Jump to content

Recommended Posts

FF7_Yuffie

It was initially being sold as plesiosaur when I inquired about it, but seller says it was mislabelled and is pliosaur--which, if accurate, even better! But I am dubious over Pliosaur ID because I don't think I've ever seen any Morocco pliosaur fossils up for sale.

 

But,  if anyone can take a look and let me if A) It looks legit and B ) Whether you think Pliosaur or plesiosaur is accurate, that would be great. 80 million years old, from Morocco. 17 inches along the straight edge and 10 inches along the bottom.

 

Thanks for any help!

 

 

 

 

1.jpg

2.jpg

3.jpg

4.jpg

5.jpg

6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RuMert

Well, I'd say it's possible, seeing shortness of the verts and their overall look. The upper one looks like plesiosaur cervical and the 2nd probably pectoral (shouldn't they be the same size then?). Morrocan pliosaurs do exist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FF7_Yuffie
8 hours ago, RuMert said:

Well, I'd say it's possible, seeing shortness of the verts and their overall look. The upper one looks like plesiosaur cervical and the 2nd probably pectoral (shouldn't they be the same side then?). Morrocan pliosaurs do exist

 

Thanks. The Morocco pliosaur is Brachauchenius? Or is there another species?

 

Looking online at plesiosaur cervical verts for sale, I do see it looking like it now.

 

What are your thoughts on the fossil? It is legit rather than being carved or faked? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FF7_Yuffie

Just realised, I didn't put a location. It is from, khouribga Morocco. Which I think eliminates Pliosaur?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FF7_Yuffie
8 minutes ago, LordTrilobite said:

I haven't ever heard from Pliosaurs from Khouribga. I'm not well versed enough to know the difference in Pliosaur and Plesiosaur verts. But this looks like most Plesiosaur from Morocco to me. So Zarafasaura is most likely IMO.

 

Cheers. Thanks for the help. Yeah, I expected Khouribga ruled out Pliosaur. Pliosaur is Goulmima isn't it?

 

 Nice, I was initially intetested in it when labelled plesiosaur, so that's not an issue.

 

 

I assume then it looks ok--no fakery or anything? I remember seeing a vert posted here that was a bison bone plonked in Morocco matrix being sold as plesiosaur. But if there's no red fkags, I will get it ordered today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RuMert
6 hours ago, FF7_Yuffie said:

What are your thoughts on the fossil? It is legit rather than being carved or faked? 

I'm not so good at distinguishing fakes, LordTrilobite is the expert here, as well as @jnoun11

Relying on common sense, I don't think verts would be faked, unlike skulls/jaws/skeletons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LordTrilobite

There are no red flags here in my opinion. @RuMert is right that individual verts aren't often faked. But skeletons often are. It can happen that real verts are composited together to create a more complete animal.

This specimen looks pretty natural though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FF7_Yuffie
Just now, LordTrilobite said:

There are no red flags here in my opinion. @RuMert is right that individual verts aren't often faked. But skeletons often are. It can happen that real verts are composited together to create a more complete animal.

This specimen looks pretty natural though.

 

Awesome. Thanks for the help. I will place an order for it later tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FF7_Yuffie
2 hours ago, RuMert said:

I'm not so good at distinguishing fakes, LordTrilobite is the expert here, as well as @jnoun11

Relying on common sense, I don't think verts would be faked, unlike skulls/jaws/skeletons

 

Cheers thanks for the help. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jnoun11

hi

i agree with lord trilobite, it s zarafasaura oceanis vertebrae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FF7_Yuffie
14 minutes ago, jnoun11 said:

hi

i agree with lord trilobite, it s zarafasaura oceanis vertebrae.

 

Awesome. I'll label it as that. 

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon
On 7/9/2020 at 9:13 AM, jnoun11 said:

hi

i agree with lord trilobite, it s zarafasaura oceanis vertebrae.

A bit late to the party, but I concur that these are Zarafasaura oceanis vertebrae and rib. Pliosaur vertebrae would be way more massive (not just simply bigger, but axially deeper with a more rounded vertebral centrum) and indeed not come from Khouribga but Goulmima - in which case it would, as correctly stated, have been Brachauchenius lucasi, which I believe is still the only true pliosaur described for Morocco. For comparison, here are two pliosaur vertebrae from Goulmima:

 

pliosaur-vertebra-goulmima-morocco-359-p.thumb.jpg.b3632ebd4e6ede1e88f2e74062283ff0.jpg5f1b580579ed6_pliosaur-vertebra-goulmima-morocco-2-359-p.thumb.jpg.328a1902b33c5a6d5a648404355931e2.jpg

 

pliosaur-vertebra-goulmima-morocco.-312-p.thumb.jpg.e5d06b0f6db20f33ad3357fa0f1e0680.jpg5f1b58086cbdb_pliosaur-vertebra-goulmima-morocco.-2-312-p.thumb.jpg.a1d57f7710ceeba10bf7522f7e3c11fd.jpg

 

Rib, of course, is more difficult to assign to a species, but ca  here be assigned by association. It also matches a specimen I have in my collection labelled as Zarafasaura oceanis. And though the layout of the fossils in this piece looks a bit too neat to look entirely natural at first glance, the piece seems to be okay and authentic overall: the matrix has additional inclusions that would tell you this is not fabricated matrix, and the fossils seem positioned such as to exclude additions / "enhancements" (I.e. slight compression of the rib when the vertebral process crosses it, and such like).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FF7_Yuffie
7 hours ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

A bit late to the party, but I concur that these are Zarafasaura oceanis vertebrae and rib. Pliosaur vertebrae would be way more massive (not just simply bigger, but axially deeper with a more rounded vertebral centrum) and indeed not come from Khouribga but Goulmima - in which case it would, as correctly states, have been Brachauchenius lucasi, which I believe is still the only true pliosaur described for Morocco. For comparison, here are two pliosaur vertebrae from Goulmima:

 

pliosaur-vertebra-goulmima-morocco-359-p.thumb.jpg.b3632ebd4e6ede1e88f2e74062283ff0.jpg5f1b580579ed6_pliosaur-vertebra-goulmima-morocco-2-359-p.thumb.jpg.328a1902b33c5a6d5a648404355931e2.jpg

 

pliosaur-vertebra-goulmima-morocco.-312-p.thumb.jpg.e5d06b0f6db20f33ad3357fa0f1e0680.jpg5f1b58086cbdb_pliosaur-vertebra-goulmima-morocco.-2-312-p.thumb.jpg.a1d57f7710ceeba10bf7522f7e3c11fd.jpg

 

Rib, of course, is more difficult to assign to a species, but ca  here be assigned by association. It also matches a specimen I have in my collection labelled as Zarafasaura oceanis. And though the layout of the fossils in this piece looks a bit too neat to look entirely natural at first glance, the piece seems to be okay and authentic overall: the matrix has additional inclusions that would tell you this is not fabricated matrix, and the fossils seem positioned such as to exclude additions / "enhancements" (I.e. slight compression of the rib when the vertebral process crosses it, and such like).

 

 

Thanks very much for the info. Especially about the matrix-- that's really good to know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jnoun11

hi ff7-yuffie

its not zarafasauras oceanis but libonectes atlasense ,turonian bed of goulmima.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FF7_Yuffie
1 hour ago, jnoun11 said:

hi ff7-yuffie

its not zarafasauras oceanis but libonectes atlasense ,turonian bed of goulmima.

 

Nice. That's a species I know nothing about so gonna have to do a bit of looking up on it.

 

Thanks very much for taking a look. It's great to have an id.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon

Hi jnoun11,

I'm a bit confused, might have misunderstood. But when you say Libonectes atlasense, you're referring to the images of the vertebrae I posted, not those posted by the original poster, correct? Because the original bone-block to me seems to concern Z. oceanis, especially since it comes from Khouribga, no? How can you tell the others are from Libonectes and not a pliosaur? Where does the difference lie? Just out of genuine interest and because I think the original poster may also have gotten confused. Thanks in advance for your response!


---

 

Bonjour @jnoun11,

 

Je suis un peu confus, peut-être ai-je mal compris. Mais quand vous dites Libonectes atlasense, vous faites référence aux images des vertèbres que j'ai postées, pas à celles postées par l'affiche originale, n'est-ce pas ? Parce que le bloc osseux d'origine me semble concerner Z. oceanis, d'autant plus qu'il vient de Khouribga, non ? Comment pouvez-vous déterminer que les autres proviennent de Libonectes et non de pliosaure ? Qu'est-ce qui fait la différence ? Juste par intérêt sincère et parce que je pense que l'affiche originale a peut-être aussi été confuse. Merci d'avance pour votre réponse !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FF7_Yuffie
29 minutes ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

Hi jnoun11,

I'm a bit confused, might have misunderstood. But when you say Libonectes morgani (not L. atlasense?), you're referring to the images of the vertebrae I posted, not those posted by the original poster, correct? Because the original bone-block to me seems to concern Z. oceanis, especially since it comes from Khouribga, no? How can you tell the others are from Libonectes and not a pliosaur? Where does the difference lie? Just out of genuine interest and because I think the original poster may also have gotten confused. Thanks in advance for your response!


---

 

Bonjour @jnoun11,

 

Je suis un peu confus, peut-être ai-je mal compris. Mais quand vous dites Libonectes morgani (pas L. atlasense ?), vous faites référence aux images des vertèbres que j'ai postées, pas à celles postées par l'affiche originale, n'est-ce pas ? Parce que le bloc osseux d'origine me semble concerner Z. oceanis, d'autant plus qu'il vient de Khouribga, non ? Comment pouvez-vous déterminer que les autres proviennent de Libonectes et non de pliosaure ? Qu'est-ce qui fait la différence ? Juste par intérêt sincère et parce que je pense que l'affiche originale a peut-être aussi été confuse. Merci d'avance pour votre réponse !

 

 

With location, seller did say Khouribga--but he did also say it had been mislabelled as Plesiosaur and was Pliosaur, which turned out to be incorrect--so it seems that there could be mistakes from seller with the location as well as the ID, if Libonectes isnt found in that location. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen fossils from Morocco with the wrong formation mentioned.

 

 

Thanks to everyone for taking a look btw. All info and comments are much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon
7 minutes ago, FF7_Yuffie said:

With location, seller did say Khouribga--but he did also say it had been mislabelled as Plesiosaur and was Pliosaur, which turned out to be incorrect--so it seems that there could be mistakes from seller with the location as well as the ID, if Libonectes isnt found in that location. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen fossils from Morocco with the wrong formation mentioned.

But that's what I'm saying and why I'm presently confused. Because the matrix in terms of colour, consistency and inclusions matches what one would expect for Khouribga/Oued Zem - that is, yellow to orange course-grained marl that easily crumbles and has various bone and tooth inclusions. Bone from these beds is white in colour, as - I believe - the mineral that replaced the bones is a gypsum. In contrast, the matrix found at Goulmima is a greyish light yellow or light grey, fine-grained and either very hard (the grey-coloured matrix) or soft (the greyish light yellow matrix). Bones are brown/red-brown and - as to my knowledge - other inclusions in the matrix minimal. In other words, your bone-block matches the location given for it.

 

As stated in Angst & Bardet 2015 ("A new record of the pliosaur Brachauchenius lucasi Williston, 1903 (Reptilia: Sauropterygia) of Turonian (Late Cretaceous) age, Morocco"), most Moroccan plesiosaur species are restricted to Goulmima, with only Z. oceanis occurring in the Maastrichtian (i.e. Khouribga / Oued Zem):
 

Quote

Compared to other continents, the fossil record of plesiosaurs is scarce in Africa where only five valid taxa are known. All described from Cretaceous out- crops, these are: the leptocleidid Leptocleidus capensis [...] from Early Cretaceous (Valanginian) South Africa [...]; the elasmosaurid Zarafasaura oceanis [...] from latest Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) Morocco [...]; and the polycotylids Thililua longicollis [...] and Manemergus anguirostris [...] and the elasmosaurid Libonectes atlasense [...] described from the lower Upper Cretaceous (Turonian) sediments of the Goulmima outcrop, southern Morocco [...].

 

The same information is repeated above in that

 

7 hours ago, jnoun11 said:

hi ff7-yuffie

its not zarafasauras oceanis but libonectes atlasense ,turonian bed of goulmima.

 

This, however, doesn't match your matrix. Hence my surprise...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jnoun11

hi

its confusing i admit:

so ff7 yuffie

the first group of pictures are zarafasaura oceanis from phosphates bed 3 , no pliosaurs until now in phosphates deposits

and the second group of picture with the vertebrae out of matrix is:  libonectes atlasense or the pliosaur : manemergus longisrostris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FF7_Yuffie
2 hours ago, jnoun11 said:

hi

its confusing i admit:

so ff7 yuffie

the first group of pictures are zarafasaura oceanis from phosphates bed 3 , no pliosaurs until now in phosphates deposits

and the second group of picture with the vertebrae out of matrix is:  libonectes atlasense or the pliosaur : manemergus longisrostris.

 

Ah, I see. So the seller's location of Khouribka & the id from posters here of Zarafasaurua is correct.

 

Thanks for clarifying. Cheers :)

Share this post


Link to post
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


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×