Melodon majori?

[blackmoth]

I got a this fossil piece that is supposedly "Melodon major". with the knowledge that local people would always try to put the broken and/or deformed pieces together, just to make it look  more appealing in the market.   It seems to me that the occlusion of the front teeth looks "original", and so does the skull, as the cervical vertebra

was not visible until I removed the clays (I assume people would not fake something that is not visible). The cheekbone looks kind of unnatural and was probably "assembled", as it is protruding  and tends to break off.

 

However, the lower jaw bones, or at least one side of it, looks too big to fit the upper one. I removed the clays beneath it to reveal the plaster in it, so I know at least the clays is not original. People had to stuff in a lot plaster (maybe just to provide the strength).

 

My question is, could the lower jaw bone (or one side if it, as the two sides look quite different)  is from another individual melodon, or even some other species (like some dog)? Is the occlusion really convincingly "natural".

 

I am uploading a few pics here first. I could do more "trimming" and take more photos if needed for ID.

 

[digit]

We don't see a lot of mustelids here on the forum. Most folks won't even know that Melodon is an extinct genus of Miocene badgers.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mustelids

 

You might get some input from folks here who are good at spotting fakes, reconstruction, and compositing in other types of fossils but you won't likely find someone who is very familiar with what this species is supposed to look like. Internet image searches come up blank for this species.

 

Hopefully, some members might be able to spot some signs of irregularities (if any) and will chime-in here. It's an interesting and unusual skull.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[ParkerPaleo]

I'll post some pictures later today but the lower jaws do appear to be from another individual or species even, they look too large to me.  It is not uncommon for this material to be composited heavily.  The left side carnassial looks almost cat-like.

[jpc]

9 minutes ago, ParkerPaleo said:

The left side carnassial looks almost cat-like.

that was my initial reaction as well. 

[digit]

I'm always leery of a fossil that has suspicious clumps of "matrix" around areas like the bases of teeth where they might be covering a poorly executed glue job sticking in a tooth that doesn't belong. It will be interesting to see photos of this cleaned-up a bit more to see if the teeth seem to match side to side and top to bottom.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[LabRatKing]

5 hours ago, digit said:

We don't see a lot of mustelids here on the forum. Most folks won't even know that Melodon is an extinct genus of Miocene badgers.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mustelids

 

You might get some input from folks here who are good at spotting fakes, reconstruction, and compositing in other types of fossils but you won't likely find someone who is very familiar with what this species is supposed to look like. Internet image searches come up blank for this species.

 

Hopefully, some members might be able to spot some signs of irregularities (if any) and will chime-in here. It's an interesting and unusual skull.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

I have a bunch of casts of various mustelids from this era. They are at the house getting painted and such. Ill post them up for comparison in a few hours.

 

Is "meladon" an accepted genus? I cannot find anything on them. Perhaps Mellivora was meant?

 

The specimen in the OP looks similar to Megalictis  in the "snout" portion, but the cranium is all wrong even for the other mustelids.

 

the "reconstruction" of the zygomatic arches are pretty poor as described byt the OP.

 

This image grabbed from the web shows M. ferox which is well described from my neck of the woods.

 

the cranium in to OP is too short and too blunt compared to the other musties I am vaguely familiar with.

 

I agree the size of the mandible...it is a bit too long for that skull, is it not?

 

Ill eat my hat if those upper teeth are fossils. They look like modern Canis  glued in.

 

I think there may be at least four different genera here all cobbled together, both extant and extinct.

 

 

I have strong suspicions that this is Artis fabricanis  or perhaps the subspecies nonexistanaes

[Earendil]

I will say, while it is sad that @blackmoth's find is probably fabricated, it is really fascinating to hear about and see the ways illegal fossil peddlers operate!

[ParkerPaleo]

I have 3 badger specimen here but this one looks closest to yours.  I'm not sure what the genus is on any of them.

 

Things to note though. 

 

• The attachment for the back of the jaw is beneath the back of the zygomatic, the lower jaw should not be as long as the example you have.
• The teeth in my specimen are occluded or tightly set together.  But you can see that the size of the teeth is smaller than yours.  I still think you have a cat (lynx?) lower jaw on the left side.
• I don't think your specimen has real zygomatics, there should be a more defined shape and form to them than your specimen.  I'd wager your zygomatics are rib or other bone pieces that have been glued/mudded on.

I'm sure we could go on and on and nit pick, but that's not my point here.  I really do want the community to be better educated about how fossil structures/bones should look.  While the specimen may be a composite, I disagree that it is not interesting.  I'd be happy to have it, outside of the White River material, specimens like this in the States are hard to come by.  But you do have to realize it's likely from multiple animals.  The only way to figure out for sure is to fully prepare the piece and remove all the excess matrix/mud.  And if at the end, you end up with an upper skull of a badger and two jaws from other things and probably a few extra bone bits, then that is cool too.

 

My general rule when it comes to this Chinese Miocene material is to assume it has been doctored badly, and that I will have to sort out what's real or not.  (This may actually be a good rule for almost any material you get where the chain of ownership is suspect, every dealer wants to show their specimen the best they can and too often, it gets adulterated in some way)  I don't even think the specimen I pictured is 100% but its not quite as doctored as the original one posted.  I haven't had time to take my collection of Miocene material apart yet.  That will be a job for another day.

 

[blackmoth]

A big thank you to all of you who have posted under my OP.  I do not feel bad at all, as  I am after  the knowledge ( including the "doctoring" part) and  the joyful moment  of learning, not the ownership of any particular fossil piece, great or not.

[minnbuckeye]

I know NOTHING about miocene skulls of any species.  I see the coronoid process extends past the zygomatic process which can't be in fossil or recent species. Is this why everyone says the mandible is too long? Everyone also feels the zygomatic arches are reconstructed. So as another theory, again from an uneducated individual, couldn't the mandible be of this skull but the reconstructed zygomatic arches were stopped too short caudally, making the mandible appear of another animal?? 

 

 Respectfully, 

Mike 

 

 Actually, after printing off a picture and drawing in longer arches, it just didn't fit the skull. So much for my theory!!

[ParkerPaleo]

10 hours ago, blackmoth said:

A big thank you to all of you who have posted under my OP.  I do not feel bad at all, as  I am after  the knowledge ( including the "doctoring" part) and  the joyful moment  of learning, not the ownership of any particular fossil piece, great or not.

The conversation did inspire me a little.  I had the thought to go look for an osteology class/lecture and see if there was anything free online.  Makes me wish I had the forethought to record my professors lectures a few decades ago.

 

I'm glad you took my comments as educational as they were intended. 

[mikeymig]

I owned one a few years ago. I also purchased many fossil skulls and teeth from China in the 90s. The composite specimens I soaked in warm water to remove all the plaster, putty, and glue. Most of your specimen looks good to my eye. At the least you will know whats real or not. 

Happy Collecting.

[ParkerPaleo]

1 hour ago, mikeymig said:

I owned one a few years ago. I also purchased many fossil skulls and teeth from China in the 90s. The composite specimens I soaked in warm water to remove all the plaster, putty, and glue. Most of your specimen looks good to my eye. At the least you will know whats real or not. 

Happy Collecting.

What genus did you have on yours?

[blackmoth]

I tried to get rid of most of the plaster and putty , to reveal the bottom of the skull. it looks real but terribly fractured, which I think also tells that (both) the jaw bones are alien as

if they were there with the skull all the time, the bottom side of the skull would not have been crushed this much.

the left jaw bone looks like from a cat, with its three premolars. The right one is from a dog-like animal( with 3 P and 2 M), but it iooks too big to match the skull, plus that it is

completely joint with the skull with plaster.

 

[ParkerPaleo]

Looks like a 3 for 1 special!

 

 

[blackmoth]

the melodon is called " densely teethed badger" in Chinese but no body could tell me why? Comparing it with a modern bagder's skull, I could see two differences:

1) the space between the two canine teeth is narrow, so that the incisors have to be "densely teethed";

2) the last molars are placed more inwardly ( the lower jaw bone looks more rounded), as is seen in this pic, after I removed more stuff to reveal the maxilla.

I am not sure if my humble observations make  any sense.

BTW I am attaching more pic about the lower jaws.  Any clue what they could be? they  both look well petrified to me . The dog-like lower jaw seems to me  not just too big for the skull but also too thin and fragile for a badger.

[blackmoth]

the dog like lower jaw bone pics must be provided in a separate post, as I could not post more pic here.

[blackmoth]

this  is a follow up from a previous post.   the dog like lower jaw bone pics.

[blackmoth]

sorry that I forgot to attach a complete one with the canine tooth ( could be fake) and the premolar that is not on the  broken off piece.

In case you did not read the previous post, the lower jaw bone could not match the skull, I think it must be of a differnt species.

[Kiros]

Yes, it looks like canid, still it looks fossil, there are at least three different canids in hezheng biota, try research it a bit. That upper right canine looks very much attached and modern unfortunately

[Kiros]

This sort of Frankenfossil are more convinent that many think. For a relative low price if you can dismantle it you can get a good number of different fossil animals

[Fossildude19]

TOPICS MERGED.

[blackmoth]

3 hours ago, Kiros said:

Yes, it looks like canid, still it looks fossil, there are at least three different canids in hezheng biota, try research it a bit. That upper right canine looks very much attached and modern unfortunately

one side of the upper jaw cannie ( the shiny one) looks modern, the other one is a fossil, as it was already broken. there are many other fake parts as well, for example,

one of the orbital point is obviously faked.  Actually , one can tell the the whole face (this is probably the most geniune part, except for the teeth)  is joint with the skull.

I could tell that the bottom side of the skull is fossil , although less petrified(or strong and thick)  than the face. The top side of the skull may be partially plaster. It seems to me that

the skull could be from some canid with a long and fragile skull.

[blackmoth]

3 hours ago, Kiros said:

Yes, it looks like canid, still it looks fossil, there are at least three different canids in hezheng biota, try research it a bit. That upper right canine looks very much attached and modern unfortunately

the problem is that Hezheng have 4 different layers of fossil mammals, there is no garantee these pieces are all from the late Miocene period ( although they are likely).

I had wondered if the skull could be of a small modern dog, but dropped that idea, as it does look petrified. It is not worth the trouble to fake it.

[Kiros]

25 minutes ago, blackmoth said:

the problem is that Hezheng have 4 different layers of fossil mammals, there is no garantee these pieces are all from the late Miocene period ( although they are likely).

I had wondered if the skull could be of a small modern dog, but dropped that idea, as it does look petrified. It is not worth the trouble to fake it.

Yeah without any specific information it's impossible to know what animal it is. But I still would find it funny to try research a bit about it