Jump to content
Boesse

Ankylorhiza tiedemani: "new" large bodied killer whale like dolphin from South Carolina Oligocene

Recommended Posts

doushantuo

The Pdf downloads without a hitch,it seems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FossilDAWG

Made CNN!

 

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DD1991

Genus Y had been mentioned in the literature since Whitmore and Sanders (1977). However, new research into early odontocete evolution prompted a new look at Genus Y, and Dooley (2003) noted that "Squalodon" tiedemani is very similar to Genus Y, and that one specimen (USNM 183023) from the Calvert Formation that he had referred to tiedemani in a 1991 thesis represented a new Squalodon species that he later (2005) named S. whitmorei. Also note that Dooley (2003) considers the problematic odontocete Saurocetus to be a probable relative of Ankylorhiza based on examination of undescribed specimens in the Charleston Museum.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sixgill pete

@Boesse This is great news Bobby. You had said that one of the earbones I donated to the Museum (at the 2019 Aurora Fossil Festival) appeared to be from genus Y. If that was correct, how cool. That would put A. tiedemani as present in either the Belgrade or the River Bend Formation. It also makes me wonder if the tooth I donated at the 2016 festival could be from this species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jcbshark

Excellent work Bobby :yay-smiley-1:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boesse
31 minutes ago, sixgill pete said:

@Boesse This is great news Bobby. You had said that one of the earbones I donated to the Museum (at the 2019 Aurora Fossil Festival) appeared to be from genus Y. If that was correct, how cool. That would put A. tiedemani as present in either the Belgrade or the River Bend Formation. It also makes me wonder if the tooth I donated at the 2016 festival could be from this species.

Hey Don! Good question. I believe one of your bullae belongs to Ankylorhiza or something similar; the big periotic found by @Al Dente is something else, quite probably Squalodon proper. Another clear Ankylorhiza specimen from Belgrade is a nice tooth with longitudinal fluting found and donated by Julie Niederkorn about a year ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sixgill pete
2 minutes ago, Boesse said:

Hey Don! Good question. I believe one of your bullae belongs to Ankylorhiza or something similar; the big periotic found by Eric (can't remember TFF username) is something else, quite probably Squalodon proper. Another clear Ankylorhiza specimen from Belgrade is a nice tooth with longitudinal fluting found and donated by Julie Niederkorn about a year ago.

That's great. Good to see the NCFC well represented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boesse
5 hours ago, DD1991 said:

Genus Y had been mentioned in the literature since Whitmore and Sanders (1977). However, new research into early odontocete evolution prompted a new look at Genus Y, and Dooley (2003) noted that "Squalodon" tiedemani is very similar to Genus Y, and that one specimen (USNM 183023) from the Calvert Formation that he had referred to tiedemani in a 1991 thesis represented a new Squalodon species that he later (2005) named S. whitmorei. Also note that Dooley (2003) considers the problematic odontocete Saurocetus to be a probable relative of Ankylorhiza based on examination of undescribed specimens in the Charleston Museum.

 

 

 

Good question, and very observant! I think that was based on the Boreske et al. (1972) skull, which was from the Pungo River Limestone at Lee Creek and was published because the skull had extensive clam borings, indicating it had been reworked. Anywho, they (after Remington Kellogg's identification, I believe) identified it as S. tiedemani. So this was a case of mistaken identity: many squalodon specimens, clearly larger than S. calvertensis, historically being assigned to S. tiedemani, the holotype of which was for a very long time so incomplete that it was not possible to clearly distinguish it from Squalodon sensu stricto.

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.

×