Tiny Enchodus Skull?

[Titan]

My Mom (being the totally awesome Mom that she is) took me on a fossil hunting trip when I was thirteen (way back in 2003) out in the Smokey Hill Chalk of Kansas with a group of students. We got to dig on a private ranch and I found this specimen splitting a layer of the chalk. I learned really quickly to follow an older gentleman that was one of the organizers of the trip and he'd tell me about the layers we were digging in and of past finds which I found very interesting. When he found a string of fish vertebra sticking out of the chalk I asked if I could dig into the hill beside him. He said yes and a few minutes later I'd found this (and he had an entire two foot fish tail) It's about 4.5 cm long and I think it's a tiny enchodus skull but I'd love some feedback on what y'all think it is?

 

1:

 

2:

 

3:

 

4:

 

5:

 

Thanks,

- James

[jpc]

those fangs look Enchodus-ish... but I don't know if there are smaller fishes with similar fangs.  

[Titan]

@jpc That's what is bothering me about it - it's so small compared to other specimens I've found online. The shape of the fangs looks right to me as well, and the smaller fish (by no means exhaustive) I've found examples of tend to have more rounded profiles.

[jpc]

do you have or can you get a copy of Oceans of Kansas (book)? ... or look at the web site.  OceansofKansas.com (I think)  That might be a great help. 

[Titan]

@jpc Yep! I looked through his site over the last few days and can't find anything other than enchodus that looks familiar. Thanks for the suggestion - it's a great site.

[Lone Hunter]

Enchodus doesn't have any round fins assuming the fins shown are from same fish. What about Cimolichthy? 

[Titan]

@Lone Hunter I'm no expert, but the teeth look markedly different from Cimolichthy to me. I'm not sure about the fin - if it is a fin as I thought it looked like a scale. Thanks for weighing in though, I appreciate the comment

[Randyw]

I’ll go along with enchodus..... as to the size that doesn’t concern me they were laid as small eggs after all. I agree those are scales on the back.

p.s. Looking at the jaw I think you’ve got the skull upside down. That looks like the lower jaw on top...

[Al Dente]

I’m pretty confident this is Enchodus. I don’t know of any other fish with this type of palatine teeth.

 

 

[Mahnmut]

Hi,

I just took a look at the fish-chapter of the new edition of Oceans of Kansas that I received just about a month ago.

Among the species that are described in detail I do not find anything besides Enchodus fitting your fossil. There is a long list of fish species of the chalk that I do not feel free to copy out. Among the closer relatives of Enchodus there is only Cimolichthys mentioned, which was bigger than Enchodus. But among the species of Enchodus, E. petrosus is only the biggest one, there are smaller ones that may have been only about two times the size of your fossil when adult.

It seems that small and juvenile fossils are even more scarce in the chalk then everywhere else, so your fossil may be of interest to some experts.

Best Regards,

J

Edited April 29, 2021 by Mahnmut
spelling

[Titan]

@Randyw Thanks for the comment, I agree on all counts. I waffled back and forth about it being flipped but I do think you're right:

 

@Al Dente Thanks for weighing in!

 

@Mahnmut Thanks for taking a look in said book. I'm going to have to get that one - just added it to my wish-list

I'd be happy to contribute it to science but I'm not sure who I would need to get in touch with about it.

 

In hindsight I'm not sure why I waffled on the orientation - it's pretty obvious with no eye socket, and the curve of the snout is all wrong in my original orientation. I need to make a habit of rotating all my finds when trying to ID them.

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Titan

[ParkerPaleo]

I thought most of the tiny fish skulls were attributes to different genera and not the big ones (Xiphactinus, Enchodus, Gillicus, etc) and the opinion is the spawning grounds are not preserved in the current chalk outcrops.  I also think J.D. Stewart has done most of the work on identifying the tiny fish we do find in the chalk.  I know we donated a large batch to him/LACM many years ago at a minimum.

 

At any rate, found this reference you might peek at.

 

http://www.northtexasfossils.com/pdfs/AnnotatedChecklist.pdf

 

 

[GeschWhat]

4 hours ago, Titan said:

@Randyw Thanks for the comment, I agree on all counts. I waffled back and forth about it being flipped but I do think you're right:

 

@Al Dente Thanks for weighing in!

 

@Mahnmut Thanks for taking a look in said book. I'm going to have to get that one - just added it to my wish-list

I'd be happy to contribute it to science but I'm not sure who I would need to get in touch with about it.

 

In hindsight I'm not sure why I waffled on the orientation - it's pretty obvious with no eye socket, and the curve of the snout is all wrong in my original orientation. I need to make a habit of rotating all my finds when trying to ID them.

 

I commend you on being willing to donate your specimen for further study!  I recommend you contact Mike Everhart at Oceans of Kansas. His email is in the top right, although it is written out (I assume to prevent spam). I have corresponded with him a number of times in the past. He has always been really helpful and would know where it can be donated. I know he told me a while back that there are drawers and drawers of smaller fish that have yet to be described.