andy_mnemonic Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 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 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Shellseeker Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 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" 5 Link to post Share on other sites
siteseer Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 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 1 Link to post Share on other sites
andy_mnemonic Posted October 4, 2020 Author Share Posted October 4, 2020 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. Link to post Share on other sites
Harry Pristis Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 For comparison: 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Shellseeker Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 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. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
andy_mnemonic Posted October 6, 2020 Author Share Posted October 6, 2020 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
fossillarry Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 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. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Harry Pristis Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 Nothing works better than an illustration: 3 Link to post Share on other sites
andy_mnemonic Posted October 10, 2020 Author Share Posted October 10, 2020 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
Shellseeker Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 It is not like I did not have a good comparison tooth that I found this year: Kudos to Harry on the excellent research visuals. 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. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now