Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'marine reptile'.
-
Hi all, I bought this Kimmeridgian plesiosaur tooth from the Faringdon sponge gravels a while back. It came identified as Colymbosaurus sp.. At that point, I simply accepted this identification, seeing as the teeth of Colymbosaurus (or, at least, what's suspected of being Colymbosaurus) were already known from the Etches Collection and I didn't really have the means to verify the ascription from online sources. Today, however, The Etches Collection posted a video on Kimmeridgian plesiosaurs on their YouTube-channel, which make it abundantly clear that my specimen doesn't correspond to Colymbosaurus (video referenced below, as is a photographic excerpt of the teeth). The teeth of Colymbosaurus are not only subtrihedral but gracile in shape, they also have very strong striations - much stronger than in my specimen and almost pliosaur-like. The striations on my specimen, on the other hand, are way more similar to those of the Oxford Clay Tricleidus seeleyi, with very fine striations all along the tooth, a round cross-sections and (obviously) without carinae (just to rule out marine crocodile). My question now is: can my tooth be identified as to species or even genus? Could it be that the temporal range of Tricleidus extended into the Kimmeridgian? Might this tooth belong to Kimmerosaurus? Steve mentions in his video that there are more plesiosaurs that remain to be described from the Kimmeridge Clay, so, with that in mind, should I just classify mine as "cf. Crypticlididae indet."? Any ideas and suggestions welcome, but will just also tag @paulgdls and @DE&i.
-
G'day everyone, maybe someone can help me with the identification of a fossil. Recently I was on vacation in France and had the opportunity to visit the famous Falaises des Vaches Noires at Villers-sur-Mer (Calvados, Normandy). While searching the beach at low tide I found many fossils of invertebrates, but at the end of it a loose bone, too, on the foreshore. So it is most likely from the Marnes de Dives formation (Callovian), but I cannot say for sure, of course (the Marnes de Villers is overlying). As far as I know vertebrate fossils from there are represented by marine reptiles and dinosaurs (rare). My first thought was dinosaur, so I contacted Troodon. He does not think it is dinosaurian and recommended to post my find here. My second thought was paddle bone from a marine reptile and from what I have seen it appears to be a possibility, but I am actually a dino tooth collector and would like to rely on opinions of people who are more familiar with bones than I am, especially with bones from marine reptiles. Here it is (third picture: measured in centimeters): Does anyone have an idea?
-
The great (crocodile) tooth identification game
pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon posted a topic in Fossil ID
Some time ago I came across this seller selling a lot of pliosaur teeth without provenance, most of which can be attributed to misidentified teeth of Zarafasaura oceanis, the elasmosaurid of the Moroccan phosphates. However, amongst these same teeth, I also came across the below few of teeth that I'm having difficulty identifying. Tooth 5 is obviously a mosasaurid tooth from the Ouled Abdoun basin and probably belongs to Eremiasaurus heterodontus; tooth 1 seems to originate in the Kem Kem; and I suspect there are at least a few crocodile teeth amongst the rest (at least tooth 4). But I've grown quite curious to learn the identity and origin of these teeth, so was hoping to find some help here. Hence, this little game. Lets see what information we can compile on them, but no additional photographs will be made available/requested Tooth 1 Tooth 2 Tooth 3 Tooth 4 Tooth 5 To help kickstart the "game", I'll tag at least @caterpillar @Jesuslover340 @LordTrilobite @Praefectus and @Haravex. As always, feel free to tag others, but don't feel obliged to respond Thanks for your help, and have fun with what I think might be a nice little puzzle!
-
This fossil is from Guanling, Guizhou of China, of Triassic Formation. Many marine reptile fossils were found there. This one looks like a rib bone of a marine reptile?
-
Hi all! I picked up this little beauty (14mm at its longest) last week at the North Sulphur River. Unfortunately, it’s not complete, but I like it anyway. I immediately assumed it was Mosasaur (I have been a regular hunter at that location for a few years), but now I am second guessing myself. Can someone confirm or refute? Apologies in advance if there are any issues with the photos; I am posting directly from my phone, so hopefully they are not too large, but good enough quality.
- 5 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- marine reptile
- north sulpur river
- (and 1 more)
-
Hi all, I've had the below piece in my collection for a number of years now, having acquired it thinking it was a juvenile plesiosaur propodial. It comes from the Oxford Clay of Peterborough and is of Callovian Jurassic age. However, when recently doing some research towards answering another question on TFF, I realised that - even though there's some plastic deformation going on - it doesn't quite look like the juvenile plesiosaur propodial I have from the rhaetic at Aust, nor does it look like a plesiosaur propodial in a more general sense (see both post and images below). There are some oddities that have started to make me wonder, in not a plesiosaur propodial, what else it may be in that case. The bone is quite dense, so is definitely marine reptile. And, since I'm quite sure it's not ichthyosaurian, this, I believe, leaves only pl(es)iosaur and teleosaur. Morphologically, the bone consists of a shaft that widens towards one end, with the other end having broken off. The widened end, top-side, forms a bit of an overhang across what appears to be an intact articulation surface, with a notch cutting into it from the right. At the broken end, also on the right, there appears to be a slight twist in the bone. This is, moreover, the side that's rounded along the length of the bone, whereas the other side appears carinated. Although there's some crushing on the underside of the bone, that surface appears markedly more flat than the obverse. It is primarily the facts that one of the edges is (more) angular and that the bone thickens towards the widening end - rather than thins out, as in a typical plesiosaur propodial - that make me feel this is not a plesiosaur (sensu lato) propodial. Unfortunately, I don't have enough qualitative reference material on teleosaurs myself (some images below) to evaluate whether they could be a candidate for the bone - such as long or girdle bones - and didn't find anything matching amongst the figures in Johnson, Young, Steel and Lepage (2015) or Young, Sachs & Abel (2018) either. So I'm left thinking may be it could be a plesiosaur ilium, as in the other post referenced above. There are definitely some features that seem to argue in its favour, such as the flat back, slight twist and widening distal end. But lacking the proximal end of the bone makes it harder to judge, and the thickening of the bone towards the widened part seems to conflict with the idea of the bone being an ilium. Still, there are very few flat narrow bones in a plesiosaur outside of its extremities... Machimosaurus sp. at the Museum voor Natuurwetenschappen in Brussels (source: Wikipedia) Thoracic region of Machimosaurus sp. at Paléospace l'Odyssée at Villers-sur-Mer Metriorhynchus superciliosus at the Paläontologische Summlung MUT Tübingen Thoracic region of Steneosaurus sp. at the Fossilienmuseum Dotternhausen Steneosaurus spp. specimens at Urweltmuseum Hauff in Holzmaden Steneosaurus sp. leg bones at the Paläontologische Sammlung MUT Tübingen
- 21 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- callovian
- ichthyosaur
- (and 7 more)
-
Hi everyone, found this in a new jersey cretaceous creek. Looks like a partial enamel something but I'm not exactly sure what it can possibly be from, it interestingly has some very defined ridges on the least worn side. Very hard to catch the clearest pics to show the sharpest definition but I tried to get the best I could. Maybe this can be a clue to a potential id. Pictures of it with whiteish background are upside down.
-
I believe it’s from morocco it’s about 2 cm long
-
Hey everyone! I recently got a few marine reptile teeth from various formations in the UK, including this partial plesiosaur tooth from the Oxford Clay. The enamel is only partially preserved, but appears unworn and allows for a good look at the enamel ridges of this section. The curved, rather robust shape of the tooth and the irregular distribution of the pretty prominent enamel ridges made me move away from ichthyosaur or machimosaurid as an ID, and seemed more in line with the many plesiosaurs from this formation. But that's where it got more tricky. Since it's a small tooth (about 21mm in total) excluding taxa based on size alone isn't possible. I couldn't find much literature on the ontogenetic changes in enamel structure for most plesiosaurs from this formation, so assuming similar condiditions in both adult and juvenile individuals has to suffice (though I'm always open for more info!). Starting with the plesiosauroids, all Oxford Clay taxa are part of Cryptoclididae and have at times very detailed descriptions of their teeth available. Therefore we're able to use these as a reference point to compare this tooth against. BROWN 1981 describes teeth from all available species in detail: Cryptoclidus possesses teeth with greatly reduced ornamentation, to the point where usually labial ridges are missing entirely. Also, all lingual ridges in these teeth originate basally, neither of which is the case here. Muraenosaurus is described to have a higher number of labial ridges apically than basally and no prominent axial ridges, conditions that don't apply here: The ridge count is highest basally and is reduced apically, and axial carinae are seperate and distinguishable from the other ridges. OTERO et al. 2020 recovers Picrocleidus as the sister taxon to Muraenosaurus, so since there is no dental material assigned to Picrocleidus we have to assume a similar condition. Lastly, Tricleidus is supposed to possess teeth similar to Muraenosaurus, only with stronger and more numerous labial ridges than lingual ones. Again, neither of these conditions apply here: Ridges are more numerous lingually, and don't appear to be obviously different in strength (though I will have to examine and describe them individually in more detail). Overall, the relatively short, robust nature doesn't fit as well with Plesiosauroidea (though position is important), and the sometimes mentioned labio-lingually compressed shape of their teeth doesn't seem to apply here either, at least not in the parts preserved. Looking at the other resident plesiosaur group, the pliosaurids, the round cross-section and offset carinae are found in various taxa. Still, we can again exclude some from the start: According to KETCHUM & BENSON 2010, Peloneustes possesses teeth in which all ridges around the crown originate basally, which like mentioned before isn't the case. 'Pliosaurus' andrewsi likely represents a new taxon closest related to Peloneustes, but with no known dental material, so assuming a similar condition is the most resonable option for now. Descriptions of the teeth of Pachycostasaurus in NOÈ 2001 describe the enamel ridges as broad and sparse, but don't go into much detail. Yet, these conditions don't really seem to sit well with the structure of this tooth, in which ridges are at least in one region somewhat tightly grouped together. KETCHUM & BENSON 2011 describe a diagnostic condition in the teeth of Marmornectes, in which the enamel ridges only start in some distance to the carinae - this is somewhat true for one carina, but not the other, in which the carina is clearly distinguishable from the other ridges, yet isn't particularly spaced further away from the the ridges than they are from one another. This leaves Liopleurodon and Simolestes, neither of which typically show much labial ornamentation, yet this appears to be highly dependent on position and ontogeny. For example, ANDREWS 1918 describes teeth of Simolestes with comparatively extensive labial ornamentation even at considerable size. Overall, I know this ID is hard to pin down. I'd really like to hear your thoughts, and I can of course provide more detailed pictures if necessary. If anyone knows someone I could contact over this, I'd really appreciate it! Thank you for your help!
- 12 replies
-
- 5
-
-
- jurassic
- marine reptile
- (and 6 more)
-
Hi everyone, I recently acquired the below fossil, taking a chance as to what it might be. It came labelled as Mixosaurus sp. from the Keuper (Upper Triassic) of Kirchberg an der Jagst, but I can't place the bone... Initially, I thought it could be a broken mixosaur coracoid, though the shape doesn't match at all. In the below image the break is circled in blue, with the red circle marking a projection from the bone that I would not expect to be present if the bone were indeed a (mixosaur) coracoid, as shown in the drawing next to it (from Jiang, Schmitz, Hao and Sun, 2006. A new mixosaurid ichthyosaur from the Middle Triassic of China). Moreover, according to the Handbook of Paleoherpetology on ichthyopterygians, mixosaurs were no longer around in the Upper Triassic. Nor is it the coracoid of a more derived species of ichthyosaur, as these have neither notch nor the aforementioned projection - as is illustrated by the image below (don't mind the incorrect bone ID on the label). Thus, in line with a suspicion I already had, it doesn't look like this is a mixosaur coracoid at all. But what could it be then? Well, one option seems to be that this could be a pelvic bone, either of a shastasaurid or other early ichthysaur like Cymbospondylus sp. or Besanosaurus sp., to judge by the notch at the top of the bone. The below drawings, taken again from the Handbook of Paleoherpetology, demonstrate what I mean, as does the supplied image of a shastasaurid pelvic girdle from China (figure 4 from Shang & Chun, 2009. On the occurrence of the ichthyosaur Shastasaurus in the Guanling biota (Late Triassic), Guizhou, China): Unfortunately, however, most of the species in which this condition occurs don't seem to have survived beyond the Middle Triassic. What's more, reference material I have of a cast of Besanosaurus sp. taken in the Museo Civico dei Fossili die Besano don't make things much clearer for that particular species, as such a notch cannot be observed (nor am I entirely sure it's visible in the above photograph of the Shastasaurus tangae): Similarly, the best preserved Cymbospondylus sp. specimen at the Zoological and Palaeontological Collections of the University of Zürich is of little contribution, because of it lacking the hind part of its body. A second specimen, however, does seem to preserve the pubis (albeit in less direct association): This being the case, could it my bone be an early ichthyosaurian pubis? Or should we still rule that out for the above reasons (i.e., the species showing the characteristics notch not being recorded for the Upper Triassic)? What about other options? As can be seen in the below image, the shape of the bone looks kind of reminiscent of a plesiosaur (here , at the Zoological and Palaeontological Collections of the University of Zürich) pubis, though obviously a lot smaller. Could it be, then, that rather than stemming from an ichthyopterygian the bone derives from a sauropterygian? If so, placodont is not very likely, since, as far as I know, 1) these were not around during the Upper Triassic, and 2) the shape of the bone does not seem to match elements from either pectoral or pelvic girdles amongst the little reference material I have of Placodus gigas. Something of a pachypleurosaur then? Doesn't look likely either, based on some reference material I took of a Serpianosaurus mirigiolensis specimen at the Museo dei fossili del Monte San Giorgio in Meride: Looking at nothosaurid specimens from the Paläontologische Sammlung of the MUT in Tübingen (first) and Zoological and Palaeontological Collections of the University of Zürich (rest: Ceresiosaurus sp.), although not providing a direct match, seem more promising as comparison material:
-
Found this thick bone piece in a new jersey cretaceous creek and wonder if its possible to maybe id since one side has a distinct rough texture while the other is flatter and striated, I would guess either large turtle, mosasaur, or dinosaur. My friend joked its a theropod maxilary skull fragment, but we all know around here that material seems close to impossible to come across haha. Interested to hear any other thoughts.
-
Hey everyone, I recently acquired this ichthyosaur vertebra that was originally collected in Penarth, south Wales, UK. What initially struck me was the vertebra's size, since it's by far the biggest one I have of any ichthyosaur: Now, other large ichthyosaur remains have been described from the very same location. The paper is freely available here: https://bioone.org/journals/acta-palaeontologica-polonica/volume-60/issue-4/app.00062.2014/A-Mysterious-Giant-Ichthyosaur-from-the-Lowermost-Jurassic-of-Wales/10.4202/app.00062.2014.full The cliffs at Penarth apparently contain multiple exposures of different formations, which can make assigning isolated remains from there to any one time period problematic. The authors tentatively date the bone described in the paper to the lowermost Jurassic based on attached matrix and microfossils it contains. Finding references for the sediment of each formation from this locality is tough, but the matrix on my vertebra resembles that in the paper at least superficially. I have tried contacting Dr. Peggy Vincent, a co-author of the study who works on Jurassic marine reptiles from Europe, but sadly no luck thus far. My questions are: - Are there any features that might help date this fossil to a certain time period, or identify the formation it originated from? - The authors of the study assign their fossil to Shastasauridae - are there any features that can identify this vertebra on a family level? Thank you for your help!
.thumb.png.c4731cf9400dd4f1071618b5922567bb.png)
-
In May of 2020, my boyfriend David and I drove up to Utah to go look for septarian nodules. I should preface this by saying that David has the most amazing "beginner's luck" of anyone I have ever known. Not only did we find a beautiful "normal" septarian nodule, David found a spot where apparently a large marine reptile of some sort died, and was later encased in septarian. We have since learned that this is basically the find of a lifetime! The beauty of these specimens never fails to amaze me. The large free form was cut and polished for us by Joe's Rock Shop. The matched pair was cut at Joe's, then polished by me. The largest piece is what it looks like in the rough.
- 13 replies
-
- 4
-
-
- marine reptile
- septarian nodules
- (and 1 more)
-
Ichthyosaur paddle digit (Wimereux): hit or miss
pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon posted a topic in Fossil ID
Hi all, Found this stone at Pointe aux Oies in Wimereux two days ago, amongst the pebbles collected next to a shelve down towards sea from the spot where I had found an ichthyosaur vertebra (on matrix) two days before this find. I picked it up because 1) the stone is unusually flat; 2) has exactly the right shape and thickness to it for an ophthalmosaurid ichthyosaur paddle bone (see picture below); 3) has certain ornamentation top and bottom; 4) seems to be of a different type of stone than I've generally come across in the area; and 5) has some weight to it. It vaguely reminds me of paddle bones found in the Oxford Clay at Peterborough. Yet, what makes me doubt, though, is that there is no clear radial ornamentation on either top or bottom of the piece, as would by typical for an ichthyosaur paddle bone. A friend of mine, more familiar with fossils from the region, suggested it could be a crocodile scute, as the ones found further up the coast, but this, to me, seems unlikely, as 1) the ornamentation on my find differs significantly from what's typical for crocodilians; 2) the underside is not flat as it would be for crocodile; and 3) the piece seem to thick for a scute. Size is about 4.4 x 3.4 x 1.4 cm (1.7 x 1.3 x 0.6 ") Brachypterygius extremus paddle from Ichthyosaurs: a day in the life... My piece reminds me of the radius. Now my question is: Is this just a rock - i.e. am I seeing things because I really want to - or is it an actual fossil? Is this an ichthyosaur paddle bone/phalange or something else?
-
Hi all, Bought this tooth online a while back. It was sold to me as "Ichthyosaurus platyodon" (which I understand to mean Temnodontosaurus platyodon) from Lyme Regis. Likely found by the seller themselves, as I know they occasionally collect fossils there. However, for the following reasons, I'm not sure about this attribution: Overall, the tooth doesn't look like your typical ichthyosaur tooth to me: It has more of an oval rather than round cross-section It's labolingually flattened Messial and distal carinae run the full length of the crown and divide the tooth into labial and lingual parts While fine striations can be seen on one side of the tooth (presumably the lingual side), the other side (which would be the labial) seems entirely smooth - though some traces of rare striations can be seen on the photographs The striations are much more similar to those of crocodile or pliosaur teeth than to the plicidentine condition so typical of ichthyosaurs The horizontal banding on the tooth surface is unfamiliar to me with respect to most marine reptile teeth I have seen, but occurs much more frequently on crocodile teeth of various species I also bought another tooth with the same attribution from the seller, more or less around the same time. This one has no striations whatsoever, has a more rounded base, is less flattened and has a more rounded tip. It also has carinae. I therefore reclassified it as a probable Goniopholis sp. crocodile tooth. Now I know that not having the root makes it more difficult to identify this particular specimen, but I was hoping someone on this forum might be able to help me, as currently it goes without label. I've considered crocodile, plesiosaur and even pliosaur, but all of these have some reservations that prevent final classification. For one, none of these groups have teeth that are typically flattened like this, nor do plesiosaurs (sensu lato, thus including pliosaurs) have carinae. Crocodiles, then again, would either have or not have striations all around the tooth. And what to make of the banding: is this just preservational, or does it reflect the internal structure of the tooth - i.e. outcome of the tooth's ontological growth? Tooth measures 18 mm and is missing the tip. Thanks in advance for your help!
- 17 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- crocodile
- ichthyosaur
- (and 8 more)
-
The teeth below are said to be dinosaur teeth from Liaoning, China. Are they dinosaur teeth or teeth of marine reptiles?
- 2 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- dinosaur
- marine reptile
- (and 1 more)
-
https://phys.org/news/2020-06-egg-antarctica-big-extinct-sea.html I thought this was pretty cool (no pun intended).
-
Hello all, I've had two teeth in my collection for many years now. I've recently moved and lost the supplied ID labels that came with them. I've taken this as a nice opportunity to see what others may think they are. I believe if memory serves me right the large tooth (Tooth A in photos) was labeled as a Simolestes. Then the smaller tooth tip (Tooth B in photos) labeled as Liopleurodon. I know both were found in the Wicklesham pit in Faringdon, Oxfordshire, UK. Upon some research, I found an article from 2014 with a Dakosaurus tooth discovered to be the largest in the UK at the time. This tooth bears some resemblance to tooth A but I'm unsure. I've attached a link to the article below. Tooth B has been worn down but still presents with grooves in the enamel. I have also labeled each photo to allow for easier identification when talking about it (Hope this helps!). Im excited to hear what others think. Thanks for reading Link to articles on Dakosaurus- http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/science-tooth-fossil-dakosaurus-maximus-01954.html
-
Hyphalosaurus (H. Lingyuanensis)?
DawnOfADream posted a topic in Is It Real? How to Recognize Fossil Fabrications
Hello again everyone! This is a specimen that was advertised as a Hydrosaurus Lingyuanensis. The specimen appears to have had some serious restorative attempts done at from the centre to the lower body. I wanted to ask if you could please let me know what you think regarding the authenticity of the specimen - particularly the areas that haven't been modified. The first image acts as a refernece, showing the approximate area where the photos have been taken. Thank you in advance. Frontal image + reference Back of specimen Image 1 - tip of skull 2 - Neck vertebrae 3 - upper body, just below neck 4 - painted on (?) front foot 5- back foot, not looking great either 6 - tail vertebrae 7 - not even sure what I'm looking at Real ribs on the left with some terribly drawn ribs?
-
From the album: Triassic vertebrate fossils
A 13 cm long stone with three nothosaur vertebrae and another unidentified small bone piece from a triassic "Bonebed" in a quarry in southern Germany (Baden-Württemberg). The verts are very small, especially the one beside the bone fragment. The bigger ones are about 2 cm long. Detailed pictures: -
From the album: Triassic vertebrate fossils
A nicely preserved 3 cm long Nothosaur tooth from a triassic "Bonebed" from a quarry in southern Germany (Baden-Württemberg). -
.jpg.16005088c96793ed38daf064c79e9370.jpg)
From the album: Triassic vertebrate fossils
A 20 cm long stone with a couple of bones from a triassic "Bonebed" in a quarry in southern Germany (Baden-Württemberg). On the plate are two vertebrae, one rib and two unidentified bones. The quality of the bones is partly not good (especially the vert in the middle is bad preserved). The prep was not too difficult but it took quite a long time to finish it. Some more pictures: -
Keichousaurus or an impostor
Yan11 posted a topic in Is It Real? How to Recognize Fossil Fabrications
Hi, In 2013 I bought a keichosaurus fossil from online , and since then I haven't thought much of it, after me and my mum and dad moved to a new apartment the fossil got somewhat forgotten, but today I tried inspecting it. I read some of the treads here but even with this I can't decide if mine is a real or a fake one. From what I have gathered there aren't many outright fakes, but more so real ones that are enhanced. I will be glad to hear your opinion on the pictures (sorry for the poor quality but I had to use my phone). Any response will be very much appreciated. Best regards to everybody.
-
I have a large assortment of various Marine and Flying Reptile fossils. Here is a sample.. 1) pair of undetermined fossil heads 2)
-
Hi all, I was recently offered this tooth from late Cretaceous of Orensburg, Russia. Most likely Gaisky City District. I can't figure out if it's a Polycotylid plesiosaur or Pterosaur tooth. The overall shape is closer to pterosaur than plesiosaur. However, I am not aware of pterosaur having wrinkling like that, nor do I know of pterosaur teeth being found there. What are your thoughts on this? Thank you.
- 14 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- elasmosaur
- marine reptile
- (and 7 more)
.png.0094947a971626efa29b688e5b1ff3a0.png)
.jpg.16005088c96793ed38daf064c79e9370.jpg)
.thumb.JPG.4bb630eca359a8454085b1d54de5c07e.JPG)
