My first attempt at 3T horse ID. Need opinions

[diginupbones]

After getting many of my teeth ID’d by Harry, shellseeker and others I decided it was time to step up my game a little bit and start learning how to do this myself. I have been finding a lot of new teeth lately and plan on continuing to find them.  I’ve been doing tons of research and built up a pretty decent database of horse teeth descriptions  and information. So here’s my first try let me know what you think! @Harry Pristis  @Shellseeker  @fossillarry   I’m going to go with Nannippus Fricki. Upper left M1 or M2

 

 

[Shellseeker]

It is an upper left M1 or M2,  I do not think that there is a Nannippus fricki.  There is a Cormohipparion fricki, which naturally is a larger tooth than Nannippus. I have found Nannippus peninsulatus, Nannippus Aztecus, and Nannippus ingenus.  All 3 have occlusal lengths in the range of 11-16 mm.  Your tooth looks to be more than 20 mm. I do not think it can be Nannippus. It would be good to get a set of calipers to get exact measurements. 

 

[Shellseeker]

As an aside, I commend your efforts to better understand these fossils within your hunting area.  It is an investment that will pay off in the long run. I started in a very similar way, knowing almost nothing.

I sent almost every tooth to Richard Hulbert, director of the Vertebrate Research Lab at the University of Florida.  I would make my best guess on what the ID was,, and almost every time for the first 6 months, I was incorrect.  I still have all of Richard's responses. He guided me thru errors indicating what I had missed. I wish that I could be as helpful for you as Richard was for me.    Jack

[diginupbones]

4 hours ago, Shellseeker said:

It is an upper left M1 or M2,  I do not think that there is a Nannippus fricki.  There is a Cormohipparion fricki, which naturally is a larger tooth than Nannippus. I have found Nannippus peninsulatus, Nannippus Aztecus, and Nannippus ingenus.  All 3 have occlusal lengths in the range of 11-16 mm.  Your tooth looks to be more than 20 mm. I do not think it can be Nannippus. It would be good to get a set of calipers to get exact measurements. 

 

Actually a lot of the information I have is from an old Hulbert  publication. Much of his research is from specimens from Florida to Texas and Nebraska. Here is his info on Nannippus Fricki from Nebraska. Figure G is the tooth I am looking at. I’m still trying to figure out exactly where he is taking his measurements on these teeth. I hope it is OK to post this info, someone  please let me know if it isn’t so I can remove it. 

[Shellseeker]

So you are starting to understand the difficulty in identification of small horse teeth from 5-20 million years ago.

Please do a google search for "Nannippus fricki" in quotes. It looks like this !!! Only 3 references.. there are 108 references for "Cormohipparion fricki".. No one, certainly not me , can intellegently discuss whether your tooth is Nannippus fricki or not. I have never heard of Nannippus fricki".

 

I'll send an email to Richard Hulbert and see what he says.

[Harry Pristis]

Here are the ways to measure the horse teeth:

 

 

[diginupbones]

1 hour ago, Shellseeker said:

Please do a google search for "Nannippus fricki" in quotes. It looks like this !!! Only 3 references.. there are 108 references for "Cormohipparion fricki".. No one, certainly not me , can intellegently discuss whether your tooth is Nannippus fricki or not. I have never heard of Nannippus fricki".

 

[Shellseeker]

19 hours ago, diginupbones said:

Actually a lot of the information I have is from an old Hulbert  publication. Much of his research is from specimens from Florida to Texas and Nebraska. Here is his info on Nannippus Fricki from Nebraska. Figure G is the tooth I am looking at. I’m still trying to figure out exactly where he is taking his measurements on these teeth. I hope it is OK to post this info, someone  please let me know if it isn’t so I can remove it. 

Well, I have a response from Richard. I am very pleased and lucky that Richard chose to share so much of the details on this name with us. Richard has tremendous expertise in Fossil horses and extends my knowledge and understanding with every response. After reading his response,  I think you will understand why Richard would prefer the use of "Nannippus n. sp." so that other terms do not proliferate across the internet.

Quote

The species name Nannippus fricki was never officially described and so is not a valid name. It really should not be used in public discussions, so I am glad not to see it on many Google search results. I used the name in my 1987 Ph.D. dissertation with the full intention of officially describing it within a few years of graduating. The rules for creating and using scientific names of animals specifically state that names described in dissertations are not valid. Of course back in 1987 I probably did not envision a day when the UF library system would scan old dissertations and make them publicly available to everyone. I did submit a manuscript naming the species to a journal in the early 1990s, but it was rejected for what I would in hindsight agree were valid reasons. But by then I had moved on to Georgia Southern University and had to train myself to become an expert on early cetaceans, which led up to my describing Georgiacetus vogtlensis. And I have never gotten around to naming the species, nor has anyone else named it.

So, Nannippus n. sp. (as I prefer to refer what in the dissertation I called N. fricki) is known from many Clarendonian age faunas and localities east of the Rockies including South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Florida. My research back in the 1980s concluded that the genera Nannippus and Cormohipparion shared a common ancestor in the early Barstovian, close to or possibly the species originally called Cormohipparion goorisi but which I informally call “Merychippus” goorisi. It is a medium-sized species. When the genera diverged, the Nannippus n. sp., oldest known species in the genus retained that medium-size, while species in Cormohipparion increased in size. Later species of Nannippus became smaller through time.

 

I would agree that the tooth in the image has the right combination of size and characters to be Nannippus n. sp. But identifying a single horse tooth with no chronologic context is always problematic. So I would say that identification is likely right with a probability of about 60 to 70%. There are a couple of other hipparion species known from the Great Plains region that on occasion may have a tooth fitting this description and size, but they (in my mind) each have only a 5 to 10% chance of being right. It is only when you have entire toothrows or large samples of isolated teeth that you can get close to being 100% certain of a specific ID for a fossil horse. Never 100% certain!

Best wishes,   Richard

 

[diginupbones]

16 minutes ago, Shellseeker said:

So I would say that identification is likely right with a probability of about 60 to 70%.

I’ll  take 60 to 70% all day long for my first attempt! Thanks for sharing that info, it was very educational. Thanks also to Mr. Hulbert  for taking the time to explain that. I just got a notice from Amazon this morning that his book “The fossil vertebrates of Florida”was delivered to my house today, can’t wait to get home!