Jump to content

Neohipparion eurystyle


andy_mnemonic

Recommended Posts

andy_mnemonic

Hi TFF!

I picked up a horse tooth recently that I believe is a Neohipparion eurystyle.  It is 21mm x 20mm x 34mm and found somewhere in south Florida.  Can anyone confirm for me?  Thanks! @Shellseeker @Harry Pristis

20201003_172633edit.thumb.jpg.6a23ed39c2349feeb3c685c4f32c85f3.jpg

 

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

Nice tooth, Andy...

You should know that I am on shakey ground identifying sm horse teeth.  Somewhere along the lines of '..in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king...

I can normally get to the genus , but the species level tends to slow me down.  So,  most of this is what I think rather than what I know.... It is a left upper molar, likely a P3 or P4 of a Neohipparion.  There are some possibilities of which the most common one is N. eurystyle so that is the best best. I am slightly concerned about the complexity level of the fossette plications . Your teeth seem more complex as does the phi cabillinid than I would expect in a N. eurystyle.  You should consider N. trampasense as another likely candidate...

 

As Richard Hulbert so frequently tells me, identifying isolated teeth is errorprone.  My primary references are the University of Florida Identification service and Richard's book "The Fossil Vertebrates of Florida"

  • I found this Informative 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shellseeker said:

Nice tooth, Andy...

You should know that I am on shakey ground identifying sm horse teeth.  Somewhere along the lines of '..in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king...

I can normally get to the genus , but the species level tends to slow me down.  So,  most of this is what I think rather than what I know.... It is a left upper molar, likely a P3 or P4 of a Neohipparion.  There are some possibilities of which the most common one is N. eurystyle so that is the best best. I am slightly concerned about the complexity level of the fossette plications . Your teeth seem more complex as does the phi cabillinid than I would expect in a N. eurystyle.  You should consider N. trampasense as another likely candidate...

 

As Richard Hulbert so frequently tells me, identifying isolated teeth is errorprone.  My primary references are the University of Florida Identification service and Richard's book "The Fossil Vertebrates of Florida"

 

Hi Jack,

 

I can identify some shark teeth but find myself mystified in the complexity of the enamel pattern of Late Miocene horse teeth.  When in doubt, I alert Fossillarry.  @fossillarry

 

Jess

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
andy_mnemonic
14 hours ago, Shellseeker said:

Nice tooth, Andy...

You should know that I am on shakey ground identifying sm horse teeth.  Somewhere along the lines of '..in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king...

I can normally get to the genus , but the species level tends to slow me down.  So,  most of this is what I think rather than what I know.... It is a left upper molar, likely a P3 or P4 of a Neohipparion.  There are some possibilities of which the most common one is N. eurystyle so that is the best best. I am slightly concerned about the complexity level of the fossette plications . Your teeth seem more complex as does the phi cabillinid than I would expect in a N. eurystyle.  You should consider N. trampasense as another likely candidate...

 

As Richard Hulbert so frequently tells me, identifying isolated teeth is errorprone.  My primary references are the University of Florida Identification service and Richard's book "The Fossil Vertebrates of Florida"

I hadn't thought of of N. trampasense...I was thinking N. eurystyle because it was similar to the below tooth listed as a eurystyle M1 on the UF Vertebrate Paleontology Database.

vp_uf-tro01367occ.thumb.jpg.f8fa4fbbf547cd4a29bf7d6918cb429d.jpg

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

I hadn't thought of of N. trampasense...I was thinking N. eurystyle because it was similar to the below tooth listed as a eurystyle M1 on the UF Vertebrate Paleontology Database.

 

Andy,

I see that there are a number of excellent examples of N. eurystyle added to this thread,  and your tooth is most likely that species. 

I had recently discussed  what turned out to be a Nannippus westoni, tooth and even though I compared it to both N. peninsulatus and a N. aztecus,  I missed both the identification of the species and tooth position. Somewhat humbling. 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
andy_mnemonic
22 hours ago, Shellseeker said:

 

Andy,

I see that there are a number of excellent examples of N. eurystyle added to this thread,  and your tooth is most likely that species. 

I had recently discussed  what turned out to be a Nannippus westoni, tooth and even though I compared it to both N. peninsulatus and a N. aztecus,  I missed both the identification of the species and tooth position. Somewhat humbling. 

 

It certainly is a fun little challenge trying to id these isolated equid teeth.  Thanks for all the inputs!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have examined the photo of this specimen several times now comparing it with pictures in The Fossil Vertebrate of Florida .  I have specimens of Neohipparion trampasense and N.eurystile from Florida so I can do comparison with this tooth.  The tooth is, in my opinion, a left upper  premolar 3/4 and is  rather from Cormohipparion not Neohipparion.  I believe this is so for the following reasons: 1) the parastyle is not bifurcate,and the posterior part is not recurved towards the back of the tooth,the mesostyle is not bifurcate(in premolars)and the metastyle  is to short and not recurved anteriorly as in eurystyle. If the terms I us are not familiar consult The Fossil Vertebrates of Florida. 2) in most of my specimens of  N eurystile  the fossette plications are not as numerous as they are is this specimen. 3) the pli cabillin is usually single and never multiples as in this tooth . 4)The protocone is relatively  short in this tooth. In Neohipparion euryhipparion the anterior posterior length of the protocone is usually at least half the length of the tooth.   All the features of this tooth  are more comparable to to the genus  Cormohipparion rather then Neohipparion.   If there are any questions about my ID of this specimen  they  will have to wait as I'm going out of town for two week but I will check this thread when I get  back.

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Pristis

Nothing works better than an illustration:

 

horse_teeth_terms.thumb.JPG.9ae2e496e6a519bd1c9b5127b5bd7c16.JPG

 

horse_cormo_emsliei_uppers.JPG.541124efab114c0f28a99f1aebf05b2a.JPG

 

5f8216a97f6b4_horse_cormohipparionemsliei.JPG.c84137810c3f84598c770a2ebcf6dbbe.JPG

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
andy_mnemonic
4 hours ago, fossillarry said:

I have examined the photo of this specimen several times now comparing it with pictures in The Fossil Vertebrate of Florida .  I have specimens of Neohipparion trampasense and N.eurystile from Florida so I can do comparison with this tooth.  The tooth is, in my opinion, a left upper  premolar 3/4 and is  rather from Cormohipparion not Neohipparion.  I believe this is so for the following reasons: 1) the parastyle is not bifurcate,and the posterior part is not recurved towards the back of the tooth,the mesostyle is not bifurcate(in premolars)and the metastyle  is to short and not recurved anteriorly as in eurystyle. If the terms I us are not familiar consult The Fossil Vertebrates of Florida. 2) in most of my specimens of  N eurystile  the fossette plications are not as numerous as they are is this specimen. 3) the pli cabillin is usually single and never multiples as in this tooth . 4)The protocone is relatively  short in this tooth. In Neohipparion euryhipparion the anterior posterior length of the protocone is usually at least half the length of the tooth.   All the features of this tooth  are more comparable to to the genus  Cormohipparion rather then Neohipparion.   If there are any questions about my ID of this specimen  they  will have to wait as I'm going out of town for two week but I will check this thread when I get  back.

 

Wow, you sure did an in depth analysis of my tooth!  After taking your advice, and looking at the great images @Harry Pristis posted, I think it's safe to say it's a Cormohipparion P34.

 

Thanks for the help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not like I did not have a good comparison tooth that  I found this year:

2020Mar30thCormohipparion_emslieiText.jpg.b181363847ecbf702fda2cb4b97d40c8.jpg

 

Kudos to Harry on the excellent research visuals. :tiphat:

Larry's analysis demonstrates why he is the TFF expert on small horse teeth. It is not just identification of a tooth, but having the knowledge to say exactly which characteristics of the tooth forces a specific identification.

 

I am going to end up memorizing Larry's analysis trying to understand each distinction because it might help me to get a correct identification for C. emsliei next time around.  :zzzzscratchchin:

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.

×
×
  • Create New...