Jump to content

Mosasaur skull?


Recommended Posts

Labelled as a Mosasaur skull, from Morocco. I suspect it's more partial skull or skull sections rather than the entirety (but still pretty nice) But, anyone able to take a look and give your thoughts on if it looks legit?

 

It'd make a jolly nice centerpiece to my Kem Kem display. If this gets the go ahead as being real, I will order it and a few other bits from the same seller tonight.

 

Quite small, so either a juvenile or a smaller species of Mosasaur? It's the small size that's making me question it.

 

Picture 1 -- the eye socket and other hole match other Mosasaur skulls, so I'm correct that that's the upper skull section?

Picture 4 -- this looks like it has teeth sockets? So a jaw.

Picture 6 -- Is the longish, segmented bone a row of verts? From Mosasaur or something else in the matrix?

 

If someone could take a look, that would be awesome.

 

Thanks

 

 

1.jpg

2.jpg

3.jpg

4.jpg

5.jpg

6.jpg

7.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ptychodus04 said:

I'm not seeing any alveoli. It does look like mosasaur material but labeling it as a "skull" is very generous due to the fragmentary nature of the block.

 

Thanks. 

Yeah, I think skull sections is more accurate? Is the top bit, as I thought, upper skull? The two holes seem to match other pictures online of mosasaur skulls. Likewise, the section on pics 2 and 3, I could see a resemblance of a Globidens mandible I saw for sale. Of course I could be entirely wrong :P

 

Or is it unrelated bone matter to a skull?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've requested a bit more info from seller---where found and exact species.

 

Item isn't labelled as juvenile, but rather "dwarf". Which is a little vague.

 

 

 If anyone can spot any signs of fakery, restoration or it being a composite, becausr I dont know what to look for there :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think that’s an eye socket in the first photo, it looks more like a broken bone. In general, eye sockets tend to be smooth and this one looks jagged. 

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how this conglomeration can be described as a skull in any way.  Some of the pieces don't look like mosasaur bone.  There are other pieces that look like fish vertebrae and bits of shell.

  • I found this Informative 5

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the verts look fishy rather than mosasaur. :unsure:

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

I don't see how this conglomeration can be described as a skull in any way.  Some of the pieces don't look like mosasaur bone.  There are other pieces that look like fish vertebrae and bits of shell.

 

Fish verts in pic 6? I was wondering what that bit was. Thanks :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, thelivingdead531 said:

I agree that the verts look fishy rather than mosasaur. :unsure:

 

Looks like one for my not buy list :)

 

Thanks for taking a look

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reviewing photos in museum collections, scientific papers, and the extensive archives of TFF will go a long way in helping you recognize detailed features of fossils that interest you.  Descriptions used to sell something have a greater potential for errors, and any associated images are not a reliable reference.  ;)

  • I found this Informative 3

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

Reviewing photos in museum collections, scientific papers, and the extensive archives of TFF will go a long way in helping you recognize detailed features of fossils that interest you.  Descriptions used to sell something have a greater potential for errors, and any associated images are not a reliable reference.  ;)

 

Thanks for the advice. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you can't call this a skull. More like a partial mosasaur snout with assorted reptile and fish bones.

 

The rounded bone in the middle is definitely a premaxilla. Then there are two larger bones next to it on either side. The bone on the left of the premaxilla looks very much like the front of the left maxilla. It wouldn't surprise me if the premaxilla and maxilla are from the same individual. Then on the right side of the premaxilla there's a large bone that is likely also from the skull. But I think it's unclear as to what bone this is.

No teeth or any clear diagnostic bones are visible so it's hard to tell what type of mosasaur this is.

 

The articulated vertebrae near the bottom are definitely fish. I'm definitely not an expert on these but they look like they could possibly be Enchodus.

 

You mentioned Kem Kem. But Kem Kem stuff is from a different age. This is from the Maastrichtian age phosphate beds. Kem Kem is Cenomanian in age.

 

Not very complete. But quite a nice piece. And it all looks real. No reason to assume foul play here.

  • I found this Informative 3

Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LordTrilobite said:

No you can't call this a skull. More like a partial mosasaur snout with assorted reptile and fish bones.

 

The rounded bone in the middle is definitely a premaxilla. Then there are two larger bones next to it on either side. The bone on the left of the premaxilla looks very much like the front of the left maxilla. It wouldn't surprise me if the premaxilla and maxilla are from the same individual. Then on the right side of the premaxilla there's a large bone that is likely also from the skull. But I think it's unclear as to what bone this is.

No teeth or any clear diagnostic bones are visible so it's hard to tell what type of mosasaur this is.

 

The articulated vertebrae near the bottom are definitely fish. I'm definitely not an expert on these but they look like they could possibly be Enchodus.

 

You mentioned Kem Kem. But Kem Kem stuff is from a different age. This is from the Maastrichtian age phosphate beds. Kem Kem is Cenomanian in age.

 

Not very complete. But quite a nice piece. And it all looks real. No reason to assume foul play here.

 

Thanks. Knowing what some of the pieces are is now pursuading me. Even if not all skull, as a bone bed it looks nice. And now knowing what to search for, I can compare to other premax and  maxilla bones.

 

Seller emailed back, it is Halisaurus.  Now i know it is mosasaur, back it goes on my buy list.

 

Thanks very much.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious without a diagnostic element like teeth how would the seller know its Halisaurus.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TyBoy said:

Curious without a diagnostic element like teeth how would the seller know its Halisaurus.

 

Indeed!  

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, TyBoy said:

Curious without a diagnostic element like teeth how would the seller know its Halisaurus.

 

10 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

 

Indeed!  

 

 

If I get it, better to just label it as Mosasaurus then rather than a specific species?

 

And a side note of the fish verts. The seller in the recent email giving me the name did say the piece also contains other fossils that they hadn't identified, so I don't think they were initially passing the verts off as Mosasaur. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mosasaurus is a genus...better to label it "mosasaur unidentified" until it is expertly identified.

  • I found this Informative 1

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

Mosasaurus is a genus...better to label it "mosasaur unidentified" until it is expertly identified.

 

Cheers, will do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi

its just a nasal and little part of the maxillary of pluridens walkeri far from a skull...

  • I found this Informative 2

The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. Terry Pratchett ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jnoun11 said:

hi

its just a nasal and little part of the maxillary of pluridens walkeri far from a skull...

 

Thanks. Yeah, it seems the skull label is mistaken/overblown. I was suspecting more partial--I thought the piece at the top with the two holes were eyeholes and whatever the hole behind the eyehole is called--but I guess not.

 

Any idea what the two holes would be, or is it just a damaged section of bone?

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FF7_Yuffie said:

 

Thanks. Yeah, it seems the skull label is mistaken/overblown. I was suspecting more partial--I thought the piece at the top with the two holes were eyeholes and whatever the hole behind the eyehole is called--but I guess not.

 

Any idea what the two holes would be, or is it just a damaged section of bone?

 

Thanks.

Those kind of holes is a pattern that sometimes appears where there are tooth sockets because if the tooth is not there then it becomes a weak spot. Part of that bone kinda looks like it could be from a maxilla. But the broken bone on the side next to it seems to be part of that bone and that doesn't fit with the idea of it being a maxilla.

But yeah, those holes are likely just damage. Some prepping of the piece might reveal if there are tooth sockets beneath that.

 

 

Oh and in one of the photos it does look like there might be a broken tooth next to the premaxilla. We're seeing the broken end so it's not very informative.

  • I found this Informative 2

Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, RJB said:

 Sorry, had to laugh when I saw this.  :)

 

RB

 

Because of the bad mislabelling? Or becausr you think its a bad piece as a premax/maxilla fossil?

 

 

Even if not a skull as labelled, I think looks quite a nice little fossil to go alongside my other mosasaur stuff--now people have helped me id it as premax and max. 

 

But then, I might just have a bad eye for them and its not worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FF7_Yuffie said:

 

Because of the bad mislabelling? Or becausr you think its a bad piece as a premax/maxilla fossil?

 

 

Even if not a skull as labelled, I think looks quite a nice little fossil to go alongside my other mosasaur stuff--now people have helped me id it as premax and max. 

 

But then, I might just have a bad eye for them and its not worth it.

Oh, it is a nice fossil. Just not a complete skull.
And jnoun11 knows what he's talking about. If he says it's Pluridens walkeri then I'd go along with that.

  • I found this Informative 1

Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LordTrilobite said:

Oh, it is a nice fossil. Just not a complete skull.
And jnoun11 knows what he's talking about. If he says it's Pluridens walkeri then I'd go along with that.

 

Cheers. As soon as I hear back about postage costs to Taiwan, I'm gonna order the piece and a few other fossils that they sell. I've got a few Mosasaur teeth, so this will display nicely alongside them.

 

Thanks for the help everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...