72 replies to this topic

[Auspex]

tracer, on 04 November 2009 - 12:04 AM, said:

prolly if i'd found it, and it was new, they'd just name it "noneoftheaboveosaurus"

Actually, I'd think they'd be pretty excited about a new species of Bison; that's a taxon that seems pretty much studied-out!

[jax]

JohnJ, on 04 November 2009 - 12:07 AM, said:

So, what did he do with your verts...take photos?

NOPE, just looked at them, and sent them home with me....

No pictures were taken (by him) of any of our stuff. But he did mention that he wanted me to donate my teeth

[tracer]

jax, on 04 November 2009 - 12:17 AM, said:

NOPE, just looked at them, and sent them home with me....

No pictures were taken (by him) of any of our stuff. But he did mention that he wanted me to donate my teeth

send him an old pair of dentures.

[bowkill]

Fishy??!!! Do those look fishy to anyone else? I would have bet money that those are reptile. I still think they are reptile. I guess you'll have to get back out there, and find the rest of it.

Ramo


(It seems collectors aren't the only ones primarily interested in teeth)

[JohnJ]

tracer, on 04 November 2009 - 12:21 AM, said:

send him an old pair of dentures.

HA! I don't know how many you have; but if you do decide to donate one, I would include tracer's suggestion in the package with the appropriate note. "You said you wanted me...."

[jax]

bowkill, on 04 November 2009 - 12:36 AM, said:

Fishy??!!! Do those look fishy to anyone else? I would have bet money that those are reptile. I still think they are reptile. I guess you'll have to get back out there, and find the rest of it.

Ramo


(It seems collectors aren't the only ones primarily interested in teeth)

Im with you, but im no expert. Even Dale A. Russell , the founder of Russellosaurus, said that he thought they were fish....

So who knows. I will have to find the skull

[barefootgirl]

I think that's definitely the find of the month!

[Xiphactinus]

bowkill, on 04 November 2009 - 12:36 AM, said:

Fishy??!!! Do those look fishy to anyone else? I would have bet money that those are reptile. I still think they are reptile. I guess you'll have to get back out there, and find the rest of it.

Ramo


(It seems collectors aren't the only ones primarily interested in teeth)

Nothing remotely fishy about those. Weird....
I'd send pix to Mike at Oceans of Kansas.

Edited by Xiphactinus, 04 November 2009 - 01:18 AM.

[JohnJ]

So Bobby was on the right track, but got "jediied" into the reptile world with many of us. A second look, at your 2nd group of pics of the single vert, does seem to show the "flaky" character of Cretaceous fish bone. Justin, any chance of some new pics in better light?

[Tony Eaton]

I think that having a fish named out you would be pretty cool at any rate ;-)

[Oh-Man]

I keep thinking mosasaur tail, but I'm not putting money on it... or at least my eyes.

[tracer]

i really kinda think the fish thing is probably accurate. although the convex/concave centrum ends thing being reptilian is probably a good way to start thinking when you first find verts, the rest of the morphology of fish verts vs. reptile/mammal doesn't jibe. from a layman's perspective, fish verts and other bones have more "lightening" features to them, such as dished-in, hollowed-out, or rib-supported structures. i figure this is because fish operate in a neutral buoyancy environment and don't need the overall bone density of land critters fighting gravity all the time. fish bones seem to be more of a rigid "framework" for the mushkles to operate off of.

if you look at the sides of the little verts in question, and then look at the sides of a mosey vert or gator vert, there's a lot of difference.

i noted in another thread that gar verts, although much shorter, seem to have both the concave/convex centrum ends, and the hollowed out sides. so who knows?

but anyway, perhaps the verts will still end up being from a yet-to-be-named species which can be stood up in honor of the jax-meister.

[Bill]

Gar Pike verts. They have a concave and convex end.

EDIT, as tracer said, (didn't notice the penultimate sentence in your post tracer).

Edited by Bill, 04 November 2009 - 01:25 PM.

[dinosaur50]

Mike at Oceans of Kansas is a good friend i did show him jax pic he said it was mosasaur

[JohnJ]

Guys, I thought it looked mosasauroid-ish too; but, when a couple of mosasauroid experts are looking under a microscope at these verts and say, "go fish", then it's time for Justin to post better photos with good lighting. In a poorly lit photo, a Pachyrhizodus jaw will suggest "mosasaur" to many of us, but it doesn't make it reptile.

[tracer]

JohnJ, on 04 November 2009 - 09:34 PM, said:

Guys, I thought it looked mosasauroid-ish too; but, when a couple of mosasauroid experts are looking under a microscope at these verts and say, "go fish", then it's time for Justin to post better photos with good lighting. In a poorly lit photo, a Pachyrhizodus jaw will suggest "mosasaur" to many of us, but it doesn't make it reptile.

wow, did you matriculate at T.A.T.A.?

(tracer's academy of tortured analogies)

[jax]

more pics. Both sides of each.

Attached Files

•  teeth 158.jpg   50.58K   12 downloads
•  teeth 159.jpg   60.88K   23 downloads
•  teeth 160.jpg   54.43K   14 downloads
•  teeth 161.jpg   59.46K   6 downloads
•  teeth 162.jpg   40.67K   12 downloads
•  teeth 163.jpg   63.39K   6 downloads
•  teeth 164.jpg   60.62K   2 downloads
•  teeth 165.jpg   60.86K   5 downloads
•  teeth 166.jpg   58.99K   7 downloads
•  teeth 171.jpg   47.79K   10 downloads
•  teeth 172.jpg   46.02K   3 downloads
•  teeth 173.jpg   51.12K   15 downloads

[N.AL.hunter]

bowkill, on 04 November 2009 - 12:36 AM, said:

Fishy??!!! Do those look fishy to anyone else? I would have bet money that those are reptile. I still think they are reptile. I guess you'll have to get back out there, and find the rest of it.

Ramo


(It seems collectors aren't the only ones primarily interested in teeth)

I said at the beginning they looked fishy to me, and to me they still do.

[tracer]

good pictures - thanks for adding them. i just went back to "oceans of kansas" and looked through the pics there, trying to find any mosasaur verts that have the very dished-in sides stiffened by ridges that are so common in fish, but i haven't seen that in mosasaur verts. i was thinking about what sort of fish might develop the concave/convex articulations on it's spine, and it seems that the arrangement is for the purpose of the s-shaped, lateral locomotion of long, sinuous creatures, like snakes and other reptiles, but evolving that type of articulation in vertebrae would be good for long, sinuous fishes too. now i need to go see if i can find any eel vert pictures...

[JohnJ]

Justin, thanks for letting us see the new pics. I can see the typical flaky, "fishy" texture of the bone on some of the vertebrae, in addition to the structural details, not easily seen the first time. Mosasaur vertebrae that I've seen have a more "grainy" character typical of a lot of fossil reptile bone. I suppose that the mosasauroid bone of the Eagle Ford Formation would display a similar character. Their size only compares well with the small mosasauroid vertebrae in the Dallasaurus link provided by Lance. However, it is easier to compare the differences in their structure with the new photos.

It is still a top shelf find in my book.