Jump to content

Baryonyx tooth


BonuFrailman

Recommended Posts

 Hi everyone! 

 

 I recently purchased this tooth from the Isle of Wight that was sold to me as Baryonyx.  What I’m wondering is what you guys think about it I’ve looked at it numerous times under a loupe but I’ll have to use the sellers pictures because I’m bad at taking pictures.

 

Info: 

Hastings Beds 

Wealden FM

Weald Clay

Bexhill, East Sussex, UK

Valanginian 135 MYO

.9 cm length 

433C7087-7F7C-4796-92F4-DF12BF00B5A3.jpeg

BF0B1A5B-9DA1-43D9-8A54-399D67AD0FB8.jpeg

F0F4971D-3D9D-4773-8641-E1C65481E465.jpeg

FCEC493B-8BEE-4765-BD02-DF20BC011AAF.jpeg

975B3E98-F629-43A1-BB56-520164460241.jpeg

6C688EFA-09C1-4154-AD3B-FFD28FBE0744.jpeg

26FFB2AC-363E-4197-9D03-EF914F180832.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be cautious calling all British spinosaurids Baryonyx. Baryonyx itself is known starting with Barremian (~130 mya) in Wessex formation of Isle of Wight and contemporary formations in Sussex. Your tooth is from Valanginian, ~135 mya, Hastings beds (if I remember correctly Wadhurst clay formation), from which the only known spinosaurid is Suchosaurus. Synonymity of Suchosaurus and Baryonyx is debatable, but they were not contemporary.

  • I found this Informative 2

The Tooth Fairy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Anomotodon said:

I would be cautious calling all British spinosaurids Baryonyx. Baryonyx itself is known starting with Barremian (~130 mya) in Wessex formation of Isle of Wight and contemporary formations in Sussex. Your tooth is from Valanginian, ~135 mya, Hastings beds (if I remember correctly Wadhurst clay formation), from which the only known spinosaurid is Suchosaurus. Synonymity of Suchosaurus and Baryonyx is debatable, but they were not contemporary.

Does it appear to be a spinosaurid tooth? Or would you lean more toward croc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve probed the tooth with my loupe and a high power flashlight and there are definitely denticles. They are extremely small so photo 10 is the best view of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice pickup & good pics as well. Based on the tiny denticles I believe it's probably spinosaurid, just comparing it to other similar teeth I've seen posted on here. Going off what Anomotodon was saying, I think it's best to label it as Spinosauridae indet.- but it wouldn't be unreasonable to label it as cf. Suchosaurus sp. or cf. Baryonyx sp. if you wanted to. 

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

5 hours ago, PaleoNoel said:

Nice pickup & good pics as well. Based on the tiny denticles I believe it's probably spinosaurid, just comparing it to other similar teeth I've seen posted on here. Going off what Anomotodon was saying, I think it's best to label it as Spinosauridae indet.- but it wouldn't be unreasonable to label it as cf. Suchosaurus sp. or cf. Baryonyx sp. if you wanted to. 

Thanks, I’m very glad I was able to get it! And just to add to my Indet collection I think I’ll label it Spinosauridae indet like you suggested:ighappy:

The closest example I’ve seen to my tooth is this one which I believe is Troodon’s.

 

Just comparing this one’s denticles to mine set my mind at ease as the denticles look very close as well as the ridges and small size.

B58F852C-7C03-4908-842C-04675BBF2033.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To support what @Anomotodon said here are some comments from Denver Fowlers short paper.  I would suggest identifying it as an indet. baryonychine.

 

 

RECENTLY REDISCOVERED BARYONYCHINE TEETH (DINOSAURIA: THEROPODA): NEW MORPHOLOGIC DATA, RANGE  EXTENSION & SIMILARITY TO CERATOSAURUS. 2017
FOWLER, D. W.: Museum of the Rockies, Bozeman, MT

 

 

The status of Suchosaurus cultridens (nOwen, 1841): implications for taxonomic nomenclature
Also stored in amongst the crocodilian drawers of the BMNH is a tooth (R5226, Fig. 10) labeled as Suchosaurus cultridens. Although somewhat worn, the morphology of R5226 is not consistent with it being a crocodilian.
Owen (1841) described some isolated teeth from the “Wealden” (Tilgate Forest, Sussex: Buffetaut, 2007) as a new crocodile: Suchosaurus cultridens. The name Suchosaurus subsequently became largely forgotten in most circles, but has prevailed amongst local collectors, particularly on the Isle of Wight, who in recent 
years especially, have found many of the relatively common teeth. A tooth from the Wessex Fm of the Isle of Wight, illustrated by Simpson (1993) and labeled as “Suchosaurus?” is clearly of baryonychine morphology: predating the identification of “Baryonyx sp.” teeth from this formation (Martill & Hutt, 1996) by 3 years. That 
specimens of comparable morphology have been referred to by both names demonstrates that Suchosaurus cultridens teeth are clearly baryonychine and herein lies a problem. While it is almost certainly true that Suchosaurus is a senior synonym of Baryonyx,  the incomplete nature of Suchosaurus means that it is probably best to continue to use Baryonyx (Buffetaut, 2007). However, since Suchosaurus is the oldest 
recognized named genus it should take superiority over both Baryonyx and Spinosaurus with regard to hierarchal nomenclature. Thus superfamily Spinosauroidea (sensu Sereno et al 1998) becomes Suchosauroidea; family 
Spinosauridae (sensu: Stromer, 1915) becomes Suchosauridae, comprising Spinosaurinae (sensu Holtz et al, 2004) and Suchosaurinae (=Baryonychinae, sensu Holtz et al, 2004). Alternatively, Baryonychidae (sensu Charig & Milner, 1986) becomes Suchosauridae. These changes should occur due to ICZN rules regardless of whether Suchosaurus is synonymised with Baryonyx or not.

  • I found this Informative 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Troodon said:

To support what @Anomotodon said here are some comments from Denver Fowlers short paper.  I would suggest identifying it as an indet. baryonychine.

 

 

RECENTLY REDISCOVERED BARYONYCHINE TEETH (DINOSAURIA: THEROPODA): NEW MORPHOLOGIC DATA, RANGE  EXTENSION & SIMILARITY TO CERATOSAURUS. 2017
FOWLER, D. W.: Museum of the Rockies, Bozeman, MT

 

 

The status of Suchosaurus cultridens (nOwen, 1841): implications for taxonomic nomenclature
Also stored in amongst the crocodilian drawers of the BMNH is a tooth (R5226, Fig. 10) labeled as Suchosaurus cultridens. Although somewhat worn, the morphology of R5226 is not consistent with it being a crocodilian.
Owen (1841) described some isolated teeth from the “Wealden” (Tilgate Forest, Sussex: Buffetaut, 2007) as a new crocodile: Suchosaurus cultridens. The name Suchosaurus subsequently became largely forgotten in most circles, but has prevailed amongst local collectors, particularly on the Isle of Wight, who in recent 
years especially, have found many of the relatively common teeth. A tooth from the Wessex Fm of the Isle of Wight, illustrated by Simpson (1993) and labeled as “Suchosaurus?” is clearly of baryonychine morphology: predating the identification of “Baryonyx sp.” teeth from this formation (Martill & Hutt, 1996) by 3 years. That 
specimens of comparable morphology have been referred to by both names demonstrates that Suchosaurus cultridens teeth are clearly baryonychine and herein lies a problem. While it is almost certainly true that Suchosaurus is a senior synonym of Baryonyx,  the incomplete nature of Suchosaurus means that it is probably best to continue to use Baryonyx (Buffetaut, 2007). However, since Suchosaurus is the oldest 
recognized named genus it should take superiority over both Baryonyx and Spinosaurus with regard to hierarchal nomenclature. Thus superfamily Spinosauroidea (sensu Sereno et al 1998) becomes Suchosauroidea; family 
Spinosauridae (sensu: Stromer, 1915) becomes Suchosauridae, comprising Spinosaurinae (sensu Holtz et al, 2004) and Suchosaurinae (=Baryonychinae, sensu Holtz et al, 2004). Alternatively, Baryonychidae (sensu Charig & Milner, 1986) becomes Suchosauridae. These changes should occur due to ICZN rules regardless of whether Suchosaurus is synonymised with Baryonyx or not.

Wow so is the paper theorizing on the family name change or is it actually suggesting that spinosauroidea will be changed to suchosauroidea?

 

Anyways, I’ll definitely be labeling it as an indet baryonychine like you and Noel said!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Troodon said:

While it is almost certainly true that Suchosaurus is a senior synonym of Baryonyx,  the incomplete nature of Suchosaurus means that it is probably best to continue to use Baryonyx (Buffetaut, 2007). However, since Suchosaurus is the oldest recognized named genus it should take superiority over both Baryonyx and Spinosaurus with regard to hierarchal nomenclature. Thus superfamily Spinosauroidea (sensu Sereno et al 1998) becomes Suchosauroidea; family Spinosauridae (sensu: Stromer, 1915) becomes Suchosauridae, comprising Spinosaurinae (sensu Holtz et al, 2004) and Suchosaurinae (=Baryonychinae, sensu Holtz et al, 2004). Alternatively, Baryonychidae (sensu Charig & Milner, 1986) becomes Suchosauridae. These changes should occur due to ICZN rules regardless of whether Suchosaurus is synonymised with Baryonyx or not.

That is, unless the names Baryonix and Spinosaurus - especially as (super)family names - are also declared nomina protecta, as happened, rather recently, to Manospondylus gigas - or, what most people would be more familiar with as Tyrannosaurus rex. Not sure whether the former two names already live up to the requirements, but my first guess would be that this would be the case at least for Spinosaurus...

  • I found this Informative 2

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2020 at 1:33 AM, BonuFrailman said:

 Hi everyone! 

 

 I recently purchased this tooth from the Isle of Wight that was sold to me as Baryonyx.  What I’m wondering is what you guys think about it I’ve looked at it numerous times under a loupe but I’ll have to use the sellers pictures because I’m bad at taking pictures.

 

Info: 

Hastings Beds 

Wealden FM

Weald Clay

Bexhill, East Sussex, UK

Valanginian 135 MYO

.9 cm length

Just briefly to point out that this tooth is not actually from the Isle of Wight, but rather from the Hastings Beds at Hastings, close to Bexhill-on-Sea, where the tooth's collector and seller lives. Hastings is their usual hunting ground, so you can be sure it comes from there. Knowing the seller's long collection history, and the fact that they've, in the past, also sold more clearly identifiable Baryonix material, I'd not hesitate to go along with their assessment and expertise. It's the same guy who found the only dinosaur fossilised brain ever discovered (see here), which I think takes a high degree of knowledge and a great eye for detail.

  • I found this Informative 2

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

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...