|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
September 2nd, 2004, 01:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Big and bigger
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. 
|
|
#2
September 2nd, 2004, 02:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Big and bigger
"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. 
|
|
#3
September 2nd, 2004, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Big and bigger
|
|
#4
September 2nd, 2004, 04:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Big and bigger
"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.
|
|
#6
September 2nd, 2004, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Big and bigger
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/fin...ract_72016.htm (note: the Tyosaurus mentioned in the latter was a species of mosasaur).
|
|
#7
September 2nd, 2004, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Big and bigger
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/fin...ract_72016.htm (note: the Tyosaurus mentioned in the latter was a species of mosasaur).
|
|
#8
September 2nd, 2004, 05:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Big and bigger
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
|
|
#9
September 2nd, 2004, 04:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Big and bigger
"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.
|
|
#10
September 2nd, 2004, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Big and bigger
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
