[Véra Eisenmann]

Most recent articles

Equus from Shungura Lower and Middle G

Monday 18 May 2015

Hipparions from Omo, Introduction

Tuesday 28 April 2015

Equids from Omo deposits were described by Hooijer (1975) and Eisenmann (1985). The following articles on the web site are mainly photographs of the Hipparion material, personal and adapted from Hooijer, with few comments. Most of the photographs are natural size. Joleaud (1933) described (…)

continue

Mursi Formation

Tuesday 28 April 2015

As much as I know, the Mursi Formation is believed to be older than 4 Ma. The fragment of MC III (YS 1968-3585) may have belonged to the same species as KP 62 128/65 from Kanapoi (Fig.M1). The lower P2 has no ectostylid (Fig.M2).

continue

Usno Formation

Tuesday 28 April 2015

The sediments of the Usno Formation date from ca. 3 to ca. 4 Ma. The upper cheek teeth are very plicated (Fig.U1); the lower molar has isolated protostylid and ectostylid, both small (Fig.U2).

continue

Shungura Formation, Member A

Tuesday 28 April 2015

The Member A of the Shungura Formation is correlated with the lower part of Usno Formation. I know of only one cheek tooth, an upper P2, 81-1969-109. The enamel is plicated and the pli caballin is long (Fig.A1).

continue

Shungura Formation, Member B

Tuesday 28 April 2015

The Member B of the Shungura Formation is correlated with the upper part of Usno Formation. Its age is comprised between 3.5 and 3 Ma. The material collected by the French and American expeditions is much richer than that of the older sediments. There are several limb bones, and more than a (…)

continue

Shungura Formation, Member C and B-C

Tuesday 28 April 2015

There are but a few available photographs although Hooijer described more fossils. A mandibular symphysis (Fig.C1) shows no reduction of the I3. On the lower B-C 3 70-701 (Fig.C2) both protostylid and ectostylid appear on the occlusal view although the tooth is little worn. It seems to (…)

continue

Shungura Formation, Member D

Tuesday 28 April 2015

A lower I1 (Fig.D1) seems to differ from those from the symphysis of Shungura C: more flattened and more grooved. The distal half of a MT III (Fig.D2) is smaller than that from Shungura B. The Ph1 from Tuff D (Fig.D3) certainly belongs to another species than that from Shungura B.

continue