What is "faunal"

Usage examples of "faunal".

Or does evidence of primitive hunters really abound in the faunal remains of the Pliocene and earlier periods?

It appears that a professional scientist, who had access to rare fossils and knew how to select them and modify them to give the impression of a genuine faunal assemblage of the proper age, had to be involved in the Piltdown episode.

Such methods include chemical, radiometric, and geomagnetic dating techniques, as well as analysis of site stratigraphy, faunal remains, tool types, and the morphology of the hominid remains.

On the basis of stratigraphy and faunal comparisons, they are from roughly the same period.

But according to the faunal evidence reported by Qiu, all that can really be said is that the age of the Homo sapiens fossils could be anywhere from Middle Pleistocene to Late Pleistocene.

Our own analysis of the faunal list also suggests it is reasonable to narrow the age range to the Middle Pleistocene.

We suggest that Megatapirus augustus limits the most recent age of the Tongzi faunal collection to the end of the Middle Pleistocene.

If we place Tongzi Homo sapiens in the older part of its true faunal date range, in the middle Middle Pleistocene, he would be contemporary with Zhoukoudian Homo erectus.

But our own analysis of the faunal evidence, site stratigraphy, and paleomagnetic dating shows the date range for the Lantian Homo erectus skull overlaps that of Zhoukoudian Homo erectus.

By using morphological differences in the fossils of hominids to resolve contradictory faunal, stratigraphic, chemical, radiometric, and geomagnetic datings in harmony with a favored evolutionary sequence, paleoanthropologists have allowed their preconceptions to obscure other possibilities.

That scientists could confront the faunal evidence at Changyang without even considering the possibility that Homo sapiens coexisted in China with Homo erectus is amazing.

In attempting to sort out this Middle Pleistocene hominid logjam, scientists have repeatedly used the morphology of the hominid fossils to select desirable dates within the total possible faunal date ranges of the sites.

Because of Early Pleistocene faunal remains, the site was given an age of over a million years.

When these ages are adjusted to reflect reasonable faunal date ranges, the total evidence fails to exclusively support an evolutionary hypothesis.

These results are consistent with the hypothesis that the human bones at Kanam and Kanjera are as old as the faunal remains at those sites.