Vollosovitch and Dima mammoths yielded inconsistent C14 dates (Talk.Origins)

Claim CD011.2:

Widely different radiocarbon dates are obtained from the same frozen mammoths. Different parts of the Vollosovitch mammoth date to 29,500 and 44,000 years before present (BP). One part of Dima, a frozen baby mammoth, was 40,000, another part 26,000, and wood immediately around it was 9-10,000 BP. Two parts of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth date to 15,380 and 21,300 BP.

Source:
 * Brown, Walt, 2001. In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood (7th ed.) Center for Scientific Creation.
 * Hovind, Kent, n.d. Doesn't carbon dating or potassium argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old?

CreationWiki response:

It is agreed that this is an error on Brown's part, but once again errors occur on both sides all the time. It is likely one can find errors in the work of any writer, particularly when one is looking for them.

Aparently the best that Talk Origins can do here is express the fact that Brown does not cite a specific source for his Vollosovitch mammoth reference, but he does list 160 Mammoth references, so he probably got it from more than one of them.

Talk Origins erroneously refers to "the Vollosovitch mammoth", even though there is more than one. Brown specifically states that his dates are from "different parts of the first Vollosovitch mammoth." So it is clear that Brown knows that there are several Vollosovitch mammoths, and that the dates he is citing are all from the first one.

That may be true of the dates cited by Ukraintseva (1993), but Brown cites two sources in the same note. the second one is: Evidently it is from this second source that Brown got the other date he cites for Dima.