The sharp end of my collection

[Gareth_]

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

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.

 

I spotted this in a crystal shop (they sold a few fossils too which is why I always pop into these shops wherever I find them) in a tiny town 3 hours from home.... 

The only reason I took a photo of it was because it's so laughably fake, even down to the label "mosasaurus".

Just posting this as a good laugh 

Sad thing is, people still buy this cr4p and $30 for a manufactured fossil is very steep. It works out to be roughly £15

Edited July 19, 2021 by Gareth_

[snolly50]

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

doctored 

 

Thank you for the thoughtful and informative response. The observations are certainly sensible. Beyond obvious signs of "wrongness," (e.g. mismatched teeth installed); I fear there is no path to certainty, via remote (photographic) observation. Obviously, in hand and delving into the matrix, provides the highest degree of assurance of "as found" status. Of course, such scrutiny is not within the practical spectrum of evaluative process for the pieces presented to the Forum via the Internet. I have developed the feeling, that responses to inquiries on the Forum, are often motivated by a heuristic anchored in the general awareness of the presence of "monkeyed with" material. That is, it seems folks may be responding in a prudently cautious manner. This phenomenon is not confined to Mosasaur material from Morocco; but may be seen in many areas where there is experience/knowledge regarding fake/enhanced/altered material. Dinosaur eggs, trilobites and keichousaurus plates are examples of pieces often deemed spurious upon presentation to the Forum. Certainly, many of those observations are undeniably correct; but often an assertion is made without any discussion (or a vague proclamation, e.g. "teeth are added") without further explanation. That is, what clues point to the teeth's addition?

 

Please note, if my comments are perceived as criticism, I have no particular Forum member in mind regarding my observations. I am merely hoping for additional sharing of observational technique.    

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

7 hours ago, snolly50 said:

Certainly, many of those observations are undeniably correct; but often an assertion is made without any discussion (or a vague proclamation, e.g. "teeth are added") without further explanation. That is, what clues point to the teeth's addition?

 

I know what you mean, and it can indeed be frustrating at times. This is also part of the reason why I always try to be as extensive in my responses as is practical, since not only does it allow others to prove me wrong, but it also (hopefully) teaches those reading my comments how to reach these conclusions. My guess, however, is that most of the cases where this happens fall somewhere along the spectrum between what Bruhns and Kelker (in their excellent works on pre-Columbian art forgery, "Faking Ancient Mesoamerica" and "Faking the Ancient Andes") refer to as connoisseurship, and the general tendency on the forum towards brevity in responses. While the latter can be seen as an outcome of the effort involved in having to explain or defend oneself - which can be experienced as undesirable for a variety of reasons (no time, had to do so so many times already, not being listened to anyway, not my expertise, don't want to expose myself to criticism, etc.) - the former represents the fact that it can sometimes be difficult to define exactly why you hold a belief, as the belief itself is based on experience and may therefore be more of a feeling than a rationalised observation. As such, the closer you get to connoisseurship, the more effort is involved in trying to formulate your thoughts, the less likely these thoughts are to be written down (i.e., you get into a circular argument with respect to the effort point on the opposite end of the spectrum).

 

This, in part, explains why heuristics are such a popular recourse when providing answers on the forum, since not only can it sometimes indeed be very difficult to form a proper opinion based on photographic evidence alone (let alone if these photographs are poor in quality to boot) and thus require people to take their own careful, if guided, looks at the materials brought to the forum, but also teaching people to answer their own questions helps free up resources to deal with other questions. That having been said, the most effective heuristic tools are those most explicit in their reasoning...

[Gareth_]

I took some time off work to have a bit of a (much earned) holiday and today I popped in to a rock and mineral shop I always visit when I'm here. Very limited stock of fossils right now but I grabbed 2 cheap Mosasaur teeth because, why not?!

I also grabbed my first Ortheceras fossil, not something that quite "fits" with my collection but the clarity of segments and completeness on this one really stood out unlike the many, many examples I've seen. 

 

I have 2 questions on the Orthoceras.... does the soft tissue from the animal ever fossilise? There is an odd looking area at the head end of the larger one of the two. Also, the line running through a number of segments, does anyone know what this is? 

 

@pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon you fountain of knowledge! Your thoughts on the Mosasaur teeth? I'm guessing Prognathodon because they appear to be very similar to other Mosasaur teeth you've ID'd for me. Sorry about the pics, I don't have my normal background, vernier or lighting here. As usual, many thanks (in advance)  Also, not sure if your knowledge extends as far as the questions I have on the Orthoceras 

 

 

[Top Trilo]

The line running down the middle is its Siphuncle.

I don't believe that is soft tissue in the front, I would guess it to be some sort of sand/debris that filled the entrance to the hole after the animal died. Think about shells on the beach, none of them have the animal still inside, unless it died very recently and then with time it would be empty too. I'm not sure if the Devonian seas were the same way but I'd imagine they are not that different.

[Gareth_]

@Top Trilothanks for the reply! I learned a new word today.... siphuncle.

Yeah you're most likely correct, very unlikely for that soft tissue to last long after death from decay or scavengers but it's worth asking - stranger things have fossilised 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

12 hours ago, Gareth_ said:

I took some time off work to have a bit of a (much earned) holiday and today I popped in to a rock and mineral shop I always visit when I'm here. Very limited stock of fossils right now but I grabbed 2 cheap Mosasaur teeth because, why not?!

I also grabbed my first Ortheceras fossil, not something that quite "fits" with my collection but the clarity of segments and completeness on this one really stood out unlike the many, many examples I've seen. 

 

I have 2 questions on the Orthoceras.... does the soft tissue from the animal ever fossilise? There is an odd looking area at the head end of the larger one of the two. Also, the line running through a number of segments, does anyone know what this is?

 

As you already guessed, the second tooth is indeed a Prognathodon, lets call it cf. anceps. The first tooth, however, is more laterally compressed and has both facets labially and prism faces lingually, which matches Mosasaurus beaugei - though I have seen more labiolingually compressed examples with clearer ornamentation.

 

As to the Orthoceras-fossils: not really my speciality, I'm afraid. But as Top Trilo said above, the line in the middle would indeed be the siphuncle, a bit of tissue found in cephalopods with chambered shells - such as orthiceratites, nautiluses and ammonites - that helps regulate the buoyancy of their shells. Below is an overview of Orthoceras-anatomy that I found here:

 

 

 

And while theoretically not unthinkable that soft tissue might have survived from Devonian times, soft tissue preservation is rare and known from only a handful of locations, Erfoud - where these specimens probably come from - not being one of them. Instead, as with later ammonoids and again as Top Trilo already suggested, it's much more likely that the outer chamber(s) of the shell filled up with sediment once its inhabitant's soft body had either been scavenged or rotten away. Compare with the below ammonite from Lyme Regis: the outer whorl, filled with sediment, has retained a dark colour, whereas the rest of the ammonite has been replaced with calcite - a common state of preservation for ammonites from the area.

 

Edited July 21, 2021 by pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon

[Gareth_]

@pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odonif you are even in Auckland, I owe you a beer. Yet again thanks for the reply! 

I have a polished ammonite half and it doesn't have a visible siphuncle but it does have very clear segments.  

The ammonite in that pic looks amazing, I'd love to find a pyritised ammonite, I've only seen one for sale locally but I missed out on it. 

[Coco]

The siphuncle of a nautilus is inside, while that of an ammonite is on its outer perimeter.

 

Coco

[Gareth_]

Another day on holiday and a new shop discovered.... a guy at work told me about it so I made the 45 min drive from my holiday spot to have a look. This was a very impressive and massive shop selling mostly minerals and crystals but they have a decent fossil section too which I'm sure a lot of you could spend a lot of time and money! From fossil whale ear bones to fish to shellfish to trilobites to megalodon teeth.

To go with my Enchodus caudal fin, I bought some Enchodus teeth - the largest being approx 65mm.

I also found a good condition Otodus obliquus tooth - approx 51mm slant height.

There was a bin full of small fossil shark teeth, I bought some of the nicer examples (very cheap!), including 3 fairly rare pathological teeth. They all look like Otodus obliquus teeth

[Gareth_]

I think this is becoming a problem.... I went back to the shop again today, found a few more small fossils and these Orthoceras bottle fossils. Really unique and one of a kind! They have some decent weight to them too

 

 

[Kane]

Just as a clarification, the genus Orthoceras is restricted to the type species of O. regularis from the Ordovician of the Balto-Scandinavian region (paraphrasing @Tidgy's Dad here). Those found in Morocco that are  frequently carved and polished into any manner of tables, sinks, pillars, and bottles are likely Devonian in age. 

 

These cola bottles may not be as unique and one of a kind as you might think! These are commonly carved and sold to tourists and at fossil shows. A quick Google image search for "orthoceras bottles" yields plenty of examples.  

[Gareth_]

16 minutes ago, Kane said:

Just as a clarification, the genus Orthoceras is restricted to the type species of O. regularis from the Ordovician of the Balto-Scandinavian region (paraphrasing @Tidgy's Dad here). Those found in Morocco that are  frequently carved and polished into any manner of tables, sinks, pillars, and bottles are likely Devonian in age. 

 

These cola bottles may not be as unique and one of a kind as you might think! These are commonly carved and sold to tourists and at fossil shows. A quick Google image search for "orthoceras bottles" yields plenty of examples.  

Thanks for the info 

By "one of a kind" I mean in respect to it's a chunk of rock with fossils in it, there will not be another bottle just like it. I got them dirt cheap, the shop has had them in stock for a long time and they didn't sell. 

[Tidgy's Dad]

Indeed, 

Many genera of orthocerids and other straight shelled nautiloids occur in rocks of Upper Silurian and Devonian age in Morocco. But not Orthoceras itself. 

Often, these black 'marbles' with only orthocones are from the latest Silurian, many of the Devonian deposits also contain goniatites and clymenids, but not always. A lot of the Devonian nautiloid only 'marbles' are more brown, but black ones do occur.  

Here is one of the Cola bottles at a workshop in Erfoud that I visited. It is one of their best selling lines. 

  

 

Edited July 23, 2021 by Tidgy's Dad

[Gareth_]

I need to stop visiting shops.... I think this is a problem haha

Today I picked up a couple of O. megalodon teeth, the larger one has very sharp serrations! I also grabbed a medium size Otodus obliquus (I think it is, certainly looks like it but those cusplets are a little odd) which appears to be in reasonable condition. This shop had a couple of teeth advertised as Meg teeth but were definitely not Meg teeth, looking at a bunch of pics online one may have been O. angustidens and the other O. chubutensis - both very large but both had serrated and defined cusplets. Pretty rough shape unfortunately but still very, very cool to see in the flesh

Umm, @pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon I call on your wealth of knowledge again haha

The pointy one.... Prognathodon? 

The non pointy one.... Globidens? (it was labeled as a Brachychampsa tooth)

Obviously the root has been glued back together, I also suspect the area between the crown and root has had work done ....? 

How rare are the Globidens teeth? It is the first time I've seen one in the flesh so it was pretty much screaming out "buy me!!". I don't imagine they are rare, just rare to see for sale in this corner of the world 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

2 hours ago, Gareth_ said:

I need to stop visiting shops.... I think this is a problem haha

Today I picked up a couple of O. megalodon teeth, the larger one has very sharp serrations! I also grabbed a medium size Otodus obliquus (I think it is, certainly looks like it but those cusplets are a little odd) which appears to be in reasonable condition. This shop had a couple of teeth advertised as Meg teeth but were definitely not Meg teeth, looking at a bunch of pics online one may have been O. angustidens and the other O. chubutensis - both very large but both had serrated and defined cusplets. Pretty rough shape unfortunately but still very, very cool to see in the flesh

 

Those are some nice sharks' teeth you managed to pick up there! I'm not much of a shark tooth collector myself, but I do enjoy a nice megalodon!
 

2 hours ago, Gareth_ said:

The pointy one.... Prognathodon? 

 

 

You're starting to pick this up quite well! You're absolutely right: Prognathodon sp..

 

 

2 hours ago, Gareth_ said:

The non pointy one.... Globidens? (it was labeled as a Brachychampsa tooth)

 

Obviously the root has been glued back together, I also suspect the area between the crown and root has had work done ....?

 

Well spotted! This is indeed a Globidens phosphaticus, rather than Brachychampsa sp., which is a primarily Late Cretaceous alligatoroid predominantly known from North America. For while both species have tribodont dentition, this tooth by its preservation and morphology clearly derives from the Moroccan phosphate mines (see the below tooth for an example of a Brachychampsa-tooth for comparison). Also, it appears that Brachychampsa only had pummel-like teeth towards the back of the jaw, having more traditional crocodilian pointed teeth towards the front.

 

The root of your tooth has indeed been (quite obviously) been reglued, and the neck looks reconstructed to me. It's the weakest point of these teeth, and they therefore often need repair or reconstruction at this point...

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Gareth_ said:

How rare are the Globidens teeth? It is the first time I've seen one in the flesh so it was pretty much screaming out "buy me!!". I don't imagine they are rare, just rare to see for sale in this corner of the world 

 

While certainly not as common as the Prognathodon anceps/giganteus teeth, I wouldn't say Globidens-teeth are particularly rare. At least, not to the extent as are Prognathodon solvayi (at least according to our current understanding), Carinodens belgicus, Moroccan tylosaur teeth, and Mosasaurus hoffmanni, all of which are only found only in very specific localities and in layers not typically mined. And that's not even to speak of something like Carinodens minalmamar. Thus, while a lesser common species, I'd say that Globidens phosphaticus teeth fall into the same category as Gavialimimus almaghribensis (what used to be known as Platecarpus ptychodon), Mosasaurus beaugei, Eremiasaurus heterodontus, Halisaurus arambourgi and Pluridens serpentis: rare, but still frequently enough seen in certain places/shops (although I do get the impression that the supplies are not as large as they once were - but that might just be the Covid-year). Prognathodon curri, I'd  say, falls somewhere in between these two latter groups, mainly because it's so recognizable, even though it's rarer.

 

So, although not extremely rare, still a very nice set of teeth you managed to pick up there

[Gareth_]

@pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon Thank  you again for your input. With a keen eye it is certainly possible to pick up some great bargains! These teeth were all good value

I admit, I did have to look up Brachychampsa because I had no idea what that animal was... but after about 5 seconds of looking I was like, "nope, that's a Globidens tooth!" 

Yeah ok they're obviously not rare as far as finds go but it is the first one I've seen in the flesh so rare to find available in shops here. Yeah I was fairly sure the neck had work but that's ok, by the nature of what fossils are, none of them will be perfect! 

When I saw that smaller Meg tooth I had to have it, it's quite a contrast to my 5" tooth

[Gareth_]

It's been a while since I've had an update here..... I found a really nice O. megalodon tooth to add to my collection - an absolute giant at 40mm! 

The crown is in really good condition, good enamel and serrations. Just a small chip out of the root.

 

 

 

 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

2 hours ago, Gareth_ said:

It's been a while since I've had an update here..... I found a really nice O. megalodon tooth to add to my collection - an absolute giant at 40mm! 

The crown is in really good condition, good enamel and serrations. Just a small chip out of the root.

 

 

 

 

 

You sure this is a megalodon tooth? I'm not particularly well-versed in shark's teeth, but the shape of crown and root, as well as the serrations, remind me of Great White? 

 

Also, I've been told that the size of these teeth is measured along the greatest diagonal edge?

 

@Praefectus @Anomotodon

[kgbudge]

Nice.

 

There's a (too) well-known site for collecting shark teeth a couple hours west of where I live, in the southeastern San Juan Basin, called Shark Tooth Ridge. It's an outcrop of the Cretaceous Gallup Sandstone, and you can often find decent fossil fish teeth weathered out on the surface.

http://jemez.kgbudge.com/mancos_fish_teeth_fulres.jpg

 

http://wanderlust.kgbudge.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/DSCN3378.jpg

 

I can't say I've found anything really spectacular, but these aren't bad. However, the site is well enough known that the weathered out specimens are well picked over, and a lot of the outcrop itself has been hammered to bits by folks looking for teeth. Still, there's a couple of miles of ridge to pick over and most casual visitors stick with the area immediately around an informal parking area. I found my best specimens by doing a little walking.

 

[kgbudge]

Well... crep. My pictures didn't post correctly. Trying again.

 

 

[Gareth_]

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

 

You sure this is a megalodon tooth? I'm not particularly well-versed in shark's teeth, but the shape of crown and root, as well as the serrations, remind me of Great White? 

 

Also, I've been told that the size of these teeth is measured along the greatest diagonal edge?

 

@Praefectus @Anomotodon

It has a bourlette, only sharks in the genus Otodus have this (the narrow band between the crown and root on the lingual side). If the bourlette, usually along with the root, were quite eroded the ID would be much more difficult. Serrations on Otodus teeth are a lot more uniform than serrations on Great White (ID is difficult when they're worn). The lack of cusplets rule out any earlier species in Otodus 

Typical measurement is a straight line from tip of the crown to end of the root lobe on the longest side - slant height

The size may throw me here but I'd call it a lower anterior tooth 

 

[Gareth_]

11 hours ago, kgbudge said:

There's a (too) well-known site for collecting shark teeth a couple hours west of where I live, in the southeastern San Juan Basin, called Shark Tooth Ridge. It's an outcrop of the Cretaceous Gallup Sandstone, and you can often find decent fossil fish teeth weathered out on the surface.

 

You're lucky you have somewhere to find fossils! 

There is nothing worth driving to where I live, I have no option to buy instead of find 

[Praefectus]

This tooth is a close one, but I also think it is a meg for the reasons @Gareth_ pointed out. 

[Al Dente]

On 11/13/2021 at 7:33 AM, Gareth_ said:

It's been a while since I've had an update here..... I found a really nice O. megalodon tooth to add to my collection - an absolute giant at 40mm! 

Where is this from? Do you know the age and formation?