humerus in the Burhinidae but differs from that family and agrees with Graculavus in characters 8, 9, and 10 (p. 6). It differs further from the Burhinidae in having the area for the attachment of M. scapulohumeralis caudalis extending farther distally in ventral view. It differs from Presbyornis mainly in lacking the excavation to and undercutting the head. Because pumilis is not congeneric with Graculavus velox and because of its size and similarities with the Burhinidae and Presbyornis, we have no hesitation about considering Graculavus pumilis Marsh, 1872, to be a junior subjective synonym of Telmatornis priscus Marsh, 1870.
The proximal end of an ulna, NJSM 11900 (Figure 5j), is from a bird the size of Burhinus vermiculatus and not too dissimilar to it except that the shaft is more robust in the fossil. The specimen is too imperfect to merit detailed study and is referred to Telmatornis priscus only on size and probability.
The very fragmentary distal end of carpometacarpus associated with the type of G. pumilis (Figure 5i) is slightly larger and more robust than in Burhinus vermiculatus, but not so much as to be incompatible with T. priscus. Compared to Burhinus (1) the symphysial area is deeper and (2) the articular surface for the major digit is proportionately larger, the specimen being somewhat more similar to the carpometacarpus in Presbyornis.
The three specimens of Palaeotringa Marsh from the Cretaceous of New Jersey are based on poorly preserved distal ends of tibiotarsi. The holotype of Palaeotringa vetus Marsh, 1870 (Figure 7n) is similar in size to the comparable element in Burhinus vermiculatus, though with a relatively more slender shaft, and hence is from a bird the size of T. priscus, being smaller than any of the other species of Palaeotringa. It is more similar to Presbyornis than to Burhinus. Because it is from a charadriiform the size of T. priscus, as first revisers we tentatively consider Palaeotringa vetus Marsh, 1870, to be a subjective synonym of Telmatornis priscus Marsh, 1870. The only alternative would be to consign it to Aves incertae sedis. It is of passing historical interest to recall Marsh's (1870:209) comment that the type of Palaeotringa vetus "apparently was the first fossil bird-bone discovered in this country," having been mentioned both by Morton (1834) and Harlan (1835) as belonging to the genus Scolopax (Charadriiformes: Scolopacidae).
The distal portion of tarsometatarsus NJSM 11853 (Figure 7d,g,f) is unfortunately quite abraded. It is from a small charadriiform and has a shaft width about the same as in Burhinus vermiculatus. If this fossil came from an individual of Telmatornis priscus, as we assume, T. priscus being the smallest and most abundant "graculavid" in the New Jersey Cretaceous deposits, then it is a very instructive specimen, for it differs much more from Burhinus than does the humerus of Telmatornis. NJSM 11853 differs from the Burhinidae and agrees with Presbyornis in having (1) the distal foramen proportionately large and oval, not very small and circular; (2) a large, well-developed scar for the hallux (hallux absent in Burhinidae); (3) external trochlea proximodistally more elongate. That which remains of the inner trochlea indicates that it was (1) somewhat more posteriorly retracted than in Burhinus but (2) not nearly as elevated and retracted as in Presbyornis.
Pedal phalanx ANSP 15541 (Figure 7a) is from a bird the size of T. priscus. This specimen is much longer and more slender than phalanx 1 of digit II in Burhinus vermiculatus but has almost exactly the shape and proportions of the same element in Presbyornis (Figure 7b), although being much smaller. Although its assignment to Telmatornis is very tentative, the length of this element seems to indicate a wading bird as opposed to one with the terrestrially adapted shorter toes of the Burhinidae.