A Very odd bone

[Shellseeker]

I have this bone that I found 4-5 weeks ago. I have not had any new insights, but I think it strongly suggests marine mammal and because of the foramena,  mandible.  All suggestions and comments welcome.   Jack

 

[Shellseeker]

9 hours ago, Shellseeker said:

but I think it strongly suggests marine mammal

Better ask @Boesse for assistance.

[val horn]

that really is a strange looking bone.  waiting to see other peoples ideas.  This one may be for dr Hubert.

[Shellseeker]

10 hours ago, val horn said:

that really is a strange looking bone.  waiting to see other peoples ideas.  This one may be for dr Hubert.

Thanks , just sent an email to Richard

[Shellseeker]

Wondering and speculation are useful tools when I reach the edge of a cliff..

https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/albums/72157623986817361/with/374046226/

The baculum of a large dog, a seal, or dire wolf are free standing bones, all approximately 100 cm in length. On a large whale , the baculum may be a meter long.

 

 

Quote

Baculum, also called Os , orOs Priapi, the bone of certain mammals. The baculum is one of several heterotropic skeletal elements—i.e., bones dissociated from the rest of the body skeleton. It is found in all insectivores (e.g., shrews, hedgehogs), bats, rodents, and carnivores and in all primates except humans. Such wide distribution suggests that it appeared early in mammalian evolution.

https://www.britannica.com/science/baculum

 

So, I am wondering about the robustness of this bone,  and what the Baculum of a medium sized whale like Kogiopsis .sp looks like. Do we have any members familiar with Baculum across mammals....?

[Coco]

There is one that belongs to a whale at the Natural History Museum of Angers (near my home), it measures memory at least 2 meters !

Coco

[Mahnmut]

Wait.

As far as I know whales do not have bacula, like all of Cetartiodactylia. Museums like to display their preserved soft tissue though. Walrus bacula ("oosiks) may reach about a meter, but all other carnivores I know of are way smaller (cave bear and polar bear maybe 25-30 cm.) I do not think the mystery bone is part of a baculum,

Best regards,

J

Edited June 29, 2021 by Mahnmut
additional info

[Shellseeker]

Quote

The sole mammals lacking baculum are the humans, horses, donkeys, rhinoceros, marsupials, rabbits, cetaceans (whales and dolphins), elephants and hyenas.

 

Well, that eliminates a lot of my "wondering".  No Whales, Dolphins, Rhinos, Elephants, .......

[RichW9090]

I concur.  Not a baculum.  But just what it is I do not know.  I'll look more closely when I'm in the office / lab on Monday.

 

[doushantuo]

 

 

the odobenid

Alachtherium as figured by van Beneden in 1877

of course this comes with a slight taxonomy warning

Edit:

(Ontocetus emmonsi fide Mr. Boessenecker himself/Acta Paleontologica Polonica/2018)

 

 

Edited July 4, 2021 by doushantuo

[Shellseeker]

9 hours ago, doushantuo said:

the odobenid Alachtherium as figured by van Beneden in 1877

of course this comes with a slight taxonomy warning

Edit:

(Ontocetus emmonsi fide Mr. Boessenecker himself/Acta Paleontologica Polonica/2018)

Ok, sometimes I am (or hope to be) a true believer..... also I have an early Pliocene site and some Ontocetus emmonsi fossils have been found nearby...

 

What is the bone pictured in your photo? ear bone ? Does the document provide a size?

 

@Boesse

[doushantuo]

Van Beneden describes this as "maxillaire inferieur",so it is cranial material.

I've been sloppy,for which I apologize

 

The 2018 paper in Acta Paleontologica Polonica is copyrighted ,so I feel the need to refrain from posting it here.

the link:

https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app63/app004542018.pdf

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2021 by doushantuo

[Shellseeker]

16 minutes ago, doushantuo said:

Van Beneden describes this as "maxillaire inferieur",so it is cranial material.

I've been sloppy,for which I apologize

 

The 2018 paper in Acta Paleontologica Polonica is copyrighted ,so I feel the need to refrain from posting it here.

the link: https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app63/app004542018.pdf

 

 

Thank you...With out of the box thinking,  you have provided me a thread to follow.  It may work out to an  identification and if it does, it will just reinforce my bedrock belief in the value proposition of reaching around the world for people with diverse expertise. and if it does not,  I will have enjoyed the hunt and learned new things about Walrus...

[doushantuo]

Thanks,Shellseeker,I feel genuinely moved by your response.

Btw: the van Beneden Monograph is huge,and text and plates are separated.

Size indication is : "natural size",which is'not very helpful

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/268501#page/35/mode/1up

 

It's not the quickest of downloads,but the scans are supernally beautiful

Edited July 5, 2021 by doushantuo

[Boesse]

alright folks! The skull piece figured by Van Beneden is actually the squamosal in the back of the skull. @Shellseeker's specimen is not a walrus bone. The specimen appears to be incomplete and waterworn, and the exact identity cannot really be determined: I'm not sure what element this is. It's probably cetacean owing to the texture. It could be a bit of a posterior process of a baleen whale periotic, but there are many other possibilities (vertebra fragment, skull fragment).

[Shellseeker]

1 hour ago, Boesse said:

The specimen appears to be incomplete and waterworn, and the exact identity cannot really be determined

Richard Hulbert agrees (almost exact phrase) with your assessment. I have pulled on all the threads.  This one goes into the box of unknowns.   Thanks for responding.