Big and bigger

[Salmo Bytes]

From the Lewis and Clark Journals: from the "abridgment of
the definitive Nebraska edition."

August 24, 1804
[Clark] The Plain to North N.W. & N.E. extends without
interuption as far as Can be Seen...if all the timber which
is on the Stone Creek was on 100 acres it would not be
thickly timbered, the Soil of those Plains are delightful.

[Whitehouse] some of our men caught Nine Cat fish. 5 of
them was very large, weighing on a average 100lbs.

September 10, 1804
[Clark] on a hill on the L.S. we found the backbone of a fish,
45 feet long tapering to the tale, some teeth.

[Wolfgang]

"Salmo Bytes" > wrote in message
om...
> From the Lewis and Clark Journals: from the "abridgment of
> the definitive Nebraska edition."
>
> August 24, 1804
> [Clark] The Plain to North N.W. & N.E. extends without
> interuption as far as Can be Seen...if all the timber which
> is on the Stone Creek was on 100 acres it would not be
> thickly timbered, the Soil of those Plains are delightful.
>
> [Whitehouse] some of our men caught Nine Cat fish. 5 of
> them was very large, weighing on a average 100lbs.
>
> September 10, 1804
> [Clark] on a hill on the L.S. we found the backbone of a fish,
> 45 feet long tapering to the tale, some teeth.

Hm......I got a shiny new nickel says that weren't no fish. Billy?

Wolfgang
who, it must be admitted, loves to watch the boy sweat. :)

[Wolfgang]

"Salmo Bytes" > wrote in message
om...
> From the Lewis and Clark Journals: from the "abridgment of
> the definitive Nebraska edition."
>
> August 24, 1804
> [Clark] The Plain to North N.W. & N.E. extends without
> interuption as far as Can be Seen...if all the timber which
> is on the Stone Creek was on 100 acres it would not be
> thickly timbered, the Soil of those Plains are delightful.
>
> [Whitehouse] some of our men caught Nine Cat fish. 5 of
> them was very large, weighing on a average 100lbs.
>
> September 10, 1804
> [Clark] on a hill on the L.S. we found the backbone of a fish,
> 45 feet long tapering to the tale, some teeth.

Hm......I got a shiny new nickel says that weren't no fish. Billy?

Wolfgang
who, it must be admitted, loves to watch the boy sweat. :)

[William Claspy]

On 9/1/04 9:06 PM, in article , "Wolfgang"
> wrote:

>
> "Salmo Bytes" > wrote in message
> om...
>> From the Lewis and Clark Journals: from the "abridgment of
>> the definitive Nebraska edition."
>>
>> August 24, 1804
>> [Clark] The Plain to North N.W. & N.E. extends without
>> interuption as far as Can be Seen...if all the timber which
>> is on the Stone Creek was on 100 acres it would not be
>> thickly timbered, the Soil of those Plains are delightful.
>>
>> [Whitehouse] some of our men caught Nine Cat fish. 5 of
>> them was very large, weighing on a average 100lbs.
>>
>> September 10, 1804
>> [Clark] on a hill on the L.S. we found the backbone of a fish,
>> 45 feet long tapering to the tale, some teeth.
>
> Hm......I got a shiny new nickel says that weren't no fish. Billy?
>
> Wolfgang
> who, it must be admitted, loves to watch the boy sweat. :)

Won't even have to break a sweat. We don't have the abridged edition, just
the 13 volume version :-)

And if Clark sez it was a fish, I'll believe him, bibliography or no!

William
(who plans to add the Moulton abridged volume to his modest private holdings
sooner or later)

[William Claspy]

On 9/1/04 9:06 PM, in article , "Wolfgang"
> wrote:

>
> "Salmo Bytes" > wrote in message
> om...
>> From the Lewis and Clark Journals: from the "abridgment of
>> the definitive Nebraska edition."
>>
>> August 24, 1804
>> [Clark] The Plain to North N.W. & N.E. extends without
>> interuption as far as Can be Seen...if all the timber which
>> is on the Stone Creek was on 100 acres it would not be
>> thickly timbered, the Soil of those Plains are delightful.
>>
>> [Whitehouse] some of our men caught Nine Cat fish. 5 of
>> them was very large, weighing on a average 100lbs.
>>
>> September 10, 1804
>> [Clark] on a hill on the L.S. we found the backbone of a fish,
>> 45 feet long tapering to the tale, some teeth.
>
> Hm......I got a shiny new nickel says that weren't no fish. Billy?
>
> Wolfgang
> who, it must be admitted, loves to watch the boy sweat. :)

Won't even have to break a sweat. We don't have the abridged edition, just
the 13 volume version :-)

And if Clark sez it was a fish, I'll believe him, bibliography or no!

William
(who plans to add the Moulton abridged volume to his modest private holdings
sooner or later)

[Wolfgang]

"William Claspy" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/1/04 9:06 PM, in article ,
"Wolfgang"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Salmo Bytes" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >> From the Lewis and Clark Journals: from the "abridgment of
> >> the definitive Nebraska edition."
> >>
> >> August 24, 1804
> >> [Clark] The Plain to North N.W. & N.E. extends without
> >> interuption as far as Can be Seen...if all the timber which
> >> is on the Stone Creek was on 100 acres it would not be
> >> thickly timbered, the Soil of those Plains are delightful.
> >>
> >> [Whitehouse] some of our men caught Nine Cat fish. 5 of
> >> them was very large, weighing on a average 100lbs.
> >>
> >> September 10, 1804
> >> [Clark] on a hill on the L.S. we found the backbone of a fish,
> >> 45 feet long tapering to the tale, some teeth.
> >
> > Hm......I got a shiny new nickel says that weren't no fish.
Billy?
> >
> > Wolfgang
> > who, it must be admitted, loves to watch the boy sweat. :)
>
> Won't even have to break a sweat. We don't have the abridged
edition, just
> the 13 volume version :-)
>
> And if Clark sez it was a fish, I'll believe him, bibliography or
no!
>
> William
> (who plans to add the Moulton abridged volume to his modest private
holdings
> sooner or later)

It wasn't till many years after I read the journals that I discovered
the volume I owned was somewhat shy of the full load. :)

Don't remember where or when I saw them, but there are several
references purporting to prove that Clark's big fish was actually some
kind of itchyosaur or something.

Wolfgang
scratch, scratch.

[Wolfgang]

"William Claspy" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/1/04 9:06 PM, in article ,
"Wolfgang"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Salmo Bytes" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >> From the Lewis and Clark Journals: from the "abridgment of
> >> the definitive Nebraska edition."
> >>
> >> August 24, 1804
> >> [Clark] The Plain to North N.W. & N.E. extends without
> >> interuption as far as Can be Seen...if all the timber which
> >> is on the Stone Creek was on 100 acres it would not be
> >> thickly timbered, the Soil of those Plains are delightful.
> >>
> >> [Whitehouse] some of our men caught Nine Cat fish. 5 of
> >> them was very large, weighing on a average 100lbs.
> >>
> >> September 10, 1804
> >> [Clark] on a hill on the L.S. we found the backbone of a fish,
> >> 45 feet long tapering to the tale, some teeth.
> >
> > Hm......I got a shiny new nickel says that weren't no fish.
Billy?
> >
> > Wolfgang
> > who, it must be admitted, loves to watch the boy sweat. :)
>
> Won't even have to break a sweat. We don't have the abridged
edition, just
> the 13 volume version :-)
>
> And if Clark sez it was a fish, I'll believe him, bibliography or
no!
>
> William
> (who plans to add the Moulton abridged volume to his modest private
holdings
> sooner or later)

It wasn't till many years after I read the journals that I discovered
the volume I owned was somewhat shy of the full load. :)

Don't remember where or when I saw them, but there are several
references purporting to prove that Clark's big fish was actually some
kind of itchyosaur or something.

Wolfgang
scratch, scratch.

[William Claspy]

On 9/2/04 11:37 AM, in article , "Wolfgang"
> wrote:

>
> "William Claspy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 9/1/04 9:06 PM, in article ,
> "Wolfgang"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Salmo Bytes" > wrote in message
>>> om...
>>>> From the Lewis and Clark Journals: from the "abridgment of
>>>> the definitive Nebraska edition."
>>>>
>>>> August 24, 1804
>>>> [Clark] The Plain to North N.W. & N.E. extends without
>>>> interuption as far as Can be Seen...if all the timber which
>>>> is on the Stone Creek was on 100 acres it would not be
>>>> thickly timbered, the Soil of those Plains are delightful.
>>>>
>>>> [Whitehouse] some of our men caught Nine Cat fish. 5 of
>>>> them was very large, weighing on a average 100lbs.
>>>>
>>>> September 10, 1804
>>>> [Clark] on a hill on the L.S. we found the backbone of a fish,
>>>> 45 feet long tapering to the tale, some teeth.
>>>
>>> Hm......I got a shiny new nickel says that weren't no fish.
> Billy?
>>>
>>> Wolfgang
>>> who, it must be admitted, loves to watch the boy sweat. :)
>>
>> Won't even have to break a sweat. We don't have the abridged
> edition, just
>> the 13 volume version :-)
>>
>> And if Clark sez it was a fish, I'll believe him, bibliography or
> no!
>>
>> William
>> (who plans to add the Moulton abridged volume to his modest private
> holdings
>> sooner or later)
>
> It wasn't till many years after I read the journals that I discovered
> the volume I owned was somewhat shy of the full load. :)
>
> Don't remember where or when I saw them, but there are several
> references purporting to prove that Clark's big fish was actually some
> kind of itchyosaur or something.
>
> Wolfgang
> scratch, scratch.

Grrrr. Plesiosaur, apparently, but I've not found a source that I trust. I
know you're all waiting with baited breath, so I'll keep digging...

Bill

[William Claspy]

On 9/2/04 11:37 AM, in article , "Wolfgang"
> wrote:

>
> "William Claspy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 9/1/04 9:06 PM, in article ,
> "Wolfgang"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Salmo Bytes" > wrote in message
>>> om...
>>>> From the Lewis and Clark Journals: from the "abridgment of
>>>> the definitive Nebraska edition."
>>>>
>>>> August 24, 1804
>>>> [Clark] The Plain to North N.W. & N.E. extends without
>>>> interuption as far as Can be Seen...if all the timber which
>>>> is on the Stone Creek was on 100 acres it would not be
>>>> thickly timbered, the Soil of those Plains are delightful.
>>>>
>>>> [Whitehouse] some of our men caught Nine Cat fish. 5 of
>>>> them was very large, weighing on a average 100lbs.
>>>>
>>>> September 10, 1804
>>>> [Clark] on a hill on the L.S. we found the backbone of a fish,
>>>> 45 feet long tapering to the tale, some teeth.
>>>
>>> Hm......I got a shiny new nickel says that weren't no fish.
> Billy?
>>>
>>> Wolfgang
>>> who, it must be admitted, loves to watch the boy sweat. :)
>>
>> Won't even have to break a sweat. We don't have the abridged
> edition, just
>> the 13 volume version :-)
>>
>> And if Clark sez it was a fish, I'll believe him, bibliography or
> no!
>>
>> William
>> (who plans to add the Moulton abridged volume to his modest private
> holdings
>> sooner or later)
>
> It wasn't till many years after I read the journals that I discovered
> the volume I owned was somewhat shy of the full load. :)
>
> Don't remember where or when I saw them, but there are several
> references purporting to prove that Clark's big fish was actually some
> kind of itchyosaur or something.
>
> Wolfgang
> scratch, scratch.

Grrrr. Plesiosaur, apparently, but I've not found a source that I trust. I
know you're all waiting with baited breath, so I'll keep digging...

Bill

[Chip Bartholomay]

William Claspy wrote:

>> Don't remember where or when I saw them, but there are several
>> references purporting to prove that Clark's big fish was actually some
>> kind of itchyosaur or something.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>> scratch, scratch.
>
>Grrrr. Plesiosaur, apparently, but I've not found a source that I trust. I
>know you're all waiting with baited breath, so I'll keep digging...
>

Actually, it seems that the September 10, 1804 "find" may have been a mosasaur:

http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Goldfuss.html

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004RM/finalprogram/abstract_72016.htm

(note: the Tyosaurus mentioned in the latter was a species of mosasaur).

[Chip Bartholomay]

William Claspy wrote:

>> Don't remember where or when I saw them, but there are several
>> references purporting to prove that Clark's big fish was actually some
>> kind of itchyosaur or something.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>> scratch, scratch.
>
>Grrrr. Plesiosaur, apparently, but I've not found a source that I trust. I
>know you're all waiting with baited breath, so I'll keep digging...
>

Actually, it seems that the September 10, 1804 "find" may have been a mosasaur:

http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Goldfuss.html

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004RM/finalprogram/abstract_72016.htm

(note: the Tyosaurus mentioned in the latter was a species of mosasaur).

[William Claspy]

On 9/2/04 12:59 PM, in article ,
"Chip Bartholomay" > wrote:

> William Claspy wrote:
>
>>> Don't remember where or when I saw them, but there are several
>>> references purporting to prove that Clark's big fish was actually some
>>> kind of itchyosaur or something.
>>>
>>> Wolfgang
>>> scratch, scratch.
>>
>> Grrrr. Plesiosaur, apparently, but I've not found a source that I trust. I
>> know you're all waiting with baited breath, so I'll keep digging...
>>
>
> Actually, it seems that the September 10, 1804 "find" may have been a
> mosasaur:
>
> http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Goldfuss.html
>
> http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004RM/finalprogram/abstract_72016.htm
>
> (note: the Tyosaurus mentioned in the latter was a species of mosasaur).

Yep, those would do it. Also this one

http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0022-8443&volume=104
&issue=01&page=0059

Plesiosaur and mosasaur are different species.

One thing is certain- that warn't no fish. :-)

Bill
(Who is going to move the Moulton abridgement up on his reading list, none
the less...)

[William Claspy]

On 9/2/04 12:59 PM, in article ,
"Chip Bartholomay" > wrote:

> William Claspy wrote:
>
>>> Don't remember where or when I saw them, but there are several
>>> references purporting to prove that Clark's big fish was actually some
>>> kind of itchyosaur or something.
>>>
>>> Wolfgang
>>> scratch, scratch.
>>
>> Grrrr. Plesiosaur, apparently, but I've not found a source that I trust. I
>> know you're all waiting with baited breath, so I'll keep digging...
>>
>
> Actually, it seems that the September 10, 1804 "find" may have been a
> mosasaur:
>
> http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Goldfuss.html
>
> http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004RM/finalprogram/abstract_72016.htm
>
> (note: the Tyosaurus mentioned in the latter was a species of mosasaur).

Yep, those would do it. Also this one

http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0022-8443&volume=104
&issue=01&page=0059

Plesiosaur and mosasaur are different species.

One thing is certain- that warn't no fish. :-)

Bill
(Who is going to move the Moulton abridgement up on his reading list, none
the less...)

[bugcaster]

"William Claspy" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/2/04 12:59 PM, in article
> ,
> "Chip Bartholomay" > wrote:
>
>> William Claspy wrote:
>>
>>>> Don't remember where or when I saw them, but there are several
>>>> references purporting to prove that Clark's big fish was actually some
>>>> kind of itchyosaur or something.
>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang
>>>> scratch, scratch.
>>>
>>> Grrrr. Plesiosaur, apparently, but I've not found a source that I
>>> trust. I
>>> know you're all waiting with baited breath, so I'll keep digging...
>>>
>>
>> Actually, it seems that the September 10, 1804 "find" may have been a
>> mosasaur:
>>
>> http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Goldfuss.html
>>
>> http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004RM/finalprogram/abstract_72016.htm
>>
>> (note: the Tyosaurus mentioned in the latter was a species of mosasaur).
>
> Yep, those would do it. Also this one
>
> http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0022-8443&volume=104
> &issue=01&page=0059
>
> Plesiosaur and mosasaur are different species.
>
> One thing is certain- that warn't no fish. :-)
>
> Bill
> (Who is going to move the Moulton abridgement up on his reading list, none
> the less...)
>

Patrick Gass indicated that the bones were petrified and a portion were sent
to Washington.

[bugcaster]

"William Claspy" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/2/04 12:59 PM, in article
> ,
> "Chip Bartholomay" > wrote:
>
>> William Claspy wrote:
>>
>>>> Don't remember where or when I saw them, but there are several
>>>> references purporting to prove that Clark's big fish was actually some
>>>> kind of itchyosaur or something.
>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang
>>>> scratch, scratch.
>>>
>>> Grrrr. Plesiosaur, apparently, but I've not found a source that I
>>> trust. I
>>> know you're all waiting with baited breath, so I'll keep digging...
>>>
>>
>> Actually, it seems that the September 10, 1804 "find" may have been a
>> mosasaur:
>>
>> http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Goldfuss.html
>>
>> http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004RM/finalprogram/abstract_72016.htm
>>
>> (note: the Tyosaurus mentioned in the latter was a species of mosasaur).
>
> Yep, those would do it. Also this one
>
> http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0022-8443&volume=104
> &issue=01&page=0059
>
> Plesiosaur and mosasaur are different species.
>
> One thing is certain- that warn't no fish. :-)
>
> Bill
> (Who is going to move the Moulton abridgement up on his reading list, none
> the less...)
>

Patrick Gass indicated that the bones were petrified and a portion were sent
to Washington.

[Chip Bartholomay]

William Claspy wrote:

>>>> Don't remember where or when I saw them, but there are several
>>>> references purporting to prove that Clark's big fish was actually some
>>>> kind of itchyosaur or something.
>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang
>>>> scratch, scratch.
>>>
>>> Grrrr. Plesiosaur, apparently, but I've not found a source that I trust.
>I
>>> know you're all waiting with baited breath, so I'll keep digging...
>>>
>>
>> Actually, it seems that the September 10, 1804 "find" may have been a
>> mosasaur:
>>
>> http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Goldfuss.html
>>
>> http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004RM/finalprogram/abstract_72016.htm
>>
>> (note: the Tyosaurus mentioned in the latter was a species of mosasaur).
>
>Yep, those would do it. Also this one
>
>http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0022-8443&volume=104
>&issue=01&page=0059
>
>Plesiosaur and mosasaur are different species.
>

>One thing is certain- that warn't no fish. :-)
>

Nope, it certainly was not....although they thought it was. I wonder if they
worried at all about fishing after seeing the fossil...

[Chip Bartholomay]

William Claspy wrote:

>>>> Don't remember where or when I saw them, but there are several
>>>> references purporting to prove that Clark's big fish was actually some
>>>> kind of itchyosaur or something.
>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang
>>>> scratch, scratch.
>>>
>>> Grrrr. Plesiosaur, apparently, but I've not found a source that I trust.
>I
>>> know you're all waiting with baited breath, so I'll keep digging...
>>>
>>
>> Actually, it seems that the September 10, 1804 "find" may have been a
>> mosasaur:
>>
>> http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Goldfuss.html
>>
>> http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004RM/finalprogram/abstract_72016.htm
>>
>> (note: the Tyosaurus mentioned in the latter was a species of mosasaur).
>
>Yep, those would do it. Also this one
>
>http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0022-8443&volume=104
>&issue=01&page=0059
>
>Plesiosaur and mosasaur are different species.
>

>One thing is certain- that warn't no fish. :-)
>

Nope, it certainly was not....although they thought it was. I wonder if they
worried at all about fishing after seeing the fossil...

[Wolfgang]

"William Claspy" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/2/04 12:59 PM, in article
,
> "Chip Bartholomay" > wrote:
>
> > William Claspy wrote:
> >
> >>> Don't remember where or when I saw them, but there are several
> >>> references purporting to prove that Clark's big fish was actually some
> >>> kind of itchyosaur or something.
> >>>
> >>> Wolfgang
> >>> scratch, scratch.
> >>
> >> Grrrr. Plesiosaur, apparently, but I've not found a source that I
trust. I
> >> know you're all waiting with baited breath, so I'll keep digging...
> >>
> >
> > Actually, it seems that the September 10, 1804 "find" may have been a
> > mosasaur:
> >
> > http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Goldfuss.html
> >
> > http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004RM/finalprogram/abstract_72016.htm
> >
> > (note: the Tyosaurus mentioned in the latter was a species of mosasaur).
>
> Yep, those would do it. Also this one
>
>
http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0022-8443&volume=104
> &issue=01&page=0059
>
> Plesiosaur and mosasaur are different species.
>
> One thing is certain- that warn't no fish. :-)

Well, "reasonably" certain anyway. However, since the remains were lost and
never positively identified, I cannot with a clear conscience claim a shiny
new nickel. Drat! :(

> Bill
> (Who is going to move the Moulton abridgement up on his reading list, none
> the less...)

As I stated earlier, the volume I read lo these many years ago was obviously
a small portion of the whole. A couple of years ago, just after it hit the
bargain books bins, I also read Steven Ambrose's "Undaunted Courage" after
hearing portions of it on public radio's "Chapter a Day" series. I
discovered two things: the original journals are MUCH too long and dry to
read in full for anyone but a masochist or a professional or serious amateur
historian......which is to say, a masochist.....and I will not miss Ambrose.
:)

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"William Claspy" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/2/04 12:59 PM, in article
,
> "Chip Bartholomay" > wrote:
>
> > William Claspy wrote:
> >
> >>> Don't remember where or when I saw them, but there are several
> >>> references purporting to prove that Clark's big fish was actually some
> >>> kind of itchyosaur or something.
> >>>
> >>> Wolfgang
> >>> scratch, scratch.
> >>
> >> Grrrr. Plesiosaur, apparently, but I've not found a source that I
trust. I
> >> know you're all waiting with baited breath, so I'll keep digging...
> >>
> >
> > Actually, it seems that the September 10, 1804 "find" may have been a
> > mosasaur:
> >
> > http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Goldfuss.html
> >
> > http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004RM/finalprogram/abstract_72016.htm
> >
> > (note: the Tyosaurus mentioned in the latter was a species of mosasaur).
>
> Yep, those would do it. Also this one
>
>
http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0022-8443&volume=104
> &issue=01&page=0059
>
> Plesiosaur and mosasaur are different species.
>
> One thing is certain- that warn't no fish. :-)

Well, "reasonably" certain anyway. However, since the remains were lost and
never positively identified, I cannot with a clear conscience claim a shiny
new nickel. Drat! :(

> Bill
> (Who is going to move the Moulton abridgement up on his reading list, none
> the less...)

As I stated earlier, the volume I read lo these many years ago was obviously
a small portion of the whole. A couple of years ago, just after it hit the
bargain books bins, I also read Steven Ambrose's "Undaunted Courage" after
hearing portions of it on public radio's "Chapter a Day" series. I
discovered two things: the original journals are MUCH too long and dry to
read in full for anyone but a masochist or a professional or serious amateur
historian......which is to say, a masochist.....and I will not miss Ambrose.
:)

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"William Claspy" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/2/04 12:59 PM, in article
,
> "Chip Bartholomay" > wrote:
>
> > William Claspy wrote:
> >
> >>> Don't remember where or when I saw them, but there are several
> >>> references purporting to prove that Clark's big fish was actually some
> >>> kind of itchyosaur or something.
> >>>
> >>> Wolfgang
> >>> scratch, scratch.
> >>
> >> Grrrr. Plesiosaur, apparently, but I've not found a source that I
trust. I
> >> know you're all waiting with baited breath, so I'll keep digging...
> >>
> >
> > Actually, it seems that the September 10, 1804 "find" may have been a
> > mosasaur:
> >
> > http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Goldfuss.html
> >
> > http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004RM/finalprogram/abstract_72016.htm
> >
> > (note: the Tyosaurus mentioned in the latter was a species of mosasaur).
>
> Yep, those would do it. Also this one
>
>
http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0022-8443&volume=104
> &issue=01&page=0059
>
> Plesiosaur and mosasaur are different species.
>
> One thing is certain- that warn't no fish. :-)

Well, "reasonably" certain anyway. However, since the remains were lost and
never positively identified, I cannot with a clear conscience claim a shiny
new nickel. Drat! :(

> Bill
> (Who is going to move the Moulton abridgement up on his reading list, none
> the less...)

As I stated earlier, the volume I read lo these many years ago was obviously
a small portion of the whole. A couple of years ago, just after it hit the
bargain books bins, I also read Steven Ambrose's "Undaunted Courage" after
hearing portions of it on public radio's "Chapter a Day" series. I
discovered two things: the original journals are MUCH too long and dry to
read in full for anyone but a masochist or a professional or serious amateur
historian......which is to say, a masochist.....and I will not miss Ambrose.
:)

Wolfgang

[rw]

Chip Bartholomay wrote:
>
>>One thing is certain- that warn't no fish. :-)
>>
>
>
> Nope, it certainly was not....although they thought it was.

Let's just agree that it was a "great fishe." :-) (Herman Melville)

And no, Wolfgang, before you get your panties in a bunch, I'm not saying
it was a whale.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

Chip Bartholomay wrote:
>
>>One thing is certain- that warn't no fish. :-)
>>
>
>
> Nope, it certainly was not....although they thought it was.

Let's just agree that it was a "great fishe." :-) (Herman Melville)

And no, Wolfgang, before you get your panties in a bunch, I'm not saying
it was a whale.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

Chip Bartholomay wrote:
>
>>One thing is certain- that warn't no fish. :-)
>>
>
>
> Nope, it certainly was not....although they thought it was.

Let's just agree that it was a "great fishe." :-) (Herman Melville)

And no, Wolfgang, before you get your panties in a bunch, I'm not saying
it was a whale.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
m...
> Chip Bartholomay wrote:
> >
> >>One thing is certain- that warn't no fish. :-)
> >>
> >
> >
> > Nope, it certainly was not....although they thought it was.
>
> Let's just agree that it was a "great fishe." :-) (Herman Melville)

Um.....no, let's not. As a matter of fact, those of us involved in the
discussion thus far already didn't.

> And no, Wolfgang, before you get your panties in a bunch, I'm not saying
> it was a whale.

O.k. Then your point was......?

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
m...
> Chip Bartholomay wrote:
> >
> >>One thing is certain- that warn't no fish. :-)
> >>
> >
> >
> > Nope, it certainly was not....although they thought it was.
>
> Let's just agree that it was a "great fishe." :-) (Herman Melville)

Um.....no, let's not. As a matter of fact, those of us involved in the
discussion thus far already didn't.

> And no, Wolfgang, before you get your panties in a bunch, I'm not saying
> it was a whale.

O.k. Then your point was......?

Wolfgang