Search the Community

Attached are pictures of my collection of four isolated teeth from Travis County, Texas with limited identifications. I am not an expert on pliosaurs, plesiosaurs, or mosasaurs. I just know fairly accurately in which member of a specific formation I found these teeth. All of these were located in or near a shell hash layer associated with oyster fragments, Ptychodus, or other regular shark's teeth. (1) 10/2/2017 - Upper South Bosque - ~91 mya - first picture (as cleaned). (2) 6/15/2018 - Lower Bouldin Flags - ~95 Mya - first picture (as found), second picture (display). (3) 10/28/2018 - Lower Bouldin Flags - ~95 Mya - first picture (as found), second picture (as cleaned). (4) 7/16/2021 - Lower Bouldin Flags - ~95 Mya - first picture (as found), second picture (as cleaned and bonded).

Hi everyone! I could really use some help identifying this one. I found it at Post Oak Creek. I included a bunch of pictures that I labeled so you all can know what I'm talking about. The microscope shots have a red scale bar that is 1 mm. Here's what I know it's Cretaceous 94-90 million years old from the Eagle Ford Group. the bone surface is mostly weathered but still in it's original shape. except for some major weathering on the back of the left side. It came from a large vertebrate. The bottom is flat, the back is concave, it slopes forward to a blunt point in the front, It appears to be mostly symmetrical with the line of symmetry going front to back. It looks like a distal phalange (finger tip bone) to me, but neither Mosasaurs or Plesiosaurs have a bone that looks like that to my knowledge. It honestly looks like the distal phalange of a terrestrial vertebrate to me, but, well, yeah I need another perspective before I go that route. Hey I can dream right?

Hi everyone, I got offered this pair of marine reptile teeth as those of ichthyosaurs, but am having a hard time making my mind up about their identification. I'd therefore like to ask for your opinions. The teeth were found during works around Nancy back in 2004, and, based on other ichthyosaur finds from the region, likely dates the Toarcian stage of the Early Jurassic (though, from what I can tell, Oxfordian marine deposits are also accessible in the area). This makes them roughly the same age as material from the Posidonia Shale/Holzmaden and Whitby, but slightly younger than that of the Lyme Bay area. The above photograph is the only one I have, with the seller being on fieldwork and unable to provide much further information for the next couple of weeks. Although we can safely eliminate marine crocodile as contenders for the original owners of these teeth, and I think they are too big to have belonged to fish, I'm undecided on whether these are just highly worn ichthyosaur teeth or plesiosaur teeth. There's something to be said for both. The tall, slender shape of the teeth and their slight curvature, for instance, would seem to fit plesiosaurian teeth, as would, most significantly, the round root of the bigger tooth. In that case, however, the smaller tooth does seem a bit stubby, and the traces of ornamentation along the midsection of the larger tooth surprisingly equidistantly spaced. Generally, the morphology of the smaller tooth to me suggests ichthyosaur rather than plesiosaur. But if that were the case, I'd expect either enamel folds on the crowns themselves, folds on the root, or both (even when ichthyosaur teeth have smooth enamel, I find they still have folds on their roots). I'd also expect the root to be more polygonal in shape, somewhere in the range of triangular to (rounded) square. This is not the case. Now there seems to be some ornamentation midway up the larger specimen which equidistant spacing correlates well with patterns of the folds found on ichthyosaur teeth, thus may indicate the tooth is ophthalmosaurid and therefore Oxfordian rather than Torcian in age. The below image I drew up makes the comparison: As you can see, the match is less then ideal, as the top part of the French tooth is completely devoid of enamel folds, whereas in an ophthalmosaurid tooth the plicidentine folds actually taper out until the enamel is clear. @belemniten, however, posted images of a couple of his ichthyosaur teeth from Holzmaden, one of which appears to show a similar pattern as visible in the middle of the French tooth under consideration here, including what appears to be a round root: However, when looking at other images of the same tooth, it turns out that the root does have folds, as you'd expect from ichthyosaur teeth: Similarly, the below tooth seems to have a superficially similar appearance to the French tooth for the hairline cracking of the enamel, and the fact that enamel appears to be missing from the crown immediately above the root proper (which, again, exhibits folds, however). Still, if the "smooth round root" on the French tooth would've been covered by enamel as well, this would make for a very tall tooth as far as ichthyosaurs go. As illustrated by the specimen below (source), though, ichthyosaur teeth do occasionally have round roots: Moreover, the folds on the root don't always run the full height of it (image source): Lastly, as the specimen below demonstrates (source), the entire root can look completely smooth, presumably from wear: As such, I'm wondering whether the French tooth specimen might not be a very worn ichthyosaur tooth, with its parts being composed as such: This doesn't particularly make too much sense to me either, as the part of the root with folds is rather long and has a very abrupt transition into the remainder of the root. In addition, it raises the question of how the tooth would've gotten so worn. Though I understand there are fluvially exposed sites around Nancy, could this have caused the wear we're seeing. Or would the wear rather be peridepositional? So, I guess I can summarize my questions as: Do these look like plesiosaur or ichthyosaur teeth? If plesiosaurian, what would the equidistant striations on the midsection of the tooth be? If ichthyosaurian, do these teeth look more ophthalmosaurid or pre-ophthalmosaur? How might the wear I think I'm seeing be explained? Thanks for the help! cc @paulgdls @PointyKnight @DE&i @Welsh Wizard @RuMert @FF7_Yuffie

Hi, I am interested in this tooth---sold as Plesiosaur tooth from the Kem Kem Beds. First time I've seen one from Kem Kem sold before, but I see someone bought one recently in the "mailbox score" thread, but it looks different--lighter colored preservation. Anyone know if this is actually from Kem Kem going by the matrix and preservation and not from Ouled Abdoun with just the wrong formation listed? It is 5CM long. Also the tip---just repaired, or compositied? I'm a bit concerned that the top of the tip seems a little bit wider than the middle. But it could just be a bodged repair. Thanks

Hi, I always struggle to tell the difference between a Plesiosaur tooth and an Ichthyosaur tooth. This tooth comes from Goulmima in Morocco (lower Turonian) so I believe it is a Plesiosaur tooth (possibly a Pliosaur tooth), but wanted to confirm it here. The tooth is 4.2cm in length and retains the ridges on the tooth which I think is how you might tell the difference between Plesiosaur and Ichthyosaur. Thank you!

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

I bought this from very trusted sellers. And its pourus or if thats how you spell it. A little piece of it came off. Can i glue it with cyanorylate? (The fossil is from khouribga)this is where the piece came off

NJ Cretaceous stream find. Looks like a tooth of some kind, the pics don't effectively show how tapered and curved it is. Any thoughts if it is a tooth and if so, what from?

Hi I found this on the coast of Whitby.. the circle at the top stud out and something different to the slate. After a bit of chipping the main bit came away easily and is definitely separate to the slate?? Any help would be greatly appreciated..

Hi all, I recently decided to buy the below plesiosaur vertebra after having seen it for a long, long time. It dates to the Callovian of the Oxford Clay and was found at Peterborough. I suspect it may be attributed to Muraenosaurus leedsi, as it comes from a cryptoclidid plesiosaur, but is both larger and more elongate that the typical Oxford Clay Cryptoclidus vertebrae I'm familiar with. Supposedly coming from an old collection, it has a blackened exterior that doesn't cover the entire piece, with the more common buff colour visible underneath. As such, I expected the dark colouring to be simple dirt or may be some kind of consolidate that could be removed using acetone to leave a nice and clean looking vertebra in its place. However, since having tried acetone cleaning, the dark colour doesn't come off - suggesting that it isn't surface dirt and any consolidate, if present, is not soluble in acetone. I've also noticed that the black colour doesn't spread equally across the vertebra, which is most noticeable towards the top on the front face (first image) where one half of the vertebra is buff, the other black, with a hard separation in between. As this mottled pattern can be seen in other places on the vertebra as well, I thought that, may be, the vertebra might have been in a fire and have become covered in soot. I find additional support in the latter hypothesis in very brittle pieces of bone in one or two spots, with a charcoal-like grainy texture. Lastly, then, I've spotted a tiny edge of yellow staining/infill in an area where the vascular structure of the bone is exposed, with some white infill in an area adjacent - which I've now started worrying might be pyrite. My questions to you are: Origin of the blackening: Does the black clouding of the vertebra look like natural preservation? Related to the above: could the black clouding be due to pyrite decay? In contrast: could exposure to fire cause the clouding pattern seen on the vertebra? What consolidate might have been used to result in such colour patterning? Cleaning: Is there a way to remove soot from a fossil? Has anyone tried? Other than removal by acetone, what other ways might I try to remove an old, darkened consolidate? In case of decayed pyrite, I don't think there's anyway to clean the surface, other than, may be, through careful sandblasting, is there?

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!

... and it is only the beginning of January. A bucket list item I have been hunting for for a while. Plesiosaur vertebra from the Eagle Ford of North Texas.

... But I don’t know the genus. It is from the upper Cretaceous, found in phosphate deposits from the Oulad Abdoun basin, Morocco. It is around 6cm in length.

Picked this big chunk of fresh rhaetic bone bed up today. It was twice the size when I found it but I was a butter fingers and dropped it accidentally and the other half disintegrated. Doh. Its a nice early Christmas present. If you look carefully, there’s a whopper of a plesiosaur vert in there. I’ll post some more pictures when I start digging into it.