4) ©

< Was’

Wasi

YGi1 LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

INSTIT

FS Of] fir ; Ceimoses7

NVINOSHLINS Saluvual

$31)

ween oO} PP SMa fF oS >) =

= Ray) 2 WE ey 2 &

5 RY = QW 2g a

m aS z m

= wn | . rn

: as w

=e = z z < s

z =! z a z o

= NO" 2 = 2 = =

tow fk Bo oe 5 :

NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S3!1Y¥VYSIT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN

: 2 = g = g

t = \. & 5 E a

SRN VE = ae Z

= re) = S = Oo a Oo

5 z = za _ x .

LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S31uVu dg]

= S = S = 3 |

=) 2) a o

2 5 ag ~ = So =

= 5 ag ‘yy = = ee >

a § OF - a ze E

— is Yy = - xe =

UTION NOILALILSNI_ NVINOSHLIWS |S iuvug rout BRARI ES SMITHSONIAN _ INSTITUTI

ee < = =< Ke = 3 x Ff

‘a = z = z WN SS OS = \\) \*

S = ro) Fe. 09 VNR = S We

~~ ow a wy 2 UE G 2 YX)

S 2 - z* = » 2 - |

> Z = 5 : = St ae ! =

.. = w ae YW ee za w” -

pyait_ LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN _INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S31uvud

Zz ns = o Ss iu ”

“ ~ side NS Y = ml =

= = MP 3 = ea Ne

oar oc : — oc Cc oc \

ro} = Z ) = : ro re

= oT za -! = ees

UTION _ NOILNLILSNI _NVINOSHLINS ~°3 lyVvug 1 _tl BRARI ES_ SMITHSONIAN _INST

5 BE ye I RDI RD! & 264

A A aA

: = ,E > = ‘>

= = : = = i

n = on 7 n* m

z 7) : = w = (2p)

{yg ~t! B RARI ES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS Sa iuvugd

. s Bue Se Mh aie ae = ff. |

Yip, = oi a Zz = Yl yy

ope: z S WW 2 2 § t YY

a = o BE ENS “oe ae fe) Lf fy

Ee Wey 2 E Nv 2 = z 7

a wy 6 6 = SS = = > |

UTION NOILNLILSNI_NVINOSHLINS S3IYVYEIT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

uJ n Hs 7 Yy,

= = z = = Gey =

< .< = < UY m=

0c 5 WS ac = a fer S

2 ober o hg o

3 2 RS — > =

yug tl BRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNIT NYINOSHLIWS $3 1uVvud

z |

: S r o = S ;

Sc 5. a = B) -

Ee: = e > ° =

= ES = c 2 =

- Dilantin Z m 2

TUTION, NOILNLILSNI_ NYINOSHLINS S31YVYEIT_LIBRARIES, SMITHSONIAN _INSTITUTIG

So a a a ee ee ee ee ae

> Smo WWWHE zy] my 5 ye Of fj" ® OAT = 7S

p (ey == S NY - 45 (e — A, 45 Lend Peoliog irae we = 4 cy aoe “a

S was m AS = wasn m TTS = m Sings 2 Sf wasn’

77) F = wm = 7) a

RARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS SSIYVYUEIT LIBRAR

7 w a @ ” = wn Dp = ‘9

= < = Py < = yy

=| Zz = yt tp, = = Z Wag

3 S 2 Fe i 9 z S \

O x -60 fYWYw = fe) xc ua oe

2 = 2,97 ff & Z| E SNS

= = SS > = > = aN

a 7) ieee za ” z= 7) :

—NVINOSHLINS S3 iuvug i1_ti BRARI ES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION pe ae

= ud = wl wy = ud

4 = 4 - Yay, % =

aA _< — fot a <

Cc feed Cc < ” bly [ exe

=~ amd ae . yds Perl aed oO

re) 3 a re) ss 5 2

Zz : J 2 a Zz a

RARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S3INvVUdIT LIBRAR

S — Kim §& is z 2

= “0 = x ° 9

=, a 5 ro) = 9)

= = = a = 2

AALILSNI NVINOSHLINS S31IYVHUSEIT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN _ NOILOLI

= w = OE 2 2) z< WM

= | = = z =

: g i eS g 3 | g

= 2 = Z = Z

, a ~ iS a . 2B = Ne

SRARIES SMITHSONIAN _INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S3I¥vugit

e Z in ZS xx o Z

77) BN

4 ‘3 : % QQ = a

< *9, of x od x \N : < =

am se: (e) = ro) ae eo)

~ Zz at = ae aa z

LALILSNI NVINOSHIJIWS LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN _ INSTITUTION NOILALI

a: = oe = ee oh S

peu) > ER ow ctor er] ee

a \ 5 Fe) i ag Ee

> VA E > = a> =

bee z D z on z

JRARIES, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION _NVINOSHLINS, SAIUVUEIT LIBRAF

" = a = < i) ee

4 z 4 z= = ea KA.

WE Z S ae ig x os N

Ne oO el e oO £ = (@) eke “ 3

oS = 2 2, = z ee ww

TESS cS = BS > Pid = > = “SS

ANLILSNI_NVINOSHLINS SAIYVYGIT_LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION | NOILNLI

o = tw = ud

a w mn a a. ~

a . < =I < Ks; par <

= S S a. = Oo

3 : = . ro) Br 5 2

Zz ; J 2 pir z a

3RARIES [SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILALILSNI NVINOSHLINS Saluvugia _LIBRAF

rs) ee ° ~ o o

om - wo =

ai = - a = a

- ° cw ra a = a

Z f 2 yom = i

ILOLILSNI pod aVUGIT LIBRARIES) SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION,, NOILOL!

<= <som = TO Cae eS ee

—— vWSON,

i — Ww. = oO avis s w “yy 45.

iil = wsov O ry oO RS = Keatom 2 LRM,

ow " iS SHSON 5 © a to i> RON ~ fix > “s < s . /

ieee w Ws = Lath ram VON — Y er Mae eax (Sty A be (SQV >» ~ _—_ -

~ — y, ~

JTIO

i - Ate A

7) Ae fe

iar oy

re eae

te ae

507, 6%

ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

ANNALE VAN DIE SUID-AFRIKAANSE MUSEUM

VOLUME 75 BAND

THE TRUSTEES OF THE DIE TRUSTEES VAN DIE

SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM SUID-AFRIKAANSE MUSEUM

CAPE TOWN KAAPSTAD

1978

® SET, PRINTED AND BOUND IN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA BY

THE RUSTICA PRESS (PTY.) LTD., WYNBERG, CAPE

612

ANNALS OF THE ANNALE VAN DIE

SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM SUID-AFRIKAANSE MUSEUM

VOLUME 75 BAND 75

LIST OF CONTENTS

BARNARD, J. L.

Redescription of the amphipod, Calliopiella michaelseni Schellenberg from South

Africa, with comparison to a new genus from the Pacific Ocean. (Published

March 1978.)..

Best, P. B. see Ross, J. B.

Cooper, M. R.

Uppermost Cenomanian-Basal Turonian ammonites from Salinas, Angola.

(Published March 1978.)

DAVISON, P. & HOSFORD, J.

Lobedu Pottery. (Published June 1978.)

Day, J.

Southern African Cumacea. Part 2. Family Bodotriidae, subfamily Bodotriinae.

(Published June 1978.)

HENDEY, Q. B.

The age of the fossils from Baard’s Quarry, Langebaanweg, South Africa.

(Published February 1978.)

HOSFORD, J. see DAVISON, P.

KENSLEY, B.

Redescription of Parabathynomus natalensis Barnard (Crustacea, Isopoda,

Cirolanidae). (Published February 1978.) #2 es a

KENSLEY, B.

A new marine isopod family from the South-western Indian Ocean. (Published

February 1978.)

Ross, G. J. B., SHAUGHNESSY, P. D. & BEsT, P. B.

New records of crabeater seals (Lobodon carcinophagus) from South Africa.

(Published March 1978.)

SHAUGHNESSY, P. D. see Ross, G. J. B.

Page

291

159

153

¥ 7 v

1 ’

. )

7 +

{

;

v i u

}

— t

- ta

= 1

?. .

i 1

= R

ef e

——--

Bey

NEW GENERIC NAMES PROPOSED IN THIS VOLUME

Alticuma Day, 1978

Austrocuma Day, 1978

Callaska Barnard, 1978

Mossambicuma Day, 1978

Page

195

192

188

‘V 'OLUME 75 PART fr. FEBRUARY 1978

ISSN 0303-2515

p907.68

OF THE SOUTH AF RICAN

MUSEUM >

‘APE TOWN.

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

1. MATERIAL should be original and not published elsewhere, in whole or in part.

2. LAYOUT should be as follows:

(a) Centred masthead to consist of

Title: informative but concise, without abbreviations and not including the names of new genera or species

Author’s(s’) name(s)

Address(es) of author(s) (institution where work was carried out)

Number of illustrations (figures, enumerated maps and tables, in this order)

(b) Abstract of not more than 200 words, intelligible to the reader without reference to the text

(d) Introduction

(e) Subject-matter of the paper, divided into sections to correspond with those given in table of contents

(f) Summary, if paper is lengthy

(g) Acknowledgements

(h) References

(i) Abbreviations, where these are numerous

3. MANUSCRIPT, to be submitted in triplicate, should be typewritten and neat, double spaced

with 2,5 cm margins all round. First lines of paragraphs should be indented. Tables and a list of

legends for illustrations should be typed separately, their positions indicated in the text. All

pages should be numbered consecutively.

Major headings of the paper are centred capitals; first subheadings are shouldered small

capitals; second subheadings are shouldered italics; third subheadings are indented, shouldered

italics. Further subdivisions should be avoided, as also enumeration (never roman numerals)

of headings and abbreviations.

Footnotes should be avoided unless they are short and essential.

Only generic and specific names should be underlined to indicate italics; all other marking

up should be left to editor and publisher.

4. ILLUSTRATIONS should be reducible to a size not exceeding 12 « 18 cm (19 cm including

legend); the reduction or enlargement required should be indicated; originals larger than

35 x 47 cm should not be submitted; photographs should be rectangular in shape and final

size. A metric scale should appear with all illustrations, otherwise magnification or reduction

should be given in the legend; if the latter, then the final reduction or enlargement should be

taken into consideration.

All illustrations, whether line drawings or photographs, should be termed figures (plates

are not printed; half-tones will appear in their proper place in the text) and numbered in a

single series. Items of composite figures should be designated by capital letters; lettering of

figures is not set in type and should be in lower-case letters.

The number of the figure should be lightly marked in pencil on the back of each illustration.

5. REFERENCES cited in text and synonymies should all be included in the list at the end of

the paper, using the Harvard System (ibid., idem, loc. cit., op. cit. are not acceptable):

(a) Author’s name and year of publication given in text, e.g.:

‘Smith (1969) describes .. .’

‘Smith (1969: 36, fig. 16) describes...’

“As described (Smith 1969a, 1969b; Jones 1971)’

‘As described (Haughton & Broom 1927)...’

“As described (Haughton et al. 1927)...’

Note: no comma separating name and year

Dagination indicated by colon, not p.

names of joint authors connected by ampersand

et al. in text for more than two joint authors, but names of all authors given in list of references.

(b) Full references at the end of the paper, arranged alphabetically by names, chronologically

within each name, with suffixes a, b, etc. to the year for more than one paper by the same

author in that year, e.g. Smith (1969a, 19695) and not Smith (1969, 1969a).

For books give title in italics, edition, volume number, place of publication, publisher.

For journal article give title of article, title of journal in italics (abbreviated according to the World list o,

scientific periodicals. 4th ed. London: Butterworths, 1963), series in parentheses, volume number, part

number (only if independently paged) in parentheses, pagination (first and last pages of article).

Examples (note capitalization and punctuation)

BULLOUGH, W. S. 1960. Practical invertebrate anatomy. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.

FISCHER, P.-H. 1948. Données sur la résistance et de le vitalité des mollusques. J. Conch., Paris 88: 100-140.

FIsCHER, P.-H., DuvAL, M. & Rarry, A. 1933. Etudes sur les échanges respiratoires des littorines. Archs

Zool. exp. gén. 74: 627-634. \

Koun, A. J. 1960a. Ecological notes on Conus (Mollusca: Gastropoda) in the Trincomalee region of Ceylon.

Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (13) 2: 309-320.

Konn, A. J. 19606. Spawning behaviour, egg masses and larval development in Conus from the Indian Ocean.

Bull. Bingham oceanogr. Coll. 17 (4): 1-51.

THIELE, J. 1910. Mollusca: B. Polyplacophora, Gastropoda marina, Bivalvia. In: SCHULTZE, L. Zoologische

und anthropologische Ergebnisse einer Forschungsreise im westlichen und zentralen Siid-Afrika 4: 269-270.

Jena: Fischer. Denkschr. med.-naturw. Ges. Jena 16: 269-270.

(continued inside back cover)

ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

ANNALE VAN DIE SUID-AFRIKAANSE MUSEUM

Volume 75 Band

February 1978 Februarie

Part 1 Deel

THE AGE OF THE FOSSILS FROM BAARD’S

QUARRY, LANGEBAANWEG, SOUTH AFRICA

Q. B. HENDEY

Cape Town Kaapstad

The ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

are issued in parts at irregular intervals as material

becomes available

Obtainable from the South African Museum, P.O. Box 61, Cape Town 8000

Die ANNALE VAN DIE SUID-AFRIKAANSE MUSEUM

word uitgegee in dele op ongereelde tye na beskikbaarheid

van stof

Verkrygbaar van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum, Posbus 61, Kaapstad 8000

OUT OF PRINT/UIT DRUK

1, 2(1-3, 5-8), 3(1-2, 4-5, 8, t.-p.i.), 51-3, 5, 7-9),

6(1, t.-p.i.), 711-4), 8, 9(1-2, 7), 10(1-3),

11(1-2, 5, 7, t.-p.i.), 15(4-5), 24(2), 27, 31(1-3), 32(5), 33

Price of this part/Prys van hierdie deel

R2,60

Trustees of the South African Museum © Trustees van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum

1978

ISBN 0 908407 35 1

Printed in South Africa by In Suid-Afrika gedruk deur

The Rustica Press, Pty., Ltd., Die Rustica-pers, Edms., Bpk.,

Court Road, Wynberg, Cape Courtweg, Wynberg, Kaap

THE AGE OF THE FOSSILS FROM BAARD’S QUARRY,

LANGEBAANWEG, SOUTH AFRICA

Q. B. HENDEY

South African Museum, Cape Town

(With 3 figures and 5 tables)

[MS. accepted 13 September 1977]

ABSTRACT

Fossils from the mined-out Baard’s Quarry at Langebaanweg came from at least two

stratigraphic horizons, those from the older horizon comprising the main body of fossils from

the site. A re-evaluation of available Baard’s Quarry material strongly suggests that, contrary

to earlier opinions, it postdates the fossils from the near-by Varswater Formation in ‘E’ Quarry.

The older, and predominant element in the assemblage is apparently late Pliocene or early

Pleistocene in age and includes late surviving archaic species and endemic species in association

with more advanced and more widespread taxa.

CONTENTS

PAGE

MMtROducthiOne Pee eon Aloe Ves ke pease 1

Age of the fossils from ‘E’ Quarry . y)

Geology of the Baard’s Quarry area ks Bee 3

Provenance of the Baard’s Quarry fossils . . . 4

The ‘upper level’ assemblage . : 5)

The ‘lower levels assemblage . . . .. . 7

IDYRCUSSIOIO Eee Ee en nS ene weer medi:

NORVOWMCULSINTNIS 6 56 56 6 © 6 6 6 © AF

INCiCheNCCSaP ey rier hs. a) ee” ee eS

INTRODUCTION

Fossils from phosphatic deposits in the vicinity of Langebaanweg, Cape

Province, were first reported by Singer & Hooijer (1958). The specimen described

by these authors came from Baard’s Quarry, which was mined-out and back-filled

some years later. Most of the fossils collected in the Langebaanweg area between

1958 and 1964 came from Baard’s Quarry, other occurrences (see Hendey $970a:

84-86, 96-98, 1974: 37) having been relatively unimportant and not relevant to

the present study. After 1964 both mining and fossil collecting was continued

in “E’ Quarry (the New Varswater Mine), which is situated about 2 km west of

Baard’s Quarry (Hendey 1970a, fig. 2). The ‘E’ Quarry fossil assemblage is vastly

superior to that from Baard’s Quarry in all respects and the latter has received

little attention in recent years (see Hendey 1974, 1976).

One of the results of the shift in collecting from Baard’s Quarry (and less

Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 75 (1) 1978: 1-24, 3 figs, 5 tables.

2 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

significant occurrences) to ‘E’ Quarry is that earlier reports on fossils from

Langebaanweg dealt largely with Baard’s Quarry, while later ones have dealt

largely with ‘E’ Quarry. If, as some believe, the fossils from these two occurrences

are contemporaneous and represent a single fauna, the provenance of specimens

is relatively unimportant and references to ‘the Langebaanweg fauna’ are justified.

This attitude has been most firmly supported by Wolff et al. (1973: 212) who

stated that, ‘It would be dangerous to infer a major difference in time of deposi-

tion’ of the Baard’s and ‘E’ Quarry fossils.

An alternative view expressed earlier (Hendey 1970a, 1972) and which was

later maintained (Hendey 1974) is that the Baard’s Quarry fauna includes some

material of Pleistocene age (i.e. younger than ~ 2 million years) and some which

is contemporary with the Pliocene “E’ Quarry (or Varswater Formation) fauna.

More recently it has been indicated that all the Baard’s Quarry fossils postdate

those from ‘E’ Quarry (Hendey & Deacon 1977).

The purpose of the present paper is to review the available evidence on the

age of the Baard’s Quarry fossils. It is not intended to provide a final and

definitive statement on these fossils. Some of the more significant specimens from

this site are no longer in the collections of the South African Museum and could

therefore not be examined. In addition, although all the most diagnostic of the

available specimens were studied, the material warrants further sorting and

preparation, while at least some of it merits further detailed study.

AGE OF THE FOSSILS FROM ‘E’? QUARRY

Before dealing with the fossils from Baard’s Quarry, the dating of those from

the Varswater Formation in ‘E’ Quarry is reviewed.

As with most fossil occurrences in the south-western Cape Province, only

relative dating methods can be applied in the case of the fossils from “E’ Quarry,

and this has been based largely on correlations with fossils and faunas from

east Africa. In recent years it has become widely accepted that the “E’ Quarry

fossils date back between 4 and 5 million years (m.y.).

These fossils occur in several different horizons within the Varswater

Formation but, since it was believed that deposition of this formation had not

been prolonged, the fossils of the different horizons were regarded as broadly

contemporaneous. The three main units constituting the Varswater Formation

are the Gravel, Quartzose Sand and Pelletal Phosphorite Members (Hendey

1976) and it is likely that intervals of time intervened between their deposition.

There is at present no way of gauging the interval between deposition of the

Gravel and Quartzose Sand Members, since the largely marine fauna of the

former is poorly known and has little in common with the largely terrestrial fauna

of the Quartzose Sand Member.

The situation in respect of those deposits overlying the Gravel Member is

more promising and fossiliferous horizons within these deposits are potentially

datable in relative terms. For many years the correlation of the Varswater

AGE OF THE FOSSILS FROM BAARD’S QUARRY, SOUTH AFRICA 3

Formation with the east African sequence was based on certain species included

in the fauna of the Quartzose Sand Member. An age for this member of between

4 and 4,5 m.y. was suggested by the elephant in its fauna (see Maglio 1973), while

the higher limit (i.e. 4,5 m.y.) was suggested to be more appropriate by the

Nyanzachoerus (Hendey 1973). This is still regarded as a reasonable age estimate,

there being nothing in the Quartzose Sand Member fauna to contradict it.

The Pelletal Phosphorite Member is undoubtedly younger than the

Quartzose Sand and there are indications that the interval between their deposi-

tion may have been appreciable, although an age of less than 4 m.y. for the

Pelletal Phosphorite was considered unlikely (Hendey 1976: 244).

There are as yet no grounds for questioning the upper age limit of 5 m.y.

for the Varswater Formation, but the 4 m.y. minimum date may be less secure.

One of the most recently recognized complications in dating this formation stems

from the fact that there are within the Pelletal Phosphorite Member two fossili-

ferous horizons which were perhaps separated by yet another interval of time.

These two horizons, which were apparently river channel deposits, are informally

termed bed 3aS and bed 3aN (Hendey 1976: 226-230). They have yielded large

numbers of fossils, although relatively few have yet been studied and it is there-

fore premature to discuss their age. Nevertheless, it does seem advisable to

regard the 3aS and 3aN faunas as separate units and to note the possibility that

either the 3aN fauna or both may be less than 4 m.y. old.

In the discussions which follow references are made to the ‘faunas’ of °E’

Quarry. They are comprised of the assemblages from, in descending order of

age, the Quartzose Sand Member and beds 3aS and 3aN of the Pelletal Phos-

phorite Member. Although there are doubts about their actual age, all are likely

to date from the earlier half of the Pliocene.

GEOLOGY OF THE BAARD’S QUARRY AREA

There are striking differences between the deposits in the Baard’s Quarry

area and those constituting the Varswater Formation as it is exposed in °E’

Quarry, but since there are no records of the succession in the intervening area,

unequivocal correlation of the two sequences has not been possible (Hendey

1970a; Wolff et al. 1973). The situation is complicated by the fact that whereas

the ‘E’ Quarry deposits, of which there are still extensive exposures, are well

known and have been studied in detail, the Baard’s Quarry succession was

inadequately recorded and is, by comparison, poorly known.

Brief accounts of the Baard’s Quarry succession appeared in early reports

on the Langebaanweg fossils (Singer & Hooijer 1958; Boné & Singer 1965),

while there are some unpublished records available. In addition, Tankard (1975:

273, fig. 12) gave an account of deposits on the farm Muishondsfontein, which

are a northerly extension of those which were exposed in Baard’s Quarry. There

clearly was variation in the nature and depth of individual units in the succession,

but apparently the basic sequence was as follows:

4 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

4. Surface aeolian sands.

3. Ferricrete and other duricrusts in an unconsolidated sand matrix.

2. Deposits, some in river channels, comprised of phosphatic sandstone, quartz

porphyry cobbles and other elements in a clayey sand matrix. This was the

unit from which the Baard’s Quarry phosphate was recovered.

1. Clays and clayey sands into which the channels of unit 2 are incised.

PROVENANCE OF THE BAARD’S QUARRY FOSSILS

Almost all the fossils from Baard’s Quarry were collected after the deposits

in which they occurred had been moved by the mining operation and con-

sequently the provenance of specimens has for the most part to be inferred.

There are no definite records of fossils occurring in the surface sands (unit 4

of the succession), which are presumably of late Pleistocene/Holocene age. There

are, however, a few unmineralized (sub-fossil) bones in the assemblage which

probably came from this horizon. The material in question was excluded from

the present study.

Some fragmentary fossils were recovered from unit 3 during excavations

carried out in the Baard’s Quarry area in 1965. No significant specimens are

included in this material, but it is important since its very characteristic state

of preservation is shared by some specimens in the original assemblage and it is

presumed that they too were derived from unit 3. Significantly the only identi-

fiable specimens in this part of the assemblage belong to species recorded else-

Where in the south-western Cape Province from middle to late Pleistocene

occurrences (vide infra). The unit 3 fossils are evidently appreciably younger

than most of the material from Baard’s Quarry.

The economically exploited unit 2 was apparently the source of the majority

of the Baard’s Quarry fossils, including the first described fossil from this site

(Singer & Hooijer 1958). This assemblage is comprised overwhelmingly of frag-

mented bones and teeth, many of which show signs of rolling and which are

presumably from the unit 2 river channel deposits. These fossils may have been

derived from pre-existing deposits, they may have been contemporaneous with

the deposition of the unit 2 sediments, or both. The mineralizing agent in these

specimens is phosphate, while the unit 3 fossils are ferruginized.

A few fragmentary fossils were recovered from unit | during the 1965

excavations, but it is unlikely that these deposits made a significant direct con-

tribution to the original assemblage since the unit | deposits underlie the

phosphatic horizon and consequently were not being mined. Nevertheless, part

of the assemblage may have been from this horizon, while the unit 2 assemblage

may include material derived from unit 1.

It is worth noting that the 1965 excavations were sited near the southern

margin of Baard’s Quarry, which had by then been back-filled, and that no

phosphatic sandstone was encountered. No phosphatized fossils such as those

which comprise the main body of Baard’s Quarry fossils were recovered from

AGE OF THE FOSSILS FROM BAARD’S QUARRY, SOUTH AFRICA 5

the 1965 excavations, and this is taken as a further indication that the original

material came largely from unit 2 rather than unit |.

There are a few specimens in the original assemblage which are in an unusual

state of preservation and which in appearance resemble neither the ferruginized

unit 3 specimens nor the phosphatized unit 2 specimens. This material includes

part of a series numbered SAM—PQ-L179, which were evidently found together.

In this instance, at least, adherent matrix, which has a clayey component, sug-

gests derivation from the lower levels in the succession.

To sum up, the majority of specimens are here regarded as what is informally

termed the ‘lower levels’ assemblage, that is, specimens from unit 2, but possibly

from both | and 2, while a small number belong to the “upper level’ assemblage

from unit 3.

THE ‘UPPER LEVEL’ ASSEMBLAGE

Only a few isolated teeth and tooth fragments belonging to the ‘upper level’

assemblage will be dealt with here, other available specimens being largely

undiagnostic bone fragments.

Equidae

There are three teeth (L2095, L2106, L866) and three tooth fragments

(L2111, L1527C and an unnumbered piece) belonging to Equus in the ‘upper

level’ assemblage. Hipparion is not represented. The specimens L2106 and L2111,

both M?’s, are here regarded as particularly significant since they can be com-

pared with three fragmentary M?’s of Equus from the ‘lower levels’ assemblage

(L2109, L1465E, L2129). Other Baard’s Quarry Equus teeth are no longer in the

South African Museum and could not be examined.

It must be stressed that Hooyer (1976a: 33-34, pl. 8) has already dealt with

the specimens enumerated above. He found them unremarkable and all were

provisionally assigned to Equus capensis.

There is only one character, the size of the postfossette, which can be

observed in all five M?’s comprising the two sets of specimens. The postfossettes

of the “upper level’ specimens are of comparable size and larger than those of

the ‘lower levels’ specimeus (Table 1). Otherwise comparisons must be confined

to L2106 and L2109, which are the two most complete specimens. The former,

TABLE |

Dimensions of Equus third upper molars from Baard’s Quarry, Langebaanweg

‘upper level’ ‘lower levels’

L2106 L2111 L2109 L1405 12129

Ant.—post. diam. at occlusal surface. . . c. 39,0 — — — —

Transv. diam. at occlusal surface . . . c. 31,0 ~ c. 29,0 _ --

Trans. diam. 20 mm from base of crown . 28,5 _ 26,5 — —

Ant.—post. diam. of protocone 20 mm from base 16,5 — 13,0 — _

Mesostyle—metastyle length 20 mm from base 22,5 -— 18,0 — —

Max. ant.—post. diam. of postfossette . . 17,6 16,1 UO @ WAYS 15,0

6 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

which is from the ‘upper level’, is larger than L2109 in all other dimensions as

well.

Morphologically L2106 and L2109 differ most strikingly in the degree of

development of the metastyle/hypostyle. In L2106 this region of the tooth is

particularly well developed, forming the most posterior margin of the tooth and

being separated from the hypocone by a deeply indented and narrow hypoglyph.

In L2109 the metastyle/hypostyle is less prominent and it is the hypocone which

forms the posterior margin of the tooth, while the hypoglyph is shallower and

more wide open than in corresponding parts of L2106. There are some differences

in the enamel patterns of the occlusal surfaces of the teeth, but they are not

recorded because equid teeth are notoriously variable in this respect.

In the past significance has been attached to minor differences in South

African fossil Equus teeth and this contributed to the chaotic state of the group’s

nomenclature. It would therefore seem inadvisable to make much of the dif-

ferences observed in the two sets of Equus teeth from Baard’s Quarry, especially

since the specimens involved are fragmentary and few. On the other hand, since

these two sets of specimens are from different levels in the succession, the

observable differences could be of evolutionary significance.

It now appears likely that in addition to the living zebras and their ancestors

there was one lineage of large Equus present in Africa for much, if not all, of the

Pleistocene. If this was indeed the case then it is likely that there were some

changes in, for example, size and tooth characters in successive members of this

lineage. Indeed, the middle Pleistocene large Eguus from Elandsfontein near

Langebaanweg does differ in certain respects from the late Pleistocene (‘classic’)

E. capensis from other occurrences in the south-western Cape, the most obvious

difference being the larger size of the latter.

The South African Museum’s collections include many M?’s belonging to

the large middle Pleistocene Equus, and in respect of both size and morphology

the ‘lower levels’ L2109 is generally similar to them, whereas L2106 is larger and,

in respect of the metastyle/hypostyle-hypoglyph—hypocone development, mor-

phologically distinct. Unfortunately there were no M®’s available of large Equus

of undoubted late Pleistocene age, but the ‘upper level’ M? (L2095) and lower

molar (L866) are comparable in size to corresponding late Pleistocene teeth and

larger than ones of middle Pleistocene age.

Inadequate though the evidence may be, it is tentatively concluded that the

‘upper level’ Equus is close to or identical with late Pleistocene E. capensis from

the south-western Cape, whereas the ‘lower levels’ Equus is probably closer to

but not identical with the middle Pleistocene E. cf. capensis from this region.

The material is identified accordingly in Table 4.

Bovidae

The Baard’s Quarry Bovidae will be dealt with in more detail by A. W.

Gentry (in prep.), but he has kindly given permission for observations on them

to be included in this paper.

AGE OF THE FOSSILS FROM BAARD’S QUARRY, SOUTH AFRICA 7

A series of specimens numbered L21 include two left and two right upper

molars and a lower molar of a reduncine. These teeth are closely matched by

specimens belonging to the late Pleistocene Redunca cf. arundinum from Swart-

klip near Cape Town.

The teeth L1491A, D, F and J appear to belong to Hippotragus gigas, a

species known from the early Pleistocene of east Africa, but which survived later

in South Africa, being included in the middle Pleistocene fauna from Elands-

fontein and possibly in the late Pleistocene fauna from Florisbad in the Orange

Free State. The teeth of the living gemsbok, Oryx gazella, resemble those of

H. gigas and there is a possibility that the Baard’s Quarry specimens belong to

a gemsbok.

The teeth L2110 and L2129B belong to the recently extinct blue antelope,

Hippotragus leucophaeus, a species which is known only from the middle to late

Pleistocene and Holocene of the south-western and southern Cape Province

(Klein 1974a).

Two incomplete horn-cores (L1523, L1643A) and two unnumbered man-

dible fragments belong to Raphicerus. The teeth resemble those of the Raphicerus

from the late Pleistocene Swartklip fauna, they are smaller than those of the

middle Pleistocene Raphicerus from Elandsfontein and much smaller than the

teeth of the “E’ Quarry Raphicerus. The horn-cores are correspondingly small.

The ‘upper level’ assemblage includes several alcelaphine teeth (L1491B, C

and H, and possibly L1292), which represent at least two species. Although not

identified, these specimens are more advanced than the ‘E’ Quarry alcelaphines

and are likely to be Pleistocene in age.

Age of the ‘upper level’ assemblage

The ‘upper level’ fauna is clearly of Pleistocene age and indications are that

it dates from the latter part of this epoch.

THE ‘LOWER LEVELS’ ASSEMBLAGE

Although a large amount of material is included in the ‘lower levels’

assemblage, the number of identifiable specimens is limited.

Tubulidentata

A single metacarpal IV (L908) is assigned to this order. The specimen is

larger in most respects than the corresponding bones in the available series of

four modern Orycteropus afer. It is particularly distinctive in its overall length

(c. 53,5 mm), which contrasts with the range of 39,9 to 46,4 mm in the compara-

tive series.

No aardvark metacarpals are represented in the ‘E’ Quarry assemblages, but

there are at least six other postcranial bones and an isolated tooth, all of which

fall within the size range observed in the four O. afer specimens. Indications are

therefore that the Baard’s Quarry aardvark was larger than that from ‘E’ Quarry

8 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

and was either not conspecific or represented a different variety of the same

species. In either case it is unlikely that the two animals were contemporaneous.

Carnivora

A specimen tentatively identified as a jackal (?Canis sp.) (L1478) is included

in the ‘lower levels’ assemblage and has already been described (Hendey 1974:

195). This animal is not conspecific and probably not even congeneric with the

only canid recorded from ‘*E’ Quarry, which is an as yet undescribed species of

Vulpes (Hendey 1976).

A fragmentary upper canine (L1479) may belong to a lion-sized felid.

Although the identification is uncertain, the animal concerned is not conspecific

with any of the ‘E’ Quarry carnivores.

If the above specimens do indeed belong to a jackal and lion, this would

indicate that they postdate the ‘E’ Quarry faunas, since these animals are known

in Africa only from late Pliocene or post-Pliocene contexts.

Three carnivores are included in the L179 series of specimens which in

respect of their preservation differ from most other specimens in the ‘lower

levels’ assemblage (see p. 5). Two have already been described (Hendey 1974:

242, 279). They were identified as Mellivora cf. capensis (L179/12) and Hyaena

cf. bellax (L179/11). Although these identifications are tentative, the species con-

cerned are not conspecific with any from ‘E’ Quarry and the Mellivora at least

is clearly more advanced than its ‘E’ Quarry counterpart. Both species suggest

a Pleistocene date. The third carnivore is represented by a mandible fragment

(L179/13) which may belong to a canid.

The only other potentially useful ‘lower levels’ carnivore specimens are two

proximal radius fragments (L1400, L1706) belonging to a pinniped. They are

similar to the radii of the ‘E’ Quarry Prionodelphis capensis, but positive identifi-

cation of such fragmentary specimens was not possible.

Proboscidea

The best proboscidean specimens from Baard’s Quarry were not available

during the present study. This is unfortunate in view of the importance attached

to proboscideans in faunal dating and the confusion which now exists in respect

of the species represented in the Baard’s Quarry assemblage.

The first fossil from the Langebaanweg area to be described was a fragmen-

tary elephant molar, which is one of the specimens no longer in the South

African Museum. It was originally referred to Stegolophodon (Singer & Hooijer

1958), but subsequently identified as Mammuthus subplanifrons (Maglio &

Hendey 1970; Maglio 1973). The revised identification was ignored by Wolff

et al. (1973: 209) who claimed that three species of ‘elephant’ are present at “the

site’, the ‘site’ including both Baard’s and ‘E’ Quarries. In their table 1 they listed

Stegolophodon, presumably meaning the material identified elsewhere as M. sub-

planifrons, Archidiskodon, which is in part a junior synonym of Mammuthus

(Maglio 1973), Stegodon, which is now generally assigned to the Stegodontidae

rather than the Elephantidae, and Anancus, which is a gomphothere.

AGE OF THE FOSSILS FROM BAARD’S QUARRY, SOUTH AFRICA 9

The issues which have therefore to be settled are the identity of the pro-

boscideans from the Langebaanweg sites and the source of the material. Since

the observations which follow are confined to material in the South African

Museum and since this material now requires further detailed study by an

authority on proboscideans, a final statement is not possible.

Parts of a Mammuthus subplanifrons individual from the Quartzose Sand

Member are the only described proboscidean material from ‘E’ Quarry (Maglio

& Hendey 1970; Maglio 1973), although many additional specimens, mainly

isolated teeth, apparently belonging to this species are now available. The

undescribed specimens are from bed 3aN of the Pelletal Phosphorite Member and

are therefore somewhat younger than the described material. An unidentified

anancine gomphothere is also known from ‘E’ Quarry. It is represented by many

isolated teeth from the Pelletal Phosphorite Member.

The Baard’s Quarry proboscidean specimens in the South African Museum

are all from the ‘lower levels’ assemblage. The material, which is very fragmen-

tary, apparently belongs to only two species. As in the case of *E’ Quarry, one is

identified with the elephant, M. subplanifrons, while the other is an unidentified

anancine gomphothere. Other taxa may be represented amongst the material

now housed elsewhere. :

Nothing constructive emerged from the comparison between the Baard’s and

‘E’ Quarry M. subplanifrons specimens. None of the Baard’s Quarry tooth frag-

ments is exactly matched by corresponding parts of the more complete ‘E’ Quarry

specimens, but, since the latter exhibit appreciable variation, no significance

could be attached to the differences observed.

Although M. subplanifrons is represented at both sites it does not necessarily

follow that the animals concerned were contemporaries, since there are indica-

tions that the species had a long history in South Africa (see p. 20).

The only Baard’s Quarry gomphothere specimen is an incomplete cheek-

tooth, apparently a left M, (L1179) of which parts of three cone-pairs and the

talonid are preserved. Although gomphothere M,’s from ‘E’ Quarry vary both

in size and morphology, L1179 is distinct in having the preserved lingual cones

transversely elongated and plate-like compared with the conical structures of the

‘E’ Quarry specimens (Fig. 1). This characteristic is also not evident in east

African anancine gomphotheres, which survived until about 4 m.y. ago (Maglio

1974; Beden 1976), and it is regarded as an evolutionary advance which indicates

that the Baard’s Quarry gomphothere is younger than those from east Africa

and ‘E’ Quarry. Although not directly relevant, it is worth noting that Anancus

survived into the Pleistocene in Europe (Kurtén 1968).

The Baard’s and ‘E’ Quarry proboscidean assemblages thus have an elephant

species in common and each has a gomphothere, with the species from Baard’s

Quarry being the more advanced. In view of the differences between the gompho-

theres and the possibility that M. subplanifrons had a long history in South

Africa, there is no sound basis for concluding contemporaneity between the two

faunas on the basis of the proboscideans represented.

10 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

fm a rman MU iy

Fig. 1. Occlusal views of gomphothere ?M, fragment from Baard’s Quarry (L1179) (below)

and gomphothere M, from ‘E’ Quarry (L41018) (above). Specimens are in a similar state of

wear. Scale in millimetres.

AGE OF THE FOSSILS FROM BAARD’S QUARRY, SOUTH AFRICA 1)

Rhinocerotidae

Rhinoceros tooth fragments are probably the most commonly represented

identifiable element in the ‘lower levels’ assemblage. Hooijer (1976a) has recorded

the presence of Diceros bicornis in this assemblage and most of the available

specimens apparently belong to this species. A few fragments are, however, too

high-crowned for Diceros and probably represent a Ceratotherium.

D. bicornis is not known in Africa from occurrences older than 4 m.y.,

whereas the “E’ Quarry rhinoceros, Ceratotherium praecox, is known only from 4

to 7 m.y.-old contexts (Hooier 1976a). The Diceros therefore suggests that the

‘lower levels’ assemblage postdates that from ‘E’ Quarry. The ‘lower levels’

Ceratotherium is of little significance because it could as well represent the

post-4 m.y. C. simum as the pre-4 m.y. C. praecox.

Equidae

Both Equus and Hipparion are represented in the ‘lower levels’ fauna. The

former was dealt with earlier (p. 5) and all that need be added here is that the

presence of Equus is one of the firmest indications that the ‘lower levels’ fauna

postdates that from ‘E’ Quarry. Equus is apparently not known anywhere in

Africa from occurrences older than about 2 m.y. (Hooijer 19765; Eisenmann

1976), although it was present in Europe about 3 m.y. ago (Kurtén 1968).

Indications are therefore that the first appearance of Equus in Africa cannot

predate 2 to 3 m.y.

There are several issues relating to Hipparion from the Langebaanweg sites

which have yet to be resolved (Hendey 1976; Hooijer 1976a), but the only one

to be dealt with here is whether or not the *‘E’ and Baard’s Quarry Hipparion

assemblages are likely to be contemporaneous.

The present study was confined to the lower cheekteeth from the two sites.

The study was commenced with these specimens and since they alone indicate

that at least two distinct (i.e. non-contemporaneous) populations are represented,

other available material was not examined. Material representing two individuals

from ‘E’ Quarry are excluded from the results of the study presented here. The

premolar row L25197 was excluded because it is clearly atypical of the Lange-

baanweg assemblage as a whole and is the only material tentatively assigned to

H. namaquense by Hooijer (1976a: 26). The Quartzose Sand Member dentition

L13102 was excluded because the immaturity of the individual concerned made

the teeth appear to differ in size from their Baard’s Quarry counterparts to a far

greater extent than other teeth from ‘E’ Quarry. The comparison was thus con-

fined to specimens of roughly comparable ontogenetic age.

The lower cheekteeth from Baard’s Quarry differ most obviously from the

‘E’ Quarry specimens in the following respects:

1. The Baard’s Quarry teeth have more pointed metaconids and metastylids,

which results in their having more prominent vertical ribs on their lingual

surfaces.

2. The Baard’s Quarry teeth are in general larger than those from “E’ Quarry.

12 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

They also seem to have more wrinkled enamel, at least on their buccal

surfaces, and a heavier covering of cement, but no attempt was made to establish

these and other possible differences conclusively, the two listed above being con-

sidered sufficient for the purposes of the present study.

Hooijer (1974: 30) has indicated that the development of ‘pointed rather

than rounded loops’ in the metaconid and metastylid is ‘a progressive feature’

in Hipparion. For example, in Miocene H. primigenium the loops are rounded,

whereas in Pleistocene H. ethiopicum they are pointed (Hooijer 1975). In this

respect the Baard’s Quarry teeth are clearly more advanced than those from

‘E’ Quarry, in which the metaconid 1s almost invariably rounded and the meta-

stylid is occasionally rounded (Fig. 2).

Hooijer (1975) has commented on the difficulties which can be experienced

in obtaining measurements of Hipparion teeth which can be meaningfully com-

pared irrespective of the ontogenetic age of the individuals concerned. His

methods, with one modification, are followed. The breadth measurements given

here are of tooth enamel and not of the enamel plus cement. Measurements given

elsewhere may or may not include the cement, this being dependent on the con-

dition and/or ontogenetic age of individual specimens. There were a few instances

in the present study where breadth measurements might be fractionally higher

because of a thin cement covering, but in no instances were dimensions affected

significantly.

Only in the case of the P,’s were the Baard’s and ‘E’ Quarry assemblages

not clearly distinct from one another in terms of size (Tables 2, 3). This may in

TABLE 2

Dimensions of the Baard’s Quarry Hipparion lower cheekteeth

P, P;/P4 M,/M, M;

l b l b ] b 1 b

L1592/L1446B . . c. 29,0 13,5 = — 26,8 13,0 = —

TO4TS 21 a Te S80 14,2 = — — — — ~—

189441695) = 27,6 16,0 25,9 14,0 — —

1946 ee = 27,0 16,1 — -- — —

IENA6S Bs ae = 28,2 15,5 — _ — _

ISU, gg cS = 28,2 16,3 = _ — —

E9431.) ae ie ee ~ VIS 16,8 = - — --

JUIN Bg = 6.935 @, 1165 — _ ~ —

L957 = = = - 29,4 15,9 — -

L954 _ = -- = 28,6 16,1 = oh

L959* = = = = 25,3 14,4 — —

L952 - = = = 25,9 St _ —

L1448 = = = = D55) 15,1 = —

L1447B = = = = 26,6 15,9 - —

L1635A = = = = 27,9 16,1 = —

M465P 3. A = = = _ 24,6 13,5 — —

E4556 %.0-0 by © BS = a = = = 32,0 12D

52k Sg oe ee = = = = = 31,6 1

LOSS roth), ea = = = = - WS e120

* See Figure 2.

AGE OF THE FOSSILS FROM BAARD’S QUARRY, SOUTH AFRICA 13

ALIANT ATTY ETT

3 4 =

Fig. 2. Occlusal and lateral views of Hipparion molars from Baard’s Quarry (L959) (right) and

*E’ Quarry (L41747) (left). The specimens are close to the mean sizes for M,,. of the two samples

and are in a similar state of wear. Scale in millimetres.

14 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

TABLE 3

Dimensions of the ‘E’ Quarry Hipparion lower cheekteeth

1B iBs 1B M, M2 M3;

1 b ] b ] b ] b ] b ] b

L10954) \ 28:6, 12:5 26:5" 1320 DS) WS7/ 22,4 1230 2138) 109° —

L20541 26,6 12:6 25,0 1358 22,8 13,6 — --

L2546 = = 925.5) sk// 23,4 13,5 Ziel 3) == — — —

LS 104 =| Byles) AS) 26,1 3) = = = — -- —

22 Oe = = — re. 2239 “el i2 er 165. ae. ES — — —

120555 ae = = a = = 2059 12,3 23,0) 120n233eiies

Py P,/P, M,/M2 M;

b l b b b

LA0G19= Se ee 264 13,0 = = Dl 150 = _

E46140/1 es 2955 1455) = = 23,0 11,0 = —

L12865/L13423 . . — = ASS) (C5 NWS) 24,5 tiES = —

1220259 XG 14,4 = = == = = —

WSOC Ge ve = == 25,0 1135.3) a = = —

LAVAS Ae ae = = == = papi WT = a

LASA oe) 5 eae = = =- = 22,6 tie7 = =

LAGIS9 2 Se Rete = = oa = A2)se) 1353 a =

E2AGIOR ee Vee = = = = 24,2 1355 = =

Te22547 boa ee we = = = = ES) 74.5) = =

T2545 ae es ee = = -— = = = 26,5 10,8

L20907— ee — — _ — -- _ 28,6 10,0

* See Figure 2.

part, or wholly, be due to the fact that in equids the P, is one of the least useful

teeth for distinguishing species (Cooke 1950). There are very clear size differences

between the other lower cheekteeth (Figs 2-3), the Baard’s Quarry teeth being

the larger. Some overlap in size might have been observed had the two assem-

blages been larger, but the general size difference is indisputable.

The size difference coupled with an advance in tooth morphology indicates

that two non-contemporaneous populations of Hipparion are represented and

that the one represented at Baard’s Quarry is the younger.

The taxonomic implications of this conclusion were not pursued and the

arrangement of Hooijer (1976a), whereby the Baard’s Quarry material is identi-

fied as H. baardi and that from ‘E’ Quarry as H. cf. baardi, is followed.

Hippopotamidae

A few fragmentary Hippopotamus teeth are included in the ‘lower levels’

assemblage, but they are inadequate for specific identification and no conclusion

about their age relative to the ‘E’ Quarry Hippopotamus is possible.

Giraffidae

Giraffids are poorly represented in the Baard’s Quarry assemblage, but one

useful specimen is a Sivatherium metatarsal of an immature individual (L637).

This specimen resembles metatarsals of the ‘E’ Quarry Sivatherium in terms of

overall length and is appreciably longer than a middle Pleistocene specimen from

Elandsfontein (see Harris 1976). The implication is that the Baard’s Quarry

AGE OF THE FOSSILS FROM BAARD’S QUARRY, SOUTH AFRICA

. BAARD’s ©

ft)

BREADTH

BAARD’S

i—}

tad

- 3

t--]

LENGTH

BAARD'S

BREADTH

Fig. 3. Dimensions of lower cheekteeth of Hipparion from Baard’s and ‘E’ Quarries.

16 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

Sivatherium was at a stage in evolution closer to a Pliocene representative of this

genus than one of middle Pleistocene age.

It does not necessarily follow that the ‘E’ and Baard’s Quarry sivatheres

must have been contemporaries. It has already been suggested that elephants

survived longer in a primitive state in South Africa during the Pliocene/early

Pleistocene and presumably the same might have applied to other large herbi-

vores such as sivatheres.

Bovidae

The ‘lower levels’ Bovidae will be dealt with in more detail by A. W. Gentry

(in prep.), but some observations on them are included here.

At least seven species are represented, namely, a boselaphine, a reduncine,

two alcelaphines, two antilopines and a neotragine.

A single horn-core fragment (L1588A) is similar in all observable respects

with corresponding parts of Mesembriportax acrae horn-cores from ‘E’ Quarry

and it is identified with this species (Gentry 1974). Although regarded as con-

specific with the ‘E’ Quarry species, it is not necessarily contemporaneous.

M. acrae is represented in ‘E’ Quarry by specimens from the Quartzose Sand

Member as well as beds 3aS and 3aN of the Pelletal Phosphorite Member, so

evidently the species was present in the area for what might have been an

appreciable period.

Several incomplete horn-cores (e.g. L565, L1521) and a lower molar (L1487)

belong to a reduncine which appears to have affinities with reduncines from east

Africa and India that are older than 5 m.y. It is definitely not conspecific with

either of the ‘E’ Quarry reduncines. This species is problematical since it is the

only one from Baard’s Quarry which suggests a late Miocene or early Pliocene

age. Since it is apparently inconsistent with the ‘lower levels’ fauna as a whole,

there must be some doubt about its relationships to the east African and Indian

species. Certainly if the lower molar does belong with the horn-cores, the species

cannot predate those from ‘E’ Quarry since the latter have more primitive teeth.

The tooth, at least, is not inconsistent with the age of the ‘lower levels’ fauna

inferred on other grounds.

A fragmentary horn-core (L9) and several fragmentary teeth (e.g. L2112,

L1491E) belong to at least two alcelaphine species. The horn-core is a significant

specimen because it resembles specimens from ‘E’ Quarry and might be related

to the species to which they belong. Both the ‘E’ Quarry alcelaphines are primi-

tive members of lineages apparently unrepresented elsewhere in Africa. One of

them, ‘species A’, is commonly represented in both bed 3aS and bed 3aN and

certain of the specimens from 3aN have features in common with L9. There is

reason to believe that the 3aN ‘species A’ is a more advanced variety than that

from 3aS and it is possible that L9 belongs to a still more advanced stage of the

same lineage. If this is so, then the time interval between deposition of 3aN and

the “lower levels’ at Baard’s Quarry must have been far greater than that between

deposition of 3aS and 3aN, because L9 is much more advanced than the 3aN

AGE OF THE FOSSILS FROM BAARD’S QUARRY, SOUTH AFRICA 17

species A, whereas the latter is not appreciably different from the 3aS species A.

The ‘lower levels’ alcelaphine teeth represent at least two species which are

distinguished on the basis of size. The smaller specimens may belong to the same

species as L9. They correspond in size to alcelaphine teeth from ‘E’ Quarry, but

are more hypsodont and in this respect at least are more advanced. The larger

‘lower levels’ alcelaphine is not conspecific with either of the “E’ Quarry species.

Several horn-cores (e.g. L1670, L1645) belong to a small but unidentified

species of Raphicerus, which is not conspecific with the much larger ‘E’ Quarry

Raphicerus. In terms of size at least these specimens correspond to those in the

‘upper level’ assemblage.

Five fragmentary horn-cores belong to a Gazella, which once again is not

conspecific with its ‘E’ Quarry counterpart, but which appears most similar to

the east African late Pliocene/early Pleistocene G. praethomsoni. Included in the

L179 series, referred to earlier, are right and left horn-cores (L179/8, L179/10)

and three lower molars (L179/4C, F, G) belonging to an Antidorcas, a genus

which in east Africa is recorded as early as the late Pliocene, but which in South

Africa is known only from post-Pliocene contexts.

In general, indications are that the ‘lower levels’ and ‘E’ Quarry bovid faunas

were not contemporaneous and that the former is younger.

Age of the ‘lower levels’ fauna

The ‘lower levels’ and ‘E’ Quarry faunas have little in common and there

are more differences than similarities between them (Table 4). The situation may

be summed up as follows:

1. Six of the twenty-one ‘lower levels’ species are more advanced than their

‘E’? Quarry counterparts (Mellivora, gomphothere, Hipparion, one alcela-

phine, Raphicerus, Gazella).

2. Six of the ‘lower levels’ species are not represented in ‘E’ Quarry and either

definitely or probably suggest a younger date (?Canis, ?Panthera, Hyaena,

Equus, Diceros, Antidorcas).

3. Three of the ‘lower levels’ species are either not conspecific with or sub-

specifically distinct from their ‘E’ Quarry counterparts and suggest that the

two faunas are not contemporaneous (Orycteropus, reduncine, one

alcelaphine).

4. Four of the ‘lower levels’ species may or may not be conspecific with their

‘E’ Quarry counterparts (?Prionodelphis, Ceratotherium, Hippopotamus,

Sivatherium).

5. Two of the ‘lower levels’ species are conspecific with species from ‘E’ Quarry

(Mesembriportax, Mammuthus).

On balance the indications are that the ‘lower levels’ fauna postdates those

from ‘E’ Quarry and that a late Pliocene or early Pleistocene age applies.

One possible complication with the ‘lower levels’ assemblage is that it may

not represent a single fauna. This is unlikely because there are no instances

apparent where individual taxa are represented by more than one evolutionary

18 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

TABLE 4

The mammalian faunas from Baard’s Quarry, Langebaanweg, with a list of the nearest

counterparts in the ‘E’ Quarry faunas

‘E’ QUARRY BAARD’S QUARRY

‘lower levels’ ‘upper level’

Orycteropus sp. Orycteropus sp. —

Vulpes sp. ?Canis sp. --

Mellivora aff. punjabiensis Mellivora cf. capensis

Homotherium sp. ?Panthera sp. --

‘Percrocuta’ australis Ayaena cf. bellax —

Prionodelphis capensis ?Prionodelphis capensis _-

Mammuthus subplanifrons Mammuthus subplanifrons —

Gomphotheriidae Gomphothertidae —

Ceratotherium praecox Ceratotherium sp.

-- Diceros bicornis —

Hipparion cf. baardi Hipparion baardi —

o Equus cf. capensis Equus capensis

Hippopotamus sp. Hippopotamus sp. —

Sivatherium hendeyi Sivatherium sp. —

Mesembriportax acrae Mesembriportax acrae —

Reduncini (2 spp.) Reduncini Reduncini

= an Hippotragus gigas or

Oryx gazella

— — Hippotragus leucophaeus

Alcelaphini (2 spp.) Alcelaphini (2 spp.) Alcelaphini (2 spp.)

Gazella cf. vanhoepeni Gazella cf. praethomsoni —

_ Antidorcas sp. =

Raphicerus sp. Raphicerus sp. Raphicerus sp.

Norte: unclassified or incompletely classified taxa listed in more than one column are not

necessarily identical.

stage, while the combination of species is for the most part what might be

expected in an African fauna of late Pliocene/early Pleistocene age. The fauna is,

in fact, unusual in some respects when compared with Plio/Pleistocene faunas

in east Africa, but its peculiarities can be explained by the existence in the far

south of the continent of endemic species and/or late surviving primitive forms.

This aspect of faunas in the south-western Cape Province will be dealt with again

later (p. 20).

DISCUSSION

When the present,study on the age of the Baard’s Quarry fossils was com-

menced, there appeared to be only three possibilities which needed to be con-

sidered. They are:

1. The Baard’s and ‘E’ Quarry fossils are contemporaneous (Wolff et al. 1973).

2. Part of the Baard’s Quarry assemblage is contemporaneous with that from

‘E” Quarry (i.e. Pliocene), but the rest is younger (i.e. Pleistocene) (Hendey

1970a, 1972, 1974).

3. All the Baard’s Quarry fossils postdate those from ‘E’ Quarry (Hendey &

Deacon 1977).

AGE OF THE FOSSILS FROM BAARD’S QUARRY, SOUTH AFRICA 19

The existence of at least two faunal units in the Baard’s Quarry assemblage,

the younger of which is Pleistocene in age (i.e. the ‘upper level’ fauna), must now

be beyond doubt. Since this fauna is limited in size and not problematical in

respect of its age relative to the ‘E’ Quarry faunas, it can be excluded from further

consideration and attention can be devoted to the main body of fossils from

Baard’s Quarry, namely, those constituting the ‘lower levels’ assemblage

(Table 4).

The first of the three alternatives listed above, which was in fact not adequately

substantiated when it was supported by Wolff et al. (1973), can now be dismissed.

Wolff et al. (1973: 212) quoted faunal lists in Hendey (1969, 1970a, 19706) and

their own table | in concluding that, “Virtually all the taxa listed for Baard’s are

known from “E”’ Quarry’. Their table | did not record the provenance of the

species listed, while the faunal list in Hendey (19700) referred only to species

from ‘E’ Quarry and differed in only minor respects from that in Hendey (1970a).

Consequently their conclusion must have been based on the lists in Hendey

(1969, 1970a). Reference to these lists reveals only two species common to the

‘E’ and Baard’s Quarry faunas, namely, ‘Hipparion albertense baardi’ and

‘Libytherium olduvaiense’, which had been included on the basis of publications

by Boné & Singer (1965) and Singer & Boné (1960). The alleged similarities

observed by Wolff et al. referred to taxa which were not identified, incompletely

identified or tentatively identified, an exceedingly weak basis for correlation.

Their conclusion could not have been based on a personal knowledge of all the

material concerned, since none of them has seen the specimens collected at

Langebaanweg since 1967, that is, the vast majority of specimens from ‘E’ Quarry.

The present study has shown that there are indeed two species common to

the Baard’s ‘lower levels’ and “E’ Quarry assemblages. Even if these two are

combined with the four other taxa which might be conspecific, they still con-

stitute only 29 per cent of the ‘lower levels’ fauna. A comparison between the

thirty-one named species from Members B and G of the Shungura Formation in

Ethiopia reveals that about 29 per cent are common to both and yet there is an

age difference of about | m.y. between them (Coppens & Howell 1976).

If there are still adherents to the first alternative listed above, their case will

have to be restated in the light of information now available.

The second and third alternatives can be considered together because the

one is a modification of the other, the earlier view that the Baard’s Quarry

assemblage included Pliocene and Pleistocene elements being replaced by the

opinion that the former is rather of late Pliocene/early Pleistocene age. The

change in opinion came about largely because certain specimens and species

previously included with the Pleistocene element had, because of their state of

preservation, to belong with other specimens and species which were regarded as

Pliocene in age. In other words, it was the combination of ‘Pliocene’ and

‘Pleistocene’ species to form what is now termed the ‘lower levels’ fauna which

led to the conclusion that the early element in the Baard’s Quarry assemblage

must postdate the faunas from ‘E’ Quarry.

20 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

The combination of species in the ‘lower levels’ fauna is admittedly not

paralleled by any other late Pliocene/early Pleistocene fauna recorded in Africa,

but its peculiarities can be explained by the location of the site near the southern

continental extremity in a distinct geographic region far from other contem-

porary or near contemporary occurrences. At least two, and possibly three, of

the taxa, namely, Hipparion baardi, Mesembriportax acrae and possibly the L9

alcelaphine, belong to lineages not represented further north in Africa during the

Pliocene and early Pleistocene. They are, or appear to be, southern endemics.

The potential for endemic speciation amongst the larger herbivores of the south-

western and southern Cape (i.e. Cape Biotic Region) has been suggested by the

late Pleistocene bovids of this region (Hendey 1974: 14-19; Klein 19746: 43).

While endemism in the Cape fauna may be due simply to the region’s

distinct climate and vegetation, the region does, in addition, have the potential

to become zoogeographically isolated from the rest of the subcontinent through

aridification of areas immediately adjacent to it (Hendey 1974). It is not known

if the Cape Biotic Region existed in its present form during the Pliocene, but by

this time the climatic stability of the Tertiary was giving way to the instability

of the Quaternary. Consequently it may have been during the Pliocene that

aridification on the subcontinent first resulted in isolation of the more southerly

parts of South Africa. The free interchange of mammals between southern Africa

and regions further north is likely to have been impeded not only by the Namib

and Kalahari deserts and adjacent semi-arid areas in the south-west of the sub-

continent, but also by large rivers such as the Zambezi and Limpopo which

traverse the eastern parts of southern Africa (Maglio 1973: 34). Isolation, even

if it is incomplete, increases the potential for the evolution of endemic species

and may also allow certain taxa to survive longer than their counterparts else-

where. The latter is believed to apply in the case of Mammuthus subplanifrons.

The situation in respect of South African M. subplanifrons is complicated

and unsatisfactory. Maglio (1973: 53) found this taxon to be ‘represented [by]

a heterogeneous assemblage with primitive molars whose relationships can only

be clarified by discovery of cranial material’. Furthermore, although Maglio

(1973: fig. 15 and elsewhere) records no occurrence of M. subplanifrons younger

than 4 m.y., the dating of South African material is insecure. For example,

Maglio (1973) judged the ‘primitive’ Quartzose Sand Member M. subplanifrons

to be between 4 and 4,5 m.y. old, but there is now at least a possibility that the

younger, although apparently equally primitive, bed 3aN representative of this

Species may have been less than 4 m.y. old (vide supra). In addition, Maglio’s

suggestion that the ‘progressive’ M. subplanifrons from Virginia, Orange Free

State, dates back at least 4 m.y. was surprising since this material was said to

occur in association with artefacts (Meiring 1955). The supposed antiquity of the

Virginia mammoth has made it unique in the Orange Free State, a province

which has otherwise produced only middle Pleistocene or younger fossils from

similar occurrences. Maglio’s suggestions about its age were sufficiently striking

to prompt a study of its geological associations by Butzer (1973). This study did

AGE OF THE FOSSILS FROM BAARD’S QUARRY, SOUTH AFRICA 21

not contradict the Pliocene date, but there must be some doubt as to whether the

geological and geomorphological observations actually confirm the date.

Certainly Butzer’s study did not confirm the presence of artefacts in the deposits,

but even so the age of this specimen cannot be regarded as settled beyond doubt.

Maglio (1973) indicated a time range of only 0,5 m.y. for M. subplanifrons,

but found that the range for Loxodonta adaurora in east Africa ‘must be taken

as at least two million years, with very little change in molar structure throughout

this period’ (p. 25). It now appears likely that his figure is an overestimate since

L. adaurora does not occur later than Member B in the Shunguru Formation

(Beden 1976), but a range of about 1,5 m.y. for the species still applies.

Presumably a time range of this order might also have applied to South African

M. subplanifrons, especially since there is no evidence of more advanced elephant

species on the subcontinent during the late Pliocene and early Pleistocene. With

the exception of problematical, but nevertheless primitive specimens from the

Vaal River Gravels, the only other Plio/Pleistocene elephant recorded from South

Africa is an Elephas ekorensis from Bolt’s Farm, Transvaal, which Maglio

(1973: 34) believes may indicate that ‘an earlier stage of the (E. ekorensis) lineage

persisted in southern Africa long after it was succeeded by a more progressive

stage further north’. If this was indeed the case, then the late survival in South

Africa of primitive Mammuthus is also likely.

The possible late survival of E. ekorensis in the Transvaal and M. subplani-

frons in the Orange Free State suggests that the zoogeographic isolation referred

to earlier may have encompassed more of South Africa than just the Cape Biotic

Region as it is now defined (Hendey 1974).

In spite of the many uncertainties which exist there do appear to be grounds

for believing that early elephant evolution in South Africa may not have paral-

leled the well-documented east African pattern. The presumption that all M. sub-

planifrons on the subcontinent must be at least 4 m.y. old seems less warranted

than to presume that this heterogeneous taxon had a long local history. At the

very least, the issue cannot be regarded as settled.

If M. subplanifrons did indeed survive longer in a primitive state in South

Africa, the same might also have applied to other large herbivores such as

Sivatherium. This would account for the fact that the Baard’s Quarry Sivatherium

resembles the Pliocene S. hendeyi rather than the Pleistocene S. maurusium, at

least in terms of limb-bone proportions.

The implication is that during periods when the more southerly parts of

South Africa were isolated the large herbivores showed little or no evolutionary

change (i.e. they remained ‘primitive’), whereas the smaller ones did evolve but,

being isolated from their counterparts further north, represented locally endemic

lineages. There is, however, an anomaly in this hypothesis since one of the large

herbivores from Baard’s Quarry, the gomphothere, apparently exhibits an

evolutionary advance over its ‘E’ Quarry counterpart.

Mammals such as carnivores, which are less influenced by environmental

factors and less likely to have their dispersal impeded by such factors, were not

22 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

necessarily affected by the isolation of parts of the subcontinent. Since in this

case the isolating mechanism was aridification, isolation in respect of the mam-

malian fauna could never have been complete, with some faunal interchange

likely and accelerating as conditions in the arid and semi-arid regions ameliorated.

Since faunal dating of the Langebaanweg sites is based on correlations with

the east African record, this dating is likely to be complicated by the regional

peculiarities of the local fauna. Consequently particular significance is attached

to the first appearances of taxa in east Africa. The southerly part of South Africa

is unlikely to have been a significant centre of mammalian evolution, and terres-

trial species can otherwise only have moved into the area from points north.

For example, if Maglio’s (1973) interpretation and dating of the origin of the

Elephantidae is correct, then the earliest record of Mammuthus subplanifrons in

the Langebaanweg area (i.e. the “E’ Quarry Quartzose Sand Member specimen)

cannot be older than 5 m.y. and is most likely to be in the 44,5 m.y. range as

Maglio suggested. Similarly, if the Shungura Formation Member G record of

TABLE 5

Relative age of deposits in the vicinity of Langebaanweg

Estimated age

in millions ‘E? QUARRY BAARD’S

of years QUARRY

Less than SURFACE BED OCCURRENCES* ‘UPPER LEVEL’

1 m.y.

(5) Interval similar

to (4)?

(6) Interval greater than (5)

About 2 m.y. “LOWER LEVELS’

(4) Interval greater

than (3)

= PELLETAL PHOSPHORITE MEMBER (GaN)

& | (3) Interval less than (2)

2 PELLETAL PHOSPHORITE MEMBER (3aS)

. | (2) Interval of unknown duration

(a4

About | QUARTZOSE SAND MEMBER

4,5 m.y. <

= (1) Interval of unknown duration

jad

Not more = GRAVEL MEMBER

than 5 m.y.

* Several isolated occurrences, none of which is necessarily contemporaneous with the

‘upper level’ at Baard’s Quarry.

AGE OF THE FOSSILS FROM BAARD’S QUARRY, SOUTH AFRICA pegs

Equus is the earliest for this taxon in Africa, then the Baard’s Quarry ‘lower

levels’ Equus cannot be older than about 2 m.y.

As more is learnt of the origin and evolution of African mammals, it should

become possible to refine the faunal dating of the Langebaanweg assemblages.

The present view on the relative ages of deposits in the vicinity of Langebaanweg

is summarized in Table 5.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to Drs A. W. Gentry (British Museum (Natural History)),

J. M. Harris (Kenya National Museum), D. A. Hooijer (Rijksmuseum van

Natuurlijke Historie), R. G. Klein (University of Chicago) and E. Vrba (Trans-

vaal Museum) for direct and indirect assistance in preparing the manuscript of

this paper. Particular thanks are due to Dr Gentry who generously made avail-

able unpublished information on Langebaanweg and other bovids.

I thank Mr N. J. Eden and Miss M. Sank for the photographs and Mrs

J. Wallendorf for typing the manuscript of this paper.

The South African Museum’s Langebaanweg Research Project is supported

by Chemfos Limited, the South African Council for Scientific and Industrial

Research and the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research

(Grant no. 2752-1834) and the assistance of these organizations is gratefully

acknowledged. The management and staff, especially Mr G. Benfield, of Chemfos

Ltd at Langebaanweg have been extremely generous in the support which they

have provided.

REFERENCES

BEDEN, M. 1976. Proboscideans from the Omo Group Formations. Jn: COPPENS, Y. ef al., eds.

Earliest man and environments in the Lake Rudolf Basin: 193-208. Chicago: University

Press.

Bone, E. L. & SINGER, R. 1965. Hipparion from Langebaanweg, Cape Province and a revision

of the genus in Africa. Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 48: 273-397.

ButTzer, K. W. 1973. On the geology of a Late Pliocene Mammuthus site, Virginia, Orange

Free State. Navors. nas. Mus. Bloemfontein 2: 386-393.

CooKE, H. B. S. 1950. A critical revision of the Perissodactyla of southern Africa. Ann. S. Afr.

Mus, 21: 393-479.

CopPENS, Y. & HOWELL, F. C. 1976. Mammalian faunas of the Omo Group: Distributional

and biostratigraphic aspects. In: COPPENS, Y. et al., eds. Earliest man and environments

in the Lake Rudolf Basin: 177-192. Chicago: University Press.

EISENMANN, V. 1976. Equidae from the Shungura Formation. In: CoppeENs, Y. ef al., eds.

Earliest man and environments in the Lake Rudolf Basin: 225-233. Chicago: University

Press.

GENTRY, A. W. 1974. A new genus and species of Pliocene boselaphine (Bovidae, Mammalia)

from South Africa. Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 65: 145-188.

Harris, J. M. 1976. Pliocene Giraffoidea (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) from the Cape Province.

Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 69: 325-353.

HENDEY, Q. B. 1969. Quaternary vertebrate fossil sites in the south-western Cape Province.

S. Afr. archaeol. Bull. 24: 96-105.

HENDEY, Q. B. 1970a. A review of the geology and palaeontology of the Plio/Pleistocene

deposits at Langebaanweg, Cape Province. Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 56: 75-117.

24 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

HENDEY, Q. B. 19706. The age of the fossiliferous deposits at Langebaanweg, Cape Province.

Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 56: 119-131.

HENDEY, Q. B. 1972. Further observations on the age of the mammalian fauna from Langebaan-

weg, Cape Province. Palaeoecol. Afr. 6: 172-175.

HENDEY, Q. B. 1973. Fossil occurrences at Langebaanweg, Cape Province. Nature, Lond. 244:

13-14.

HENDEY, Q. B. 1974. The late Cenozoic Carnivora of the south-western Cape Province. Ann.

S. Afr. Mus. 63: 1-369.

HENDEY, Q. B. 1976. The Pliocene fossil occurrences in ‘E’ Quarry, Langebaanweg, South

Africa. Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 69: 215-247.

HENDEY, Q. B. & DEACON, H. J. 1977. Studies in palaeontology and archaeology in the

Saldanha Region. Trans. R. Soc. S. Afr. 42: 371-381.

Hoover, D. A. 1974. Hipparions from the Late Miocene and Pliocene of Northwestern Kenya.

Zool. Verhand. 134: 1-34.

Hoover, D. A. 1975. Miocene to Pleistocene hipparions of Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia.

Zool. Verhand. 142: 1-80.

Hoover, D. A. 1976a. The Late Pliocene Equidae of Langebaanweg, Cape Province, South

Africa. Zool. Verhand. 148: 1-39.

Hoover, D. A. 197656. Evolution of the Perissodactyla of the Omo Group deposits. In:

CopPeENs, Y. et al., eds. Earliest man and environments in the Lake Rudolf Basin: 209-213.

Chicago: University Press.

KLEIN, R. G. 1974a. On the taxonomic status, distribution and ecology of the blue antelope,

Hippotragus leucophaeus (Pallas, 1766). Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 65: 99-143.

KLEIN, R. G. 19746. A provisional statement on terminal Pleistocene mammalian extinctions

in the Cape Biotic Region (Southern Cape Province, South Africa). S. Afr. archaeol. Soc.

Goodwin Ser. 2: 39-45.

KurtTENn, B. 1968. Pleistocene mammals of Europe. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Mac io, V. J. 1973. Origin and evolution of the Elephantidae. Trans. Am. phil. Soc. 63: 1-126.

Mac tio, V. J. 1974. A new proboscidean from the late Miocene of Kenya. Palaeontology 17:

699-705.

MacLio, V. J. & HENDEY, Q. B. 1970. New evidence relating to the supposed stegolophodont

ancestry of the Elephantidae. S. Afr. archaeol. Bull. 25: 85-87.

MEIRING, A. J. D. 1955. Fossil proboscidean teeth and ulna from Virginia, O.F.S. Navors. nas.

Mus. Bloemfontein 1: 187-201.

SINGER, R. & Hoorer, D. A. 1958. A Stegolophodon from South Africa. Nature, Lond. 182:

101-102.

SINGER, R. & BONE, E. L. 1960. Modern giraffes and the fossil giraffids of Africa. Ann. S. Afr.

Mus. 45: 375-548.

TANKARD, A. J. 1975. Varswater Formation of the Langebaanweg-—Saldanha area, Cape

Province. Trans. geol. Soc. S. Afr. 77: 265-283.

Wo rr, R. G., SINGER, R. & BisHop, W. W. 1973. Fossil bear (Agriotherium Wagner, 1837)

from Langebaanweg, Cape Province, South Africa. Quaternaria 17: 209-236.

6. SYSTEMATIC papers must conform to the Jnternational code of zoological nomenclature

(particularly Articles 22 and 51).

Names of new taxa, combinations, synonyms, etc., when used for the first time, must be

followed by the appropriate Latin (not English) abbreviation, e.g. gen. nov., sp. nov., comb.

nov., syn. nov., etc.

An author’s name when cited must follow the name of the taxon without intervening

punctuation and not be abbreviated; if the year is added, a comma must separate author’s

name and year. The author’s name (and date, if cited) must be placed in parentheses if a

species or subspecies is transferred from its original genus. The name of a subsequent user of

a scientific name must be separated from the scientific name by a colon.

Synonymy arrangement should be according to chronology of names, i.e. all published

scientific names by which the species previously has been designated are listed in chronological

order, with all references to that name following in chronological order, e.g.:

Family Nuculanidae

Nuculana (Lembulus) bicuspidata (Gould, 1845)

Figs 14-15A

Nucula (Leda) bicuspidata Gould, 1845: 37.

Leda plicifera A. Adams, 1856: 50.

Laeda bicuspidata Hanley, 1859: 118, pl. 228 (fig. 73). Sowerby, 1871: pl. 2 (fig. 8a—b).

Nucula largillierti Philippi, 1861: 87.

Leda bicuspidata: Nicklés, 1950: 163, fig. 301; 1955: 110. Barnard, 1964: 234, figs 8-9.

Note punctuation in the above example:

comma separates author’s name and year

semicolon separates more than one reference by the same author

full stop separates references by different authors

figures of plates are enclosed in parentheses to distinguish them from text-figures

dash, not comma, separates consecutive numbers

Synonymy arrangement according to chronology of bibliographic references, whereby

the year is placed in front of each entry, and the synonym repeated in full for each entry, is

not acceptable.

In describing new species, one specimen must be designated as the holotype; other speci-

mens mentioned in the original description are to be designated paratypes; additional material

not regarded as paratypes should be listed separately. The complete data (registration number,

depository, description of specimen, locality, collector, date) of the holotype and paratypes

must be recorded, e.g.:

Holotype

SAM-—A13535 in the South African Museum, Cape Town. Adult female from mid-tide region, King’s Beach

Port Elizabeth (33°51’S 25°39’E), collected by A. Smith, 15 January 1973.

Note standard form of writing South African Museum registration numbers and date.

7. SPECIAL HOUSE RULES

Capital initial letters

(a) The Figures, Maps and Tables of the paper when referred to in the text

e.g. *... the Figure depicting C. namacolus ...’; *. . . in C. namacolus (Fig. 10)...’

(b) The prefixes of prefixed surnames in all languages, when used in the text, if not preceded

by initials or full names

e.g. Du Toit but A.L.du Toit; Von Huene but F. von Huene

e.g. Therocephalia, but therocephalian

Punctuation should be loose, omitting all not strictly necessary

Reference to the author should be expressed in the third person

Roman numerals should be converted to arabic, except when forming part of the title of a

book or article, such as

“Revision of the Crustacea. Part VIII. The Amphipoda.’

Specific name must not stand alone, but be preceded by the generic name or its abbreviation

to initial capital letter, provided the same generic name is used consecutively.

Name of new genus or species is not to be included in the title: it should be included in the

abstract, counter to Recommendation 23 of the Code, to meet the requirements of

Biological Abstracts.

Q. B. HENDEY

THE AGE OF THE FOSSILS FROM BAARD’S

QUARRY, LANGEBAANWEG, SOUTH AFRICA

“VOLUME 75 PART 2 FEBRUARY 1978 ISSN 0303-2515

TH AF RICAN

‘OF THE SOU MUSEUM

CAPE TOWN

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

1. MATERIAL should be original and not published elsewhere, in whole or in part.

2. LAYOUT should be as follows:

(a) Centred masthead to consist of

Title: informative but concise, without abbreviations and not including the names of new genera or species

Author’s(s’) name(s)

Address(es) of author(s) (institution where work was carried out)

Number of illustrations (figures, enumerated maps and tables, in this order)

(b) Abstract of not more than 200 words, intelligible to the reader without reference to the text

(d) Introduction

(e) Subject-matter of the paper, divided into sections to correspond with those given in table of contents

(f) Summary, if paper is lengthy

(g) Acknowledgements

(th) References

(i) Abbreviations, where these are numerous

“a

3. MANUSCRIPT, to be submitted in triplicate, should be typewritten and neat, double spaced

with 2,5 cm margins all round. First lines of paragraphs should be indented. Tables and a list of

legends for illustrations should be typed separately, their positions indicated in the text. All

pages should be numbered consecutively.

Major headings of the paper are centred capitals; first subheadings are shouldered small

capitals; second subheadings are shouldered italics; third subheadings are indented, shouldered

italics. Further subdivisions should be avoided, as also enumeration (never roman numerals)

of headings and abbreviations.

Footnotes should be avoided unless they are short and essential.

Only generic and specific names should be underlined to indicate italics; all other marking

up should be left to editor and publisher.

4. ILLUSTRATIONS should be reducible to a size not exceeding 12 < 18 cm (19 cm including