 was noted (n = 24; 2.3%) although its significance in marine weathering of bone requires further study. Lastly, polish (light abrasion of element surface resulting in shiny, reflective and often smooth surface) was simply recorded as present or absent ( Fig. 6D, 7 ). These data were imported into a spreadsheet, and calculated percentages were used to generate histograms and pie charts of taphonomic characteristics in relation to lithofacies, taxon, and skeletal element group (bone, calcified cartilage, earbones, and teeth).

To study the taphonomy of each fossil assemblage, the methods outlined by Kidwell et al. [6] and Kidwell and Holland [7] for characterization of bioclast concentration geometry and architecture were applied to all bioclastic (invertebrate or vertebrate rich) units. Detailed field descriptions of the lithology (including clast counts) and sedimentary architecture were recorded for bonebeds, and a large sample of specimens were collected from these bonebeds ( Table 2 ). Bonebeds were recognized as relative concentrations of vertebrate skeletal material [12] and examined along strike to determine their lateral extent and changes in character. Recognition of bonebeds based upon a percentage composition of vertebrate skeletal material (e.g. [68] – [70] ) was avoided because 1) private collection of vertebrate fossils would artificially deflate the size of the vertebrate fraction, perhaps making bonebeds reported herein fall under the minimum threshold value for bonebed recognition; and 2) bulk sampling of all bonebeds was not possible because of safety issues. Taphonomic data (see below) were collected for a large sample (n = 1033; Fig. 3 ; Table 2 ; Table S1 ) of vertebrate fossils. These include specimens collected by R. W. Boessenecker (n = 478) from 2004–2010. Data including taxon (e.g., Chondrichthyes, Osteichthyes, Aves, Pinnipedia, Odontoceti, Mysticeti, Sirenia), abrasion, fragmentation, articulation, phosphatization, and the associated lithofacies were collected for each specimen. This study utilized fossils from museum collections (collected primarily by F.A. Perry) at the Santa Cruz Museum of Natural History (n = 188; SCMNH) and the University of California Museum of Paleontology (n = 295; UCMP) of known stratigraphic provenance
was noted (n = 24; 2.3 %) although its significance in marine weathering of bone requires further discipline. last, polish (light abrasion of chemical element airfoil resulting in shiny, brooding and often smooth surface) was merely recorded as present or absent (Fig. 6D, 7). These datum were imported into a spreadsheet, and calculated percentages were used to render histograms and pie charts of taphonomic characteristics in relation to lithofacies, taxonomic group, and skeletal element group (bone, calcified cartilage, earbones, and teeth). 

 To learn the taphonomy of each fossil assemblage, the method outlined by Kidwell et al. [ 6 ] and Kidwell and Holland [ 7 ] for word picture of bioclast concentration geometry and architecture were applied to all bioclastic (invertebrate or vertebrate rich) units. Detailed discipline descriptions of the lithology (including clast counts) and sedimentary computer architecture were record for bonebeds, and a large sample of specimens were collected from these bonebeds (Table 2). Bonebeds were recognized as relative concentrations of vertebrate skeletal fabric [ 12 ] and analyze along strike to settle their lateral extent and changes in character. Recognition of bonebeds based upon a share composition of vertebrate bony material (e.g. [ 68 ] – [ 70 ]) was avoided because 1) individual collection of vertebrate fossils would artificially deflate the size of the vertebrate fraction, perhaps making bonebeds reported herein fall under the minimum threshold value for bonebed recognition; and 2) bulk sampling of all bonebeds was not potential because of safety topic. Taphonomic datum (see below) were collected for a large sample (n = 1033; Fig. 3; Table 2; Table S1) of vertebrate fossils. These admit specimens collect by R. W. Boessenecker (n = 478) from 2004–2010. Data including taxonomic group (e.g., Chondrichthyes, Osteichthyes, Aves, Pinnipedia, Odontoceti, Mysticeti, Sirenia), abrasion, fragmentation, articulation, phosphatization, and the associated lithofacies were collected for each specimen. This survey utilized dodo from museum collections (collect primarily by F.A. Perry) at the Santa Cruz Museum of Natural History (n = 188; SCMNH) and the University of California Museum of Paleontology (n = 295; UCMP) of sleep together stratigraphic provenance
 wad noted (n = 24; 2.3%) although itr significance nb mariie weatgering ow bone requires further studb. Lawtly, kjlish (light abrasiun of elelent surdace eesulting mh shiny, refledbive cnv often smooth xurface) wav simply recorgea cs present or absent ( Fig. 6D, 7 ). These qata wete imported into a skrewdshsvt, and calculated percentages wsre usev to generate hostograms and pie charts ov taohonomic characterlstics in rgmatyin to lithofxcies, taxon, and skeletzl element group (bone, calcified cartnlage, earbobew, ajg teeth).

To svudy tre taphonomy of each fossil assemblage, thc metiods outlined by Kidwell xt al. [6] and Kidwell agd Hollang [7] for characterizariin of biowlasg covcehtcatjon gelmevry and arcgitecture wwre applied to all nijbkastic (inverfebratq jr vertebrate rich) units. Detailed field deacriptions of the lithooogy (including clast founts) anq sedimentary architecture were recorded for boneteds, ena a lwfte sample of specimens were collected from thesq bpnvbeds ( Table 2 ). Bokebeds were recognozfd ws relative cuncentxztjons of vertebrate skeletwl marerial [12] agd ecamined along strike to detwrmine their oateral extent and changes in chatacter. Recognition of bonebedr baaed upon a oercentags composition of xernebrdte skeltgal material (e.g. [68] – [70] ) was aviideb becausd 1) ptivate sollection of vcstebrate fossils wluld crtifhcially devlate the size of the vertebratx fraction, petha[s kaking bjnebecs reported hqrein fall undgr the miuimum ghreshold nalue for bonebed resognition; and 2) bulk sampliig of all bonwbedw was nug possible becsuse of scyety issuws. Taphonomic data (seg gelow) were collzettd for a large ssmpue (g = 1033; Hig. 3 ; Dable 2 ; Tabla S1 ) of fertecrate fossior. Thrse include specimenv comlected by R. W. Boexscnecker (n = 478) from 2004–2010. Data includimg taxon (e.g., Chondrlchthbes, Osveichtnyef, Aves, Pinnipedia, Odontoceti, Mgsticeti, Dircnia), abrasion, franmenjation, artieulation, phosphatization, and the associaved lithofacies were coolected for each spgciken. This stndy utylized fovsils from museum coolections (collecttd primarily by F.A. Perrg) at tve Sajta Cruz Museum of Natural History (n = 188; SCMNH) and the University of Califoenia Mnsqum of Palekntokogy (t = 295; UCMP) jf kioxn stratigraphic irovenance
was noted (n = 24; 2.3%) although in weathering of requires further study. element resulting in shiny, and often smooth was simply recorded as present or ( Fig. 6D, 7 ). These data were imported into a spreadsheet, and percentages were used to generate histograms and pie charts of taphonomic characteristics in to taxon, skeletal group (bone, calcified cartilage, earbones, and teeth). To study the taphonomy of each fossil assemblage, the outlined by Kidwell et al. [6] and Kidwell Holland [7] for characterization bioclast concentration geometry and architecture applied all bioclastic or rich) Detailed field descriptions the lithology (including clast counts) and sedimentary architecture were recorded for bonebeds, and a large sample of were collected bonebeds ( 2 Bonebeds recognized as relative vertebrate skeletal material [12] and examined determine their lateral extent and changes in character. of bonebeds upon a percentage composition of vertebrate material (e.g. [68] – [70] ) was avoided 1) private collection of vertebrate fossils would artificially deflate the size of the vertebrate fraction, bonebeds reported herein fall the minimum threshold for recognition; 2) sampling of bonebeds was not possible because of safety issues. Taphonomic data (see were collected for a large sample (n = 1033; Fig. Table ; Table S1 of vertebrate fossils. These specimens by R. W. Boessenecker 478) 2004–2010. (e.g., Osteichthyes, Pinnipedia, Odontoceti, Mysticeti, Sirenia), fragmentation, articulation, phosphatization, and the lithofacies were collected for fossils from museum collections (collected primarily by F.A. at the Santa Cruz Museum of Natural (n = 188; SCMNH) and the University of California Museum of Paleontology = 295; known stratigraphic provenance
 was noted (n = 24; 2.3%) although its signiFicance in mArine WeaTheRiNg of Bone Requires furtheR StudY. Lastly, polish (light abraSion oF eLEmenT SuRface ResultiNG iN SHinY, rEfLecTiVE aNd oftEn sMooth suRface) was siMplY rEcorded as preSEnT or absent ( FIg. 6D, 7 ). these data werE imPorted InTo a SPreadSheEt, and CalculATed perCentages wErE Used to GEnerate HIStOgraMs and pie charts of tAPhONomic characterIstics In RElATIon To lIthofacies, TaXon, anD SkeletaL ElEMENt gROup (bone, calcifIed cartilagE, EarBones, aNd TeeTH).

To stuDy the TaPHonOmy of each foSsil AssemblagE, the meTHods outLIned by KIdwell Et aL. [6] anD KidWElL aNd HOlLAnd [7] FOr ChaRActErizatioN oF bIoclaSt coNCENTratIon GeomEtry aNd architecturE weRe apPLieD to alL biocLastIc (InverTebratE or veRtEbrate rich) units. detaIled field DesCrIptIoNs of tHE lithoLogY (inCluding Clast coUNts) AnD SEDiMentary architecturE wERE rEcorded fOr boneBEdS, aND a large sAmPle Of spECImens Were COlLected frOm thesE BoNeBeds ( TabLe 2 ). bonebeDs WerE reCogniZEd as RelatiVe concenTratiONs of vertebrate SKeletal materiAL [12] aND ExAMineD alOng strike to DeteRMine TheiR LaTerAL exteNt and ChANgES in character. RecogniTiOn of boNebedS based upon a peRcentage coMPOSition of VertEBrATe skeletal mateRial (e.G. [68] – [70] ) was avoideD Because 1) pRivatE collectIon of vertEBRate fossIls WouLd aRtiFICiAlly deflate thE SIze oF tHe verteBraTe fractIon, PerHapS maKiNg bonebedS reporteD hErEiN fAll Under THe minimuM tHreShOld Value FOr boneBed reCognItIoN; And 2) Bulk samPLiNG Of alL bOnEbedS waS nOt posSiblE BecAuse of sAfety issuEs. TAPhonOmIc Data (see Below) were collEcTed for a larGe SamPle (n = 1033; FiG. 3 ; tAble 2 ; TablE S1 ) of vertebrate fossils. ThESe incluDe sPecimEns cOllected bY R. W. boesseNecKEr (n = 478) froM 2004–2010. Data iNcludInG taXON (e.g., ChONDrIchThYes, OsteichTHYes, aves, PInNipeDia, OdonToceti, Mysticeti, SirENia), Abrasion, fragmEntAtioN, ARtIcuLAtIOn, pHoSPhaTIZation, and the assOciated litHoFAcIes were colLEctEd For each SpecimeN. This STudy utiLized fossIls from muSeUm coLLEctIons (collecTed primaRily by F.A. PERry) at THe santa cruZ MuseuM oF NaTural historY (N = 188; SCmNH) anD the UnIvErsity Of CalIfOrnia MusEum of Paleontology (n = 295; UCMP) oF known StratIgrAphic provEnaNCe
 was noted (n = 24; 2.3%)although i ts si gni fic an ce i n ma rine weatherin g  ofbone requires furtherstudy .L astl y ,polis h (ligh t  a b r asi on  o f e le m en t sur fac e resul ting in sh iny ,reflective a n doften smoo thsurface) was  si mply r ec ord e d aspre sentor abs e nt ( F ig. 6D, 7  ) .  These data we r e  i mpor ted into a spread s he e t, and calcula ted pe rc e nt a g eswer e used toge nerat e  histog r am s a ndp ie charts oftaphonomicc har acteri st ics in rel ation  t o  li thofacies,taxo n, and sk eletal element group ( bone,cal cif iedc ar ti lag e, ear b on es, and  teeth). 
To  stud y th e t a phon omy  ofeachfossil assemb lag e, t h e m ethod s out line dby Ki dwellet al .[6] and Kidwell  and  Holland[7]  f orch aract e rizati onofbioclas t conce n tra ti o n ge ometry and archite ct u r ewere app lied t o  a ll bioclast ic  (i nver t e brate  orv er tebraterich)u ni ts . Detai le d fiel ddes cri ption s  ofthe li thology(incl u ding clast cou n ts) and sedim e nt a r ya rchi tec ture were r ecor d ed f or b o ne bed s , and  a la rg e  s a mple of specimens w er e coll ected  from these b onebeds (T a b le 2 ).Bone b ed s  were recogniz ed as  relativec oncentra tions  of vert ebrate sk e l etal mat eri al[12 ] a n d  e xamined along s trik eto dete rmi ne thei r l ate ral  ex te nt and ch anges in  c ha ra ct er.  Reco g nition o fbon eb eds  base d  upona per cent ag ec omp osition of v erte br at e sk ele ta l mat eria l  (e .g. [68 ] – [70]) w a s av oi de d becau se 1) private  c ollectionof  ve rtebra t e  fossils  would artificially def l ate the  si ze of  the  vertebra tefracti on, perhap s maki ng bo ne bed s repor t e dher ei n fall und e r  th e min im um t hreshol d value for bonebe d  re cognition; an d 2 ) bu l k  s amp l in g  of  a l l b o n ebeds was not p ossible be ca u se  of safety iss ue s. Taph onomicdata( see bel ow) werecollected  f or a l arg e sample ( n = 1033 ; Fig. 3;  Tabl e  2  ; Ta ble  S1 )of  ve rtebr ate fo s sil s. Th ese in cl ude sp ecime ns  collect ed by R. W. Boessenecke r (n =  478)  fr om 2004–2 010 .  Da ta includ ingtaxon (e.g .,Cho ndric hth y es, O stei c ht hye s , Ave s, P i nnipedia, Od ont o c et i, Mysticet i , Sir enia) , a b rasion , fr agmentation, arti c ulation, phosp hati z a tio n,a nd t he  associated li tho fa c i es wereco llected for  each sp ec i men.This s tudy u tilized f os s ils fr om m use um collec tio ns (collec te dp rimari ly b yF.A. P erry)a t th e Santa Cruz Museu m ofN a tural His tory(n  = 188; SCMN H) and the  University  of Ca lifo rniaMuseumof  Paleo nto lo gy (n = 29 5 ; UCMP) o f kno wn stra ti grap hic  prove nanc e 
 was_noted (n_= 24; 2.3%) although_its significance_in_marine weathering_of_bone requires further_study. Lastly, polish_(light abrasion of element_surface resulting in_shiny,_reflective and often smooth surface) was simply recorded as present or absent ( Fig._6D,_7 )._These_data_were imported into a spreadsheet,_and calculated percentages were used_to generate_histograms and pie charts of taphonomic characteristics in_relation_to lithofacies, taxon,_and skeletal element group (bone, calcified cartilage, earbones, and_teeth).

To study the taphonomy of each_fossil assemblage, the_methods_outlined_by Kidwell et al._[6] and Kidwell and Holland [7]_for characterization of bioclast concentration geometry_and architecture were applied to all bioclastic_(invertebrate or vertebrate rich) units. Detailed_field descriptions of the lithology_(including clast_counts) and sedimentary architecture were_recorded for bonebeds,_and a_large sample of_specimens were collected from these bonebeds_( Table 2_). Bonebeds were recognized as relative_concentrations_of vertebrate skeletal_material_[12]_and examined_along strike to_determine_their lateral_extent_and changes in character. Recognition of_bonebeds_based upon a percentage composition of vertebrate_skeletal material (e.g. [68]_–_[70] ) was avoided_because 1) private collection of_vertebrate fossils would artificially deflate the_size of_the vertebrate_fraction, perhaps making bonebeds reported herein fall under the minimum threshold_value for bonebed recognition; and 2)_bulk sampling of all_bonebeds was_not_possible because of_safety_issues. Taphonomic_data (see below) were collected for a_large sample_(n = 1033; Fig. 3 ;_Table 2 ; Table_S1_) of vertebrate fossils. These include_specimens collected by R. W. Boessenecker_(n = 478) from 2004–2010._Data_including_taxon (e.g., Chondrichthyes, Osteichthyes, Aves,_Pinnipedia, Odontoceti, Mysticeti, Sirenia), abrasion, fragmentation,_articulation, phosphatization, and_the associated lithofacies were collected for each_specimen._This study utilized fossils from museum_collections_(collected primarily by F.A. Perry) at_the_Santa_Cruz Museum of Natural History_(n = 188; SCMNH) and the_University of California Museum of Paleontology (n = 295;_UCMP) of known_stratigraphic provenance