Jump to content

Other images in Permian era fossils

Edaphosaurus with large predator bite

Still_human

Yet unidentified Edaphosaurus pogonias bone from the Permian era Red Beds site in North Texas, with large unhealed tooth hole from what appears to be a large Dimetrodon's bite, from either the fatal attack, or post-death predation mark. 


From the album

Permian era fossils

  • 5 images
  • 2 comments
  • 14 image comments

Photo Information for Edaphosaurus with large predator bite

Taken with Apple iPhone 6

  • 4.2 mm
  • 1/15
  • f f/2.2
  • ISO 500
View all photo EXIF information

14 Comments

Recommended Comments

The Amateur Paleontologist

Posted

@Troodon We could look at the tooth morphology of Dimetrodon and other large predators and see which morphotype compares best to the tooth mark :)

@Still_human Nice fossil, BTW ;)

-Christian

Share this comment


Link to comment
Still_human

Posted

16 hours ago, Troodon said:

What makes you believe that hole is from a Dimetrodon ?  Why not from another larger predator like Postosuchus?

I guess someone did some comparisons or something. I don't know who, if it was the one who found it, or someone else along the way, but apparently someone found reasoning that pointed to it being dimetrodon. Of course there's no way to be sure, until I make a time machine that is(I could use some help with it....does anyone know how to make a time machine?), but it seems dimetrodon is the prime suspect that apparently fits the bill.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Troodon

Posted

Why is it the prime suspect, because its cool,  there are other synapsids and reptiles living with Dimetrodon that have big teeth.  You sound like a dealer :D  its yours and you can describe it as you wish. It is nice

Share this comment


Link to comment
Still_human

Posted

No. lol i don't really know what else I can say that I didn't already above. Someone looked into it and came to the conclusion it appeared to be from a dimetrodon, as opposed to other large predators in that area.

I mean, other than being able to confirm or come to a conclusion by ones self, that's really how every fossil is identified. Taking the word of someone who either found it and has proof, or someone who knows what to look for, was able to identify it.

My understanding is that someone who knew what they were looking at, was able to place dimetrodon at the scene of the crime with the murder weapon. The butler sure didn't do it! Professor plum and colonel mustard didnt have the right weapons, and miss scarlet wasn't even in the room!

Share this comment


Link to comment

Frank's point is a good one.  Without a "chain of evidence" (documentation that supports your assertion), any designation of what made that mark is speculation; not an identification that can be labeled.  ;) 

Share this comment


Link to comment
Still_human

Posted

There we go, a reasonable compromise, I believe. You guys definitely have a point, but I mean, unless one has any reason to believe someone might be lying or giving innacurate information, then it seems silly to just consider everything everyone tells you, as wrong. I mean, wouldn't that mean that I, and every other collector should go through and disregard all the information about all of our fossils that we can't personally prove are what they are claimed to be? Wow, that would be SO awful lol! Very true here, I do see how this additional claim should also have something to support it. I asked the seller for any information he might have about it, and the identification--I'm just waiting to hear back. Although I may not know squat about it, I'll also take a look myself and see if I can find any reason to second guess the claim. If the one who identified the bite has expertise, or a knowledgeable individual in that area, and everything adds up, then i would take the claim at face value. ...If the shoe fits! Especially on something that may be on the easier side to confirm than other things, like comparing tooth marks(if it's a clear enough mark, that is), and considering any other evidence with it. On the other hand of course, if there's any actual doubt, i know it's not fair to include the claim, or at least use very loose terminology, like "possibly a...", or "could be...".

Share this comment


Link to comment

"unless one has any reason to believe someone might be lying or giving innacurate information, then it seems silly to just consider everything everyone tells you, as wrong." 

 

- Well, logically, the same would hold true for assuming everything everyone has stated is right. The middle ground is to hedge the claim and say it is "assumed to be" or "may possibly be." Stating the opposite repeats the fallacy.

 

"prove are what they are claimed to be"

 

-Remember, there is no proof in science. ;) 

 

I think, at best, it would be reasonable to assume this has a probability rating of being a tooth puncture from another animal.

Share this comment


Link to comment

The edits to the text are better in that they are not assertions without diagnostic evidence to back them up.  Still, a "yet unidentified Edaphosaurus pogonias bone" seems like a contradictory assumption.  If you know enough to assert a species name for this bone, then you should know enough to identify which bone it is.  @dinodigger might be able to identify the bone. 

 

You might consider adding a close-up photo of the hole since that is the subject of interest on this bone.  ;) 

Share this comment


Link to comment
Still_human

Posted

On 8/30/2018 at 1:32 PM, JohnJ said:

The edits to the text are better in that they are not assertions without diagnostic evidence to back them up.  Still, a "yet unidentified Edaphosaurus pogonias bone" seems like a contradictory assumption.  If you know enough to assert a species name for this bone, then you should know enough to identify which bone it is.  @dinodigger might be able to identify the bone. 

 

You might consider adding a close-up photo of the hole since that is the subject of interest on this bone.  ;) 

I don't know, I see tons of things listed as an unidentified bone of an identified species. Especially if it's a smaller piece like this one--like 3.5" across. If it didn't have those 3 stumps from "branches" coming off of the bone, I'd think it pretty much was unidentifiable, and not just not yet identified. I'll message dinodigger right now, because if someone is particularly familiar with synapsid and maybe other bones, it might not be too difficult. Hopefully not.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Still_human

Posted

 

 

Quote

On ‎8‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 12:32 PM, JohnJ said:

 

You might consider adding a close-up photo of the hole since that is the subject of interest on this bone.

I missed this part before, that's not a bad idea, I'll do that, thanks!

Share this comment


Link to comment
Still_human

Posted

Maybe I'll eventually be able to get better pictures, but all I have is my phone, and the pictures don't really look very good or understandable:(

 

i tried taking pictures directly down, but you literally can't see what's going on at all.

IMG_7498.JPG

IMG_7500.JPG

Share this comment


Link to comment
Still_human

Posted

On 8/30/2018 at 1:24 PM, Kane said:

think, at best, it would be reasonable to assume this has a probability rating of being a tooth puncture from another animal.

Actually, they're seemingly the most common tetrapod within thier areas. I don't know if they mean tetrapod predators, or actually tetrapods in general. If either or those are the case, statistically it's more likely it was a dimetrodon than anything else. But also, I still have no reason at all to doubt the claim. Just cause it's not proven doesn't mean it's wrong. I actually don't check my email very much so I may have a response from them(the place I bought it from, not the dimetrodons)so hopefully I do, and hopefully it can somehow shed any light on the subject--if there was any real reason for their claim, or if it was just conjecture, after all.

Share this comment


Link to comment
×