Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'mosasauridae'.
-
Howdy all, Interested in this nice mosasaur vertebra found in the North Sulphur River, in the Ozan Formation. I'm curious of what species of mosasaur are present in this formation and if there's a way I could ID this vert to one of those species.
- 6 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- globidens?
- mosasauridae
- (and 8 more)
-
Follow up to my previous post on the mosasaur jaw. Wanted to get my prelim IDs seconded on some other finds. I'm thinking mosasaur teeth--any thoughts on species? Left tooth fragment 3cm long, right tooth 4cm long. Tylosaur, platecarpus and clidastes are possibilities. Can any one point me towards diagnostic marks to differentiate? The other piece I interpret to be a rib (2.5 x 1.5 wide, 10 cm long), with many scavenger shark marks on it. Thanks for your input. Found near ladonia fossil park, Fannin Co, Texas. Late cretaceous.
- 1 reply
-
- 1
-
-
- ladonia
- mosasauridae
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Species level identification obtained from facet count (3-5 prisms labially; ~5 or indistinguishable lingually). See more information in Rempert et al. 2022 - Occurrence of Mosasaurus hoffmannii Mantell, 1829 (Squamata, Mosasauridae) in the Maastrichtian Phosphates of Morocco.
-
- 6
-
-
-
- cretaceous
- khouribga
- (and 10 more)
-
From the album: Prae's Mosasaurs
Carinodens belgicus-
- carinodens
- carinodens belgicus
- (and 12 more)
-
From the album: Prae's Mosasaurs
Tooth of Carinodens belgicus-
- 1
-
-
- carinodens
- carinodens belgicus
- (and 12 more)
-
@pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon and I wrote a paper on Mosasaurus hoffmannii fossils from the Moroccan Phosphates. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357836567_Occurrence_of_Mosasaurus_hoffmannii_Mantell_1829_Squamata_Mosasauridae_in_the_Maastrichtian_Phosphates_of_Morocco https://www.aaps-journal.org/pdf/JPS.C.22.0001.pdf Abstract: Marginal tooth crowns from the hypercarnivorous marine reptile Mosasaurus hoffmannii Mantell, 1829 are reported for the first time from the Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) phosphates of Morocco. Fossilized remains of this species are previously known from Campanian and Maastrichtian outcrops in Europe, North America, and western Asia at a paleolatitudinal belt of 30-45°N. New fossil material originates from the Upper Couche III layer of the Oulad Abdoun Basin, south of Oued Zem, Morocco. The discovery of M. hoffmannii in Morocco extends its paleobiogeographic range south to 25°N and into the southern margin of the Mediterranean Tethys. Rempert, T.H., Vinkeles Melchers, A.P.M., Rempert, A.N., Haque, M.R., and Armstrong, A.R. (2022). Occurrence of Mosasaurus hoffmannii Mantell, 1829 (Squamata, Mosasauridae) in the Maastrichtian Phosphates of Morocco. The Journal of Paleontological Sciences, 10: 1-22. It has been fun working on this project. Great to finally see it published. Many thanks to the Editorial Board of the Journal of Paleontological Sciences and Walter Stein and Dr. John Nudds for helpful review. Excavation zone in the Sidi Chennane phosphate quarry. Lithostratigraphical units of the Sidi Chennane Phosphate Quarry; mosasaurid remains originate from the Upper Couche III layer. Mosasaurus hoffmannii Mantell, 1829, from the Moroccan phosphates. A. REMPC M0001, UCIII (Maastrichtian) layer, Oulad Abdoun Basin, Sidi Daoui, in posterior (A1), labial (A2), anterior (A3), and lingual (A4) view. B. REMPC M0002, UCIII (Maastrichtian) layer, Oulad Abdoun Basin, Sidi Chennane, in posterior (B1), labial (B2), anterior (B3), and lingual (B4) view. C. REMPC M0003, UCIII (Maastrichtian) layer, Oulad Abdoun Basin, Sidi Chennane, in posterior (C1), labial (C2), anterior (C3), and lingual (C4) view. Mosasaurus hoffmannii Mantell, 1829, from the Moroccan phosphates. D. AVM 01, UCIII (Maastrichtian) layer, Oulad Abdoun Basin, in posterior (D1), labial (D2), anterior (D3), and lingual (D4) view. Upper Couche III (Maastrichtian) layer, Oulad Abdoun Basin, Morocco. E. AVM 02, UCIII (Maastrichtian) layer, Oulad Abdoun Basin, in posterior (E1), labial (E2), anterior (E3), and lingual (E4) view. Mosasaurus hoffmannii Mantell, 1829, F. CORN 01 in anterior (F1), labial (F2), posterior (F3), and lingual (F4) view. Upper Couche III (Maastrichtian) layer, Oulad Abdoun Basin, Morocco (Image courtesy of George Corneille). Teeth from the first discovered Mosasaurus hoffmannii specimen, TM 7424, Teylers Museum, Haarlem, the Netherlands, A. in lingual view; B. in labial view showing prism faces; C. in lingual view showing indiscernible lingual facets, light serrations on the carinae, and medial tooth curvature.
- 7 replies
-
- 11
-
-
-
- cretaceous
- khouribga
- (and 11 more)
-
From the album: Prae's Mosasaurs
Tooth of Carinodens.-
- carinodens
- cretaceous
- (and 9 more)
-
From the album: Prae's Mosasaurs
Tooth of Carinodens belgicus.-
- 1
-
-
- carinodens
- cretaceous
-
(and 7 more)
Tagged with:
-
From the album: Prae's Mosasaurs
Carinodens belgicus tooth.-
- 1
-
-
- cretaceous
- khouribga
- (and 11 more)
-
From the album: Prae's Mosasaurs
Tooth from the mosasaur Carinodens belgicus.-
- 1
-
-
- carinodens
- cretaceous
- (and 10 more)
-
From the album: Prae's Mosasaurs
Carinodens belgicus - The corn-kernel toothed mosasaur.-
- 1
-
-
- carinodens
- cretaceous
- (and 12 more)
-
From the album: Prae's Mosasaurs
Tooth from the mosasaur Carinodens belgicus.-
- 1
-
-
- carinodens
- cretaceous
-
(and 7 more)
Tagged with:
-
From the album: Prae's Mosasaurs
Tooth from Carinodens belgicus.-
- 1
-
-
- aquatic
- carinodens
- (and 12 more)
-
From the album: Prae's Mosasaurs
Tooth of the mosasaur-
- 1
-
-
- carinodens
- cretaceous
- (and 9 more)
-
From the album: Prae's Mosasaurs
Tooth of Carinodens belgicus from the Moroccan Phosphates.-
- 1
-
-
- carinodens
- cretaceous
- (and 10 more)
-
From the album: North Sulphur River
The only way I can find fossils - if they're right out in the open! This one conveniently perched itself on a rock. -
Prognathodon anceps vs. Prognathodon giganteus: What is the difference?
Praefectus posted a topic in General Fossil Discussion
I have been reading up on Moroccan mosasaurs and one point of confusion that I have run into is differentiating teeth from Prognathodon anceps and Prognathodon giganteus. There seems to be a great deal of overlap in their descriptions and occasional contradictions in the scientific literature. The first issue I’ve noticed is that there seems to be a great deal of confusion over what to even call the two species. Leiodon anceps (Owen, 1841-1845) was based on two tooth fragments and a section of jawbone. The genus was renamed Liodon by Agassiz (1846) because the name Leiodon was preoccupied by the pufferfish Leiodon Swainson, 1839. E.D. Cope (1869-1870) caused confusion by treating Liodon as synonymous with Tylosaurus. Further confusion was caused when the holotype material of Liodon was lost. This has resulted in authors suggesting that the Liodon is nomen dubium and all species under Liodon should be transferred to Prognathodon (Schulp et al. 2008). With regards to Moroccan specimens, Arambourg (1952) identifies prognathodontid teeth as ‘Mosasaurus’ cf. anceps. The smaller specimens identified by Arambourg have since been reclassified as teeth from Eremiasaurus heterodontus (Leblanc et al., 2012) and the larger teeth have been tentatively assigned to ‘Prognathodon anceps’. More recently, Bardet et al. 2015 suggested that the Moroccan ‘Prognathodon anceps’ may actually represent a unique species, separate from the poorly defined European M. (Leiodon) cf. anceps. Prognathodon giganteus Dollo, 1904 (holotype IRScNB R106 / formerly 3103) was defined based on an incomplete skull and postcranial skeleton from the upper Campanian of the Ciply area, southern Belgium. Note that early mosasaurs, Lacerta gigantea and Mosasaurus giganteus both share a similar specific epithet to Prognathodon giganteus but are actually both junior synonyms of Mosasaurus hoffmannii. For simplicity, I’m going to just refer to the two as Prognathodon anceps and Prognathodon giganteus. In a recent thread, @pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon made an informative post about the two prognathodontids. I have copied it below for context. Begin Quote …This is certainly another pair of nice teeth, even if they both belong to the most common prognathodontid species found in Morocco! I'd call them both P. giganteus from my experience, although the morphology of the top-most/first tooth conforms more with Bardet et al. (2014)'s Prognathodon nov. sp., which seems to correspond most to P. anceps as defined here. However, this is where I get confused between these two prognathodontid species, as the teeth of both species seem very similar morphologically (see below images): Prognathodon (Mosasaurus) cf. anceps sensu Arambourg, figure 8 from Machalski et al., 2003. Campanian and Maastrichtian mosasaurid reptiles from central Poland (some beautiful images of M. hoffmanni teeth in this publication too, @Praefectus) (Leiodon) cf. anceps, plate XXXVIII from Arambourg, 1952. Les vertébrés fossiles des gisements de phosphates (Maroc - Algérie - Tunisie) Prognathodon giganteus, figure 40 from Lingham-Soliar & Nolf, 1989. The mosasaur Prognathodon (Reptilia, Mosasauridae) from the Upper Cretaceous of Belgium Amarabourg (ibid., p. 280-281) describes the teeth of Mosasaurus cf. anceps as follows: Or, translated (mine): Machalski et al. (ibid., p. 404-405) summarize this by stating In comparison, Lingham-Soliar & Nolf (ibid., p. 166-167) describe the teeth of Prognathodon giganteus as follows: Overall, reading over all the slight differences in termonology used, the descriptions and images given for the teeth of both P. giganteus and P. anceps seem rather similar. However, Arambourg's definition of 'Mosasaurus' cf. anceps dates to 1952, whereas Dollo defined his P. giganteus in 1904. This would seem to suggest that P. giganteus might be the senior synonym. As Arambourg based his definition on Owen's 1841 description of Leiodon anceps, this seniority may be misleading, however, with P. anceps actually being the senior. Another reason to may be given more credence to the naming of P. anceps is that, according to Wikipedia "Prognathodon giganteus, named by Dollo in 1904, is one of species with the most brief descriptions, apparently only intended to provide a name for the skeleton of the mosasaur for exhibition in the museum hall". To my knowledge, the two prognathodontid species haven't ever been synonymized, however. Quote from this thread: End Quote Below are some additional pictures and academic quotations relevant to the topic. This is the holotype skull of Prognathodon giganteus and a hypothetical sketch from Lingham-Soliar & Nolf, 1990. Compare to some Prognathodon anceps skull reconstructions originating from Morocco. As far as descriptions of teeth go, Bardet and Pereda Suberbiola, 2002 describe Prognathodon giganteus in Jordan (NOT Morocco) as: They include the following picture: Cappetta et al. 2014 described Prognathodon teeth from the Gantour basin as the following. Note that Prognathodon anceps is referred to as Prognathodon nov. sp. in this publication. Bardet et al. 2015’s review of mosasaurid teeth differentiated Prognathodon teeth by the following. E is Prognathodon giganteus. F is Prognathodon anceps. In my opinion, these teeth look like they come from the same mosasaur, but different parts of the jaw. To summarize: Character Prognathodon anceps Prognathodon giganteus Size Anterior teeth less stocky than lateral teeth (Arambourg, 1952) Teeth robust, large cones (Bardet et al. 2015) Large and robust in appearance (Bardet and Pereda Suberbiola, 2002) The teeth appear to be more or less uniform in size along most of the jaw ramus although this assessment is an inference based on an incomplete number of preserved teeth and tooth bases of the maxillae and dentaries. (Lingham-Soliar & Nolf, 1992) Recurve Anterior teeth recurve posteriorly. Lateral teeth recurve posteriorly and slightly medially (Arambourg, 1952; Machalski et al. 2002) Somewhat posteriorly recurved tips (Lingham-Soliar & Nolf, 1992) Cross-section Anterior teeth cross-section, almost circular at the neck, becomes somewhat oval and irregular towards the apex. Lateral teeth are compressed with an elliptical symmetrical cross-section (Arambourg, 1952; Machalski et al. 2002; Bardet et al. 2015) In horizontal cross-section the tooth is subcircular and bears a close resemblance to Williston's (1897) cross-section of a tooth of P. overtoni (Lingham-Soliar & Nolf, 1992, Bardet and Pereda Suberbiola, 2002) Carinae Possess anterior and posterior carinae (Arambourg, 1952; Machalski et al., 2003) They are bicarinate with subequal buccal and lingual surfaces (Lingham-Soliar & Nolf, 1992, Bardet and Pereda Suberbiola, 2002) Labial (buccal) and lingual surfaces Labial and lingual surfaces, both of which are strongly convex (Arambourg, 1952; Machalski et al. 2002) Subequal convex labial and lingual faces (Bardet and Pereda Suberbiola, 2002) Serrations (crenulations) They bear finely crenellated cutting edges that extend the full apicobasal height, both symphyseally and commissurally (Arambourg, 1952; Machalski et al., 2003) The carinae are strongly marked and pinched from the main shaft with less visible serrations (Bardet et al., 2015) Surface features Facetting is not well developed but is more clearly seen on the lingual surface. Enamel beading is present, but poorly developed (Machalski et al., 2002) Some teeth bear indistinct facets on the lingual surface (Bardet et al., 2015) Tooth surfaces are enameled and appear to be covered in very fine vertical striae. This may on the other hand be an artifact of preservation caused by cracking of the enamel. Russell (1970, p. 374) on the other hand describes the enamel in P. giganteus as smooth but he may have based his statement on Dollo's (1904, p. 213) brief comment to that effect. Kues et al. (1985) also mention fine anastomosing striae in teeth which, however, are questionably referred to Prognathodon. (Lingham-Soliar & Nolf, 1992) Anastomosing enamel especially prevalent on the blunt apical region (Bardet and Pereda Suberbiola, 2002) Pinched/unpinched carinae Their two carinae are strongly detached (Arambourg, 1952) Tooth crowns without pinched carinae (Cappetta et al. 2014) The carinae are strongly marked and pinched from the main shaft with less visible serrations (Bardet et al 2015) ***Note the contradiction Apex Higher sharper apex (Bardet et al., 2015) Blunt apex (Cappetta et al. 2014, Bardet et al 2015) Based on all this, I think the defining differences the researchers are pointing are: (1) P. anceps teeth are more laterally compressed than P. giganteus (2) P. anceps teeth have “pinched” carinae while P. giganteus have unpinched carinae (3) P. anceps teeth have a pointed apex while P. giganteus has a blunt apex (4) P. anceps teeth are less posteriorly recurved than P. giganteus teeth I’m not quite sure what to conclude. These features seem like they may fall within heterodonty or individual, ontogenetic, and sexual variation. Whether the two species can be differentiated based on cranial and postcranial elements is yet to be seen. I have not seen any attempts to synonymize the species. In my opinion, I don't think the two species are understood well enough to differentiate the them based solely on isolated teeth. I would like to hear what others have to say on the topic.- 10 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- anceps
- gantour basin
- (and 14 more)
-
Møns Klint fossil reptiles - size comparison chart
The Amateur Paleontologist posted a topic in General Fossil Discussion
Hey everyone - hope you're all doing Just thought I'd share with you guys a chart I made, comparing the sizes of various marine reptile species known from the Maastrichtian chalk of Møns Klint (~70 million years old - Hvidskud Member of the Møns Klint Formation). For now, there are only 3 reptile species known from MK. But who knows, that number might increase now that more in-depth collection and research is taking place over there Anyways... onto the size comparison chart - here it is: Details: The Mosasaurus hoffmannii is known from one very well-preserved pterygoid ('palate') tooth crown (belongs to the Danish Museum of Natural History/NHMD, but on loan to the GeoCenter Møns Klint/GCMK). M. hoffmannii is estimated to have reached ~17 metres, though the one in this chart represents a smaller-sized individual (~12m). The M. cf. lemonnieri is known from an excellently preserved tooth crown (belongs to NHMD but on loan to GCMK). Other fragmentary, eroded mosasaur teeth (2 or 3) are known from Møns Klint, and they might belong to either M. lemonnieri or M. hoffmannii The possible Thoracosaurus (crocodylian) is known from a partial mandible, with 2 tooth imprints associated (I'm currently describing that fossil, and soon hope to have the paper sent for publication ) Known remains are shown in white (teeth for the mosasaurs, partial mandible for the crocodile). Note: the reptile outlines are not mine, I modified them from some that were made by DeviantArt users paleosir and PWNZ3R-Dragon. Hope you liked this size comparison chart! -Christian- 2 replies
-
- 9
-
-
- crocodylia/thoracosaurinae
- hvidskud mb./møns klint fm.
- (and 4 more)
-
From the album: Reptiles & Marine Reptiles collection
Genus: Tethysaurus nopscai Locality: Goulmima, Errachidia Province, Morocco Geological Age: Cretaceous (70 MYA) Size: 5" (Jaw Piece)-
- 1
-
-
- mosasauridae
- Tethysaurus
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with: