The sharp end of my collection

[Gareth_]

5 minutes ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

Nice additions! Just the rooted mosasaur tooth, not sure it's tylosaurine, as those curve mesiodistally in the upper third of the tooth, rather than mediolingually, as your tooth does. Also, please note that there's some discussion on whether the Moroccan tylosaurine (which remains undescribed and unacknowledged) belongs to the genus Hainosaurus. I believe it might, but, in that case, the species would likely be a new one, and not H. bernardi.

Thanks for the info (yet again)! That's one problem I've noticed, I got these from a guy that sells fossils here in NZ, he imports them from a dealer in Morocco, that dealer buys them from sellers in Morocco.... through that chain of people a spot on accurate genus/species isn't always going to happen. Maybe the seller in Morocco has a "best guess" and from that point on the info will always be incorrect as it  passes though people - until someone like yourself that lives and breathes Mosasaurs sees the pics lol. 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

No worries, happy to help! 

 

The problem isn't limited to price material, by the way, as very few dealers sell only that which they themselves have expertise on (this would simply put them in too much of a niche market). So you'll come across misidentifications everywhere, albeit less in some places then in others. Once you build your own expertise, you'll be able to take advantage of this by hunting for bargain misidentified pieces. But there are fields, such as the identification of (marine) reptile teeth, and those of mosasaurs in particular (mosasaurs are strongly heterodont, meaning their teeth differ significantly along the jaw, but also shows overlap between species), where identification almost always proceeds on best-guess basis only.

[Gareth_]

On 5/24/2021 at 7:49 AM, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

No worries, happy to help! 

 

The problem isn't limited to price material, by the way, as very few dealers sell only that which they themselves have expertise on (this would simply put them in too much of a niche market). So you'll come across misidentifications everywhere, albeit less in some places then in others. Once you build your own expertise, you'll be able to take advantage of this by hunting for bargain misidentified pieces. But there are fields, such as the identification of (marine) reptile teeth, and those of mosasaurs in particular (mosasaurs are strongly heterodont, meaning their teeth differ significantly along the jaw, but also shows overlap between species), where identification almost always proceeds on best-guess basis only.

That is too true.... from talking to sellers that sell fossils/crystals at local markets, they tend to know very little.

That knowledge to find bargains has already paid off. A guy I buy a bit from was selling old stock, cheap....

 

So with that said, here are the newest additions to my collection....

 

Palaeocarcharodon orientalis 

 

Otodus obliquus pathological teeth

 

Mosasasur jaw section

Said to be Eremiasaurus heterodontus

80 mya

Morocco

I'd love some expert opinion on what's going on here.....  I'm thinking to the left of the tooth/jaw is the jaw bone continued but that is now the inside of the jaw bone  with a possible rise where another tooth was just behind the existing tooth. There is a broken tooth with root at the bottom end of the matrix. But.... what is that tubular thing?

 

 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

8 minutes ago, Gareth_ said:

So with that said, here are the newest additions to my collection....

 

I think the photographs are missing

[Gareth_]

9 minutes ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

 

I think the photographs are missing

I type the main message on a laptop (it's just easier than on my phone), I edit the post on my phone to add pics

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

Another very nice batch of specimens!

 

Judging from the single preserved tooth on your mosasaur block, however, I'd say the species is P. anceps, rather than E. heterodontus, as the latter has near conical teeth with a single anterior carina - features your tooth doesn't. As to what's in the block: here's an attempt, as the contents are really quite a jumble (but this is actually a good thing, as I believe it shows there's been very little tempering with the fossil). Anyway, you've got the one rooted tooth still stuck to a bit of jaw bone, with some unidentifiable bone - but possible more jawbone - to the right of it (using the first photograph as a reference). Below it, on the other side of the block (again, using the first photograph as a reference), there's another rooted tooth, though in this case the crown is broken. There are other indications of further broken tooth fragments just slightly above the end of the root of this tooth. I'm not quite sure about the tubular piece that lies in between the two main teeth, but the dents indicate this is likely a piece of mandible. Hope this helps!

[Gareth_]

18 hours ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

Another very nice batch of specimens!

 

Judging from the single preserved tooth on your mosasaur block, however, I'd say the species is P. anceps, rather than E. heterodontus, as the latter has near conical teeth with a single anterior carina - features your tooth doesn't. As to what's in the block: here's an attempt, as the contents are really quite a jumble (but this is actually a good thing, as I believe it shows there's been very little tempering with the fossil). Anyway, you've got the one rooted tooth still stuck to a bit of jaw bone, with some unidentifiable bone - but possible more jawbone - to the right of it (using the first photograph as a reference). Below it, on the other side of the block (again, using the first photograph as a reference), there's another rooted tooth, though in this case the crown is broken. There are other indications of further broken tooth fragments just slightly above the end of the root of this tooth. I'm not quite sure about the tubular piece that lies in between the two main teeth, but the dents indicate this is likely a piece of mandible. Hope this helps!

As always, thank you for your input! Yeah it looks like we're both on the same page with what's going on in that matrix, except for the detail of possibly its mandible. Part of me wants to remove more matrix to see if there are any other goodies in the matrix but the other part is telling me it's a perfect jumble of parts just the way it is! 

 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

11 minutes ago, Gareth_ said:

As always, thank you for your input! Yeah it looks like we're both on the same page with what's going on in that matrix, except for the detail of possibly its mandible. Part of me wants to remove more matrix to see if there are any other goodies in the matrix but the other part is telling me it's a perfect jumble of parts just the way it is! 

 

Whether to remove more gastric worms on what you're hoping to find, how valuable the piece is to you, and whether you're willing to experiment with it. With this type of matrix, a sharp knife and dentistry tools are typically enough for a prep-job. However, often times so much glue will have been used that the top-layer is transformed into a hard layer that difficult to get through. But, certainly, Moroccan phosphate material make for nice practice pieces...

[Gareth_]

1 hour ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

 

Whether to remove more gastric worms on what you're hoping to find, how valuable the piece is to you, and whether you're willing to experiment with it. With this type of matrix, a sharp knife and dentistry tools are typically enough for a prep-job. However, often times so much glue will have been used that the top-layer is transformed into a hard layer that difficult to get through. But, certainly, Moroccan phosphate material make for nice practice pieces...

My prep experience is literally zero.... so probably not the best piece to learn on haha. I reckon it's a nice piece as it is anyway, plenty going on within the matrix. I may have to find a way to stand it up for display, it doesn't sit in any nice way naturally 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

3 hours ago, Gareth_ said:

My prep experience is literally zero.... so probably not the best piece to learn on haha. I reckon it's a nice piece as it is anyway, plenty going on within the matrix. I may have to find a way to stand it up for display, it doesn't sit in any nice way naturally 

 

I understand, often have the anger feeling myself... However, I find that most of fossil preparation comes down to simply daring and experience. This having been said, we all have our stories of when a portion went horribly wrong - but this goes just as much for experienced preparators. What I'm saying is there's no need to hold back because you don't have experience yet: we all need to learn somewhere. Just don't start with the piece you value the most (i.e., doesn't need to be the one with the greatest financial value)

[Gareth_]

On 5/31/2021 at 12:11 AM, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

 

I understand, often have the anger feeling myself... However, I find that most of fossil preparation comes down to simply daring and experience. This having been said, we all have our stories of when a portion went horribly wrong - but this goes just as much for experienced preparators. What I'm saying is there's no need to hold back because you don't have experience yet: we all need to learn somewhere. Just don't start with the piece you value the most (i.e., doesn't need to be the one with the greatest financial value)

Good advice.... this piece cost enough money so I think I'll leave it as is. There is likely going to be an opportunity to find my own crab and shark tooth fossils late this year so I may use something like that to learn on (assuming I find something!) 

[Gareth_]

Hey all

A while back I bought a mosasaur tooth with a section of jaw bone and a few other random bits within the matrix, one of those bits I'd love help to try and identify. When I posted pics of it in another thread one very wise member had a guess at what it is but I'd like a few more opinions

I'm trying to identify the cylindrical part within the matrix....

It's from Oued Zem and is 80 million years old (this is what I was told from the seller).

 

[JohnJ]

6 hours ago, Gareth_ said:

When I posted pics of it in another thread one very wise member had a guess at what it is but I'd like a few more opinions

I'm trying to identify the cylindrical part within the matrix....

 

@Gareth_  It helps to keep discussions about the same piece in the same topic.  Doing so avoids duplicate commentary and retains the original context.  I have merged your new topic back into the original.  

 

[Gareth_]

4 hours ago, JohnJ said:

 

@Gareth_  It helps to keep discussions about the same piece in the same topic.  Doing so avoids duplicate commentary and retains the original context.  I have merged your new topic back into the original.  

 

But I'm trying to ID a specific part of this fossil which is why I put it in the Fossil ID section.

 

"Can't figure out what that fossil is? Post bright, sharp images here for identification"

 

No one is looking at this thread to ID a fossil, which is why I've had just one reply since I first posted pics of it. I'm really curious what that tube part is so I posted it in the most appropriate place in the forum to get the most views and opinions 

I'd appreciate it if you could restart my new thread 

 

[JohnJ]

I have looked at various ways to split out the discussion about the last specimen you posted, but it has been commented on here and become entwined in your original topic...a point for future reference.  

 

Let's see if we can get a few more eyes on it as a compromise.

@LordTrilobite @snolly50 @jnoun11 

[snolly50]

Coprolite, I believe, and a big one.

 

Here is a link to my most recent contact with a coprolite of similar origin.

 

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by snolly50

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

13 minutes ago, snolly50 said:

Coprolite, I believe, and a big one.

 

I didn't know you'd get coprolites in these blocks. Hadn't seen any before. But makes sense, in a way, and the cross-section of the one in your post is rather telling. Just wondering whether this could be a mosasaur coprolite, would be a shark one or... who left evidence of having visited the crime scene? @GeschWhat

[jnoun11]

hi

the cylindrical part is root of mosasaurs tooth,not coprolithe.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

9 minutes ago, jnoun11 said:

hi

the cylindrical part is root of mosasaurs tooth,not coprolithe.

 

I would've expected a root to have more vertical striations from the arrangement of the bone fibers. But may be that's just an artefact of either preservation or preparation. Also I hadn't seen the internal structure of a root before Snolly's report... In any case, tooth root makes more sense in terms of shape.

[snolly50]

2 hours ago, jnoun11 said:

not coprolithe.

Thanks, I initially thought root; but the surface texture and my recent experience, led me to "seeing" coprolite. These fossil containing matrix sections from Morocco are endlessly fascinating. I look forward to your comments whenever a piece of this type appears on the Forum.

 

As you know, the most common question posted regarding this material is: "Is it real?" Forum members are distinctly aware of "manufactured/assembled" pieces offered for sale. In fact, this seems such a strong belief; that I am curious, if some authentic (as dug) pieces are being misjudged. Responding posts often read, "teeth are added," but offer no guidance as to how that opinion was reached. Obviously, teeth that don't belong together are an excellent indicator; but that is not always the case with the negative pronouncement. 

 

Can you (or anyone) provide some concrete guidelines at detecting "assembled" pieces? The question of authenticity regarding Mosasaur jaw sections from Morocco arises so frequently; that an informed guidance as to red flags observable via photos would be very useful. 

[Gareth_]

 

16 hours ago, JohnJ said:

 

 

Let's see if we can get a few more eyes on it as a compromise.

 

Thank you, that was a good compromise! 

Thank you to all that have pitched in with an opinion, it is appreciated!

 

It does lack the striations you'd typically see on a root and it is huge compared to the rooted tooth with the broken crown, so if it is a root could it possibly be from another animal - perhaps the animal that preyed on this mosasaur? I really want it to be a coprolite because that makes this piece just that much more unique and weird!

I've added a few more pics going as close as I dare with my old samsung phone which I hope may give some additional detail to confirm for sure what it is

 

**edit - I've looked at the pics I took on a laptop so I can see more detail.... there are faint striations and on the first pic I see 2 small spots of colour - is that remains of the crown?

 

Edited July 17, 2021 by Gareth_

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

17 minutes ago, Gareth_ said:

I've looked at the pics I took on a laptop so I can see more detail.... there are faint striations and on the first pic I see 2 small spots of colour - is that remains of the crown?

 

 

Looking at these photographs, I fully agree that this is the root of a tooth. These could, in fact, get really large, with especially P. currii having ridiculously massive roots.

 

In any case, I can now make out faint traces of the expected striations, and the coloured spots in the first photograph - or,  rather, the shiny bits - do appear to be the remnants of enamel and dentin. So, yeah, the root of another large tooth. No idea what species, though, nor what the reason for association may be...

[snolly50]

22 minutes ago, Gareth_ said:

I really want it to be a coprolite

I trust @jnoun11 opinion, as he has the expertise and exposure to tons of this material. If it were mine, I would use a needle and pin vise to gently remove the occluding matrix in the "cupped" end of the piece. This may afford additional visual evidence. Good luck, have fun. 

[Gareth_]

To all of those that had some input in to identifying part of this fossil, thank you so much! Your time and effort is appreciated 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

On 7/17/2021 at 1:38 PM, snolly50 said:

Can you (or anyone) provide some concrete guidelines at detecting "assembled" pieces? The question of authenticity regarding Mosasaur jaw sections from Morocco arises so frequently; that an informed guidance as to red flags observable via photos would be very useful. 

 

While I certainly see where this is coming from and have myself frequently pondered the merit of such a guide, I think it would not only be hard to create, but also very time consuming to maintain. For the ways in which Moroccan pieces can be doctored is so diverse, the combinations of materials used in compositions so broad, and both of it so rapidly changing that it would be quite the task to describe it all. I don't think, for example, that it's possible to identify that two jaw pieces on one block would've belonged to two different species of mosasaur. And while teeth are generally more easily identified to genus or species, diagnostic features are not always visible - not even considering the fact that heterodonty in mosasaurs may cause teeth from the once species to look like those of another, potentially leading to false positives and negatives. The fact that there's still so many new discoveries being may in Morocco and so little has officially been described doesn't really help either, as there's always a chance that some odd morphology is due to an undescribed natural phenomenon (e.g., a new species). And then to find images to illustrate all of these pitfalls...! 

 

There's, of course, also the same issue that plagues every study on "forgery" (the word here used in the broadest sense as it would be used in the fields of art history and archaeology, though, contrary to the meaning if the word, I do not want to imply malicious intent), which is that as soon as you explain the tricks of identifying a fake, the forgers will start covering their tracks, making it ever harder to detect fakes. Thus, the identification of fakes - or, in this case, compositions - is a never ending battle/arms race. The best one can do is educate oneself on how the material is supposed to look, so that you yourself can make a reasonable estimate of what may have been fiddled with.

 

That having been said, I do propose the following general characteristics could give a composite away. Keep in mind, however, that I've also encountered pieces in which competition didn't come to light until further preparation was undertaken, as bones were just glued into place without visible traces, and that most of the points listed below may have an equally natural explanation (thus may lead to false positives):

 

• Notable differences in colour of matrix or bone between adjacent areas
• Cracks through either bone or matrix: a block may simply have been glued back together from its original pieces, but "missing pieces" may equally have been added
• Areas where the properties of the matrix or bone differ from that surrounding it (e.g., smother or devoid of microfossils) may indicate filling and possibly insertion of bits of bone and teeth
• Bits of associated bone (including teeth) not being connected to one another
• Mismatched patterns of bone fibres or foramina
• Teeth of different morphologies
• Bone or teeth that would naturally be thick only shallowly excavated (not necessarily an indication of composition, persé, but likely an indication that the bone or tooth doesn't extend into the matrix)

Hope this helps at least somewhat...