Some more Moroccan unknowns

[Earendil]

Hi again!

 

If you saw my thread from yesterday, you'll know I bought some Moroccan fossils for dirt cheap that turned out to be pretty nice. I went to the same dealer today and bought three more for the same price. I suppose I will start with the worst (most suspicious) first: I saw this vertebra and liked how it looked, so I bought it. I'm totally fine with spending $20 for a vert recreation, too, so no big deal if it's fake. What makes me suspicious is the place where it's chipped, it looked like there was paint flaking off. I guess I'm asking, how much of it is real and what is it supposed to be an imitation of?

Okay, next is a Globidens tooth and root in matrix. A little beat up, but still cool:

Lastly, a weird jaw that I have no clue about. Like I said, I'm not a vertebrate guy. One of the teeth is banged up and looks repaired, but I thought it was cool anyway:

Well guys, thanks for looking, I hope you'll find them as interesting as I did! And I said I'd tag @pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon, maybe you can help.

[Coco]

I think the last one is barracuda.

 

Coco

[Earendil]

10 minutes ago, Coco said:

I think the last one is barracuda.

 

Coco

Either that or Halisaurus was what I was thinking.

[Coco]

Hi,

 

If I am not mistaken, Halisaurus is a mosasaure with teeth of almost round section, whereas here it is relatively flat teeth. Barracuda has very oval section teeth.

It would have been nice to give us the size of your fossils, it helps a lot in an identification

 

Coco

Edited September 13, 2021 by Coco

[LordTrilobite]

No Halisaurus here.

The vert looks fine. Seems likely to be a Plesiosaur. So, probably Zarafasaura.

The Globidens tooth looks like it might be a composite. But the assorted reptile bones are nice.

The jaw is some type of fish.

 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

I agree that the tooth is a halfway decent, partially rooted Globidens phosphaticus - although, as Olof suggests, the crown may have been added to the root, as supported by a line of sand between the two, obscuring the crown attachment in a way very similar to a trick often applied to composites (though I think the positioning of root versus crown seems perfectly natural, more so than if the specimen were a fabrication, so am unsure whether it's just incomplete cleaning or actually a composite) - while the last jaws looks fishy to me (pun intended ). As Coco pointed out, halisaurine mosasaurs have conical, uncompressed but posteriorly recurved teeth, lacking carinae. These are compressed with clear anterior and posterior carina - compare against the below Halisaurus arambourgi (top) and Pluridens serpentis (bottom) teeth. And while I'm not really a fish man myself, barracuda sounds like a reasonable option to me (although, in that case, the piece would need to date to the Eocene layers of the phosphate mines, as barracuda weren't around yet during the Maastrichtian).

 

 

 

As to the vertebra: it's plesiosaurian and may therefore be attributed to the only described taxa from the Moroccan phosphates - Zarafasaura oceanis. It's real, and not a bad specimen either. Plesiosaur bones from the phosphates typically have a rather homogenous appearance and are rather soft, much like the gypsum that the bones were replaced by. In order to protect them, they often get a thick layer of (white) glue applied. And,  since this is done with a dirty/sandy brush, some if the sand and its colour sticks to the glue. If you were to either carefully peel off the glue or remove it using acetone, the bone left underneath the glue would be entirely white...

[Earendil]

15 hours ago, Coco said:

Hi,

 

If I am not mistaken, Halisaurus is a mosasaure with teeth of almost round section, whereas here it is relatively flat teeth. Barracuda has very oval section teeth.

It would have been nice to give us the size of your fossils, it helps a lot in an identification

 

Coco

 

12 hours ago, LordTrilobite said:

No Halisaurus here.

The vert looks fine. Seems likely to be a Plesiosaur. So, probably Zarafasaura.

The Globidens tooth looks like it might be a composite. But the assorted reptile bones are nice.

The jaw is some type of fish.

 

 

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

I agree that the tooth is a halfway decent, partially rooted Globidens phosphaticus - although, as Olof suggests, the crown may have been added to the root, as supported by a line of sand between the two, obscuring the crown attachment in a way very similar to a trick often applied to composites (though I think the positioning of root versus crown seems perfectly natural, more so than if the specimen were a fabrication, so am unsure whether it's just incomplete cleaning or actually a composite) - while the last jaws looks fishy to me (pun intended ). As Coco pointed out, halisaurine mosasaurs have conical, uncompressed but posteriorly recurved teeth, lacking carinae. These are compressed with clear anterior and posterior carina - compare against the below Halisaurus arambourgi (top) and Pluridens serpentis (bottom) teeth. And while I'm not really a fish man myself, barracuda sounds like a reasonable option to me (although, in that case, the piece would need to date to the Eocene layers of the phosphate mines, as barracuda weren't around yet during the Maastrichtian).

 

 

 

As to the vertebra: it's plesiosaurian and may therefore be attributed to the only described taxa from the Moroccan phosphates - Zarafasaura oceanis. It's real, and not a bad specimen either. Plesiosaur bones from the phosphates typically have a rather homogenous appearance and are rather soft, much like the gypsum that the bones were replaced by. In order to protect them, they often get a thick layer of (white) glue applied. And,  since this is done with a dirty/sandy brush, some if the sand and its colour sticks to the glue. If you were to either carefully peel off the glue or remove it using acetone, the bone left underneath the glue would be entirely white...

Thanks for the replies! Sorry about the scale, the body of the vert measures 3 and a quarter inches. The barracuda jaw is nearly 3 inches long. See the pictures below for the Globidens tooth. Also, apologies for the Halisaurus suggestion, I see where I was wrong and the idea itself was the product of 5 minutes research. Like I said, I'm new to this vertebrate stuff. I did some more prep to the Globidens piece, just revealing the back of the Glob (I hope you don't mind if I call it that) and some of the weirder odds and ends in the piece. See what you think of the pics:

[Earendil]

I prepped it a bit more, I also scrubbed off the glue/paint on the root as much as possible. It looks pretty fake.

[Gareth_]

3 hours ago, yardrockpaleo said:

I prepped it a bit more, I also scrubbed off the glue/paint on the root as much as possible. It looks pretty fake.

It is possible that the root and crown are associated but the crown broke off and it's just been reattached. 

I see there is a big gap between the root and crown, it is possible that's just poor preservation of the root in that area? The visible part of the root has fairly poor preservation. 
I have a Globidens rooted tooth that has a repair in the same area, from what @pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon told me, that is a fragile part of the tooth 

 

In saying that, a really nice bunch of additions to your collection...... and I'm really envious of your Enchodus jaws! 
I have an Enchodus caudal fin and 2 large teeth, jaws never come up for sale in this country 

Edited September 14, 2021 by Gareth_

[Earendil]

8 hours ago, Gareth_ said:

It is possible that the root and crown are associated but the crown broke off and it's just been reattached. 

I see there is a big gap between the root and crown, it is possible that's just poor preservation of the root in that area? The visible part of the root has fairly poor preservation. 
I have a Globidens rooted tooth that has a repair in the same area, from what @pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon told me, that is a fragile part of the tooth 

 

In saying that, a really nice bunch of additions to your collection...... and I'm really envious of your Enchodus jaws! 
I have an Enchodus caudal fin and 2 large teeth, jaws never come up for sale in this country 

Good to know, thanks! I did a little bit of prep to the Enchodus jaw with the Squalicorax tooth, I'll tag you when I post pictures later.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

On 9/14/2021 at 1:54 AM, yardrockpaleo said:

I prepped it a bit more, I also scrubbed off the glue/paint on the root as much as possible. It looks pretty fake.

 

Oh wow, that's such a shame! Not entirely unexpected, of course. But up till these very last photographs I really wasn't sure. There were more indications of a repair in the previous, detailed photographs, that's true - such as an area that seemed like it contained excessive glue, and one where the matrix still seemed to lie piled up at the neck of the tooth, in an area you'd expect to be cleaned - but overall it seemed like the sand lay on top of an underlying structure.

 

On 9/14/2021 at 5:35 AM, Gareth_ said:

It is possible that the root and crown are associated but the crown broke off and it's just been reattached. 

I see there is a big gap between the root and crown, it is possible that's just poor preservation of the root in that area? The visible part of the root has fairly poor preservation. 
I have a Globidens rooted tooth that has a repair in the same area, from what @pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon told me, that is a fragile part of the tooth

 

It is true that the crowns of Globidens phosphaticus teeth break of quite easily, and it's certainly possible that this may have been the case here, with the crown subsequently having been re-attached to the root. And while you'd typically expect a cleaner break between root and crown in that case, one in which the tooth fits together either with just a crack or a hairline fill of matrix, the gap between root and crown still seem to match up quite decently at the front of the tooth. This had me pondering whether the two parts could nonetheless have belonged to the same specimen. However, overall I think the gap is too big to be natural, in particular as there seems to be a layer of matrix on the interface between root and crown, and a significant part of the back of the root is missing, without corresponding damage to the back of the crown. I'm afraid this one is indeed a composite.

 

In case you'd like to restore the fossil to it's former state, by the way (I can imagine it being a bit of a disappointment), an easy way to do so is to mix sand from the matrix with wood glue in different ways: you can mix it up before application to get a thicker "liquid rock" paste that you can apply, or simply apply some wood glue (using a tooth pick or similar) to areas that you'd like to "sand over", and than sprinkle matrix dust/sand over it. Let it sit loose and don't press it down too hard, as it'll loose it's natural look. As this type of glue is similar to the one used in Morocco, I'd say it's safe to use here too. Moreover, since wood glue dries slowly and is easily removed (using water, acetone or even simply by scraping or peeling), it's also a safe medium for this kind of work. Keep in mind, however, that white glue does have a tendency to deteriorate over time and may change colour in the process.

[Earendil]

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

In case you'd like to restore the fossil to it's former state, by the way (I can imagine it being a bit of a disappointment), an easy way to do so is to mix sand from the matrix with wood glue in different ways: you can mix it up before application to get a thicker "liquid rock" paste that you can apply, or simply apply some wood glue (using a tooth pick or similar) to areas that you'd like to "sand over", and than sprinkle matrix dust/sand over it. Let it sit loose and don't press it down too hard, as it'll loose it's natural look. As this type of glue is similar to the one used in Morocco, I'd say it's safe to use here too. Moreover, since wood glue dries slowly and is easily removed (using water, acetone or even simply by scraping or peeling), it's also a safe medium for this kind of work. Keep in mind, however, that white glue does have a tendency to deteriorate over time and may change colour in the process.

Thank you for your opinion! Do you think it's wrong to want to remove the tooth completely? I like the idea of an assorted shark/reptile bones plate, and as you saw, the piece itself is quite full of curiosities without the Globidens tooth. (e.g. little verts and coprolites as well as some large bits of bone) Speaking of which, is there anything on the plate that could be diagnostic? That way if I decide to remove the tooth I can give it a more specific label. Again, thanks for the time you put into your responses and for putting up with my sheer naivete when it comes to vertebrate fossils.

[JohnJ]

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

However, overall I think the gap is too big to be natural, in particular as there seems to be a layer of matrix on the interface between root and crown, and a significant part of the back of the root is missing, without corresponding damage to the back of the crown. I'm afraid this one is indeed a composite.

 

I agree.

 

It appears that if this tooth is associated with this root, then it is poorly reattached and rotated out of position.  It is more likely, they are not associated.  Note what seems to be a fragmentary bit of root emerging below the crown.  Below that is a bit of sandy matrix above what looks like more enamel emerging naturally from the root.  These 'puzzle' pieces do not fit together.

 

[Gareth_]

@pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon It's hard to disagree with what you've said.... I was holding on to hope they were associated, it unfortunately appears they are not. 

It would be nice to see a shift in the Moroccan fossil market, a little more honesty and just let an untouched fossil sell itself. I know messing with a fossil gets them more money but in the long run more credibility will get them more sales because we'd all take them seriously. 
Yeah that is really oversimplified and it will never happen, it would be nice though.
Sure they can keep their obviously fake art pieces like the fake Mosasaur jaw bone with random teeth stuck in it, but to add a crown to a root that doesn't belong to obtain more profit is just fraudulent and a real shame.

[Earendil]

54 minutes ago, Gareth_ said:

@pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon It's hard to disagree with what you've said.... I was holding on to hope they were associated, it unfortunately appears they are not. 

It would be nice to see a shift in the Moroccan fossil market, a little more honesty and just let an untouched fossil sell itself. I know messing with a fossil gets them more money but in the long run more credibility will get them more sales because we'd all take them seriously. 
Yeah that is really oversimplified and it will never happen, it would be nice though.
Sure they can keep their obviously fake art pieces like the fake Mosasaur jaw bone with random teeth stuck in it, but to add a crown to a root that doesn't belong to obtain more profit is just fraudulent and a real shame.

You have a point, it would be nice if people were honest in all things. However, I'm not bitter because look how much I learned, not to mention it was very cheap, just as cheap as it would be without the crown. I guess the only thing we can do is educate more people about the dangers of fossil fabrication using the Fossil Forum.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

10 hours ago, yardrockpaleo said:

Do you think it's wrong to want to remove the tooth completely? I like the idea of an assorted shark/reptile bones plate, and as you saw, the piece itself is quite full of curiosities without the Globidens tooth. (e.g. little verts and coprolites as well as some large bits of bone) Speaking of which, is there anything on the plate that could be diagnostic? That way if I decide to remove the tooth I can give it a more specific label.

 

Nah, I wouldn't say it's wrong. In the end, it's your piece now and you can decide what to do with it. I just wouldn't throw any parts away. But even with regular fossil preparation techniques such choices are sometimes made - i.e., sacrifice the one fossil in order to highlight another. That having been said, I think it may be tricky to get the root out without causing damage to the bones surrounding it. For, in order to get it out, you'll need to dig quite a bit around it, so that you can properly get under the root (that is, unless you decide to sacrifice it, that is). You'll also end up with a depression in your block where the tooth used to be positioned - something that may not be aesthetically pleasing. Lastly, I don't see any diagnostic bits, so you'd be removing the main identifiable specimen from the matrix. Then again, I'm not familiar with fish material, so wouldn't be the right person to ask. It appears there's a rib fragment lying along the edge of the block, which might make an interesting focal point for the block after the tooth is removed. But I have no idea what it could be from. Judging from size, I'd say probably fish, though...

 

An alternative strategy that @snolly50 recommends to extract any fossils present from the block is to soak the block in water overnight (I can't find the thread where he provides an example back, though). This will break down the consistency of the entire block of matrix, with a bit of luck leaving any more solid fossils preserved (near) matrix free. I've only tried this once myself, and am not sure whether I did something wrong (soaking for too long), there were no significant fossils in the block I tried it with, or may be the fossils were too damaged, but all I managed to get from it in this way was a fish coprolite, with all the other bones having broken to bits (still, probably a safer bet than trying to work your way around them with a pick)...

 

9 hours ago, Gareth_ said:

I know messing with a fossil gets them more money but in the long run more credibility will get them more sales because we'd all take them seriously.

 

That's the crux, though, isn't it? You'd think that more credibility would get them more sales in the long run, but I doubt that's actually true. I believe that they're actually making plenty good sales already. So much so, in fact, that it pays off for them to maintain their fraudulent practices. I mean, there's plenty of people out there that don't really know the material to start off, but still want a cool looking fossil without heavily investing in it. That's their main market for a lot of stuff found in the mines, I'd say. But then you'd got the higher-end stuff, where I believe the amount of forgery is generally less, but the quality of it increases where it is present. Here the target are the more savvy collectors who are more difficult to fool and thus it's riskier to try and do so (in terms of ability to make a sale). But even in this market-segment, something that looks more complete and less damaged will fetch a higher price, which will still make it worth the risk. The point is, Moroccan fossils are so ubiquitous on the fossil market that there's always going to be someone who'll buy whatever the preperator spits out. I mean, none of us have ever stopped buying Moroccan fossils simply because we ran into a fake - or even know they're out there - have we? And since this is the case, why not try and fetch the highest sum possible. For, in the end, a honest fossil is likely to catch a lower sum than one that have been "enhanced", lets say. As such, I don't think this is really a Moroccan problem, but rather one of the world in general: there's no way of enforcing a sanction of Moroccan fossil preparation techniques that would truly affect their market... and so they simply continue their way of working...

[snolly50]

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

An alternative strategy that @snolly50 recommends to extract any fossils present from the block is to soak the block in water overnight (I can't find the thread where he provides an example back, though).

 

I had to bear down on my memory as to what prep that was. I ultimately did remember and here is the topic that includes the water discussion. I found the granular Moroccan matrix to be easily broken down with water. However, cautions apply; are the fossils able to stand the soak and is a fossil being supported, "held together" by the matrix? 

 

 

[Gareth_]

@pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon I guess this doesn't just apply to fossils. People around the world are looking to make a quick, questionably legitimate buck. 

If it has value and is collectible, people will try to make an original look better or reproduce an original.

Baseball cards, stamps, art, famous signatures, books etc.

Outside being educational, fossils are art - natural art. That's the way I treat mine, they create conversation, they're on display (within my house lol), they're interesting to look at, they may appreciate in value. 

[DenverEdge]

Hey I found four nice jaws for myself on that same table:) I saw them all in person all the verts were all natural as well as most the small jaws on that table. A lot of the glob jaws had teeth added but the one you got is fine just a crack. And now I know that is a barricuda jaw all I knew is it was fish.

 

I should add the area where it looks like paint flakes off- well the fossils from the phosphate beds where your vert is from they tend to get a tan brown layer on the outside. It can come off in flakes like that real easy. I have prepped almost 2 dozen fossils out of the rocks you can get in the last two years so I noticed that happens a lot. See if there is a chipped area down to the bone marrow like the center of this picture. If you have a uv light the marrow will glow a orangish red. But yours is very nice with the top process that intact I was checking that one out myself on the first day.

Edited September 21, 2021 by DenverEdge
More information

[Earendil]

16 hours ago, DenverEdge said:

Hey I found four nice jaws for myself on that same table:) I saw them all in person all the verts were all natural as well as most the small jaws on that table. A lot of the glob jaws had teeth added but the one you got is fine just a crack. And now I know that is a barricuda jaw all I knew is it was fish.

 

I should add the area where it looks like paint flakes off- well the fossils from the phosphate beds where your vert is from they tend to get a tan brown layer on the outside. It can come off in flakes like that real easy. I have prepped almost 2 dozen fossils out of the rocks you can get in the last two years so I noticed that happens a lot. See if there is a chipped area down to the bone marrow like the center of this picture. If you have a uv light the marrow will glow a orangish red. But yours is very nice with the top process that intact I was checking that one out myself on the first day.

Thanks for the info!! Unfortunately, I already removed the Glob tooth (Successfully, no damage, I'll post pics once I finish prep). Maybe I'll reattach it sometime, but I feel it might be too far gone. 

[DenverEdge]

I use dental tools and a headlamp and I take my time it takes hours the fossils are fairly fragile.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

3 hours ago, DenverEdge said:

I use dental tools and a headlamp and I take my time it takes hours the fossils are fairly fragile.

 

They are (fairly fragile)... I also use dental tools, but work my way around the fossils by initially staying far away from the fossil itself, just digging fully around it. Then, once I've knocked off the pedestal, I very carefully start cleaning away the matrix from around the fossil, using dental tools, wooden toothpicks and - my personal favourite - the preparation needle. Especially the latter allows me to work quite fast as I swipe it across the matrix, which causes a slight pressure that's just enough to pop thin layers of matrix off, but not enough to damage the bone.