I was told this is a Curry (or currii) mosasaurus

[Dieselgyrl]

I was told this is a Curry (or currii) mosasaurus, but now I am having problems identifying it. What are your thoughts? I think it's a beautiful specimen, but I just wish I knew more about it. Any help?

[abyssunder]

Welcome to the Forum! 

I'm not sure about your specimen, but 99.99% of this kind of Mosasaurus jaws from Morocco are fake, in the sense that the jaw probably is made from pieces of bones (possibly from other animals) and the teeth are attached to the "jaw". The teeth are authentic, but the specimen is composite, in a few words.

I've never heard of Curry or Currii as a Mosasaur species, but the name might be interpreted in different ways, in my opinion. 

Edited January 3, 2022 by abyssunder

[Tidgy's Dad]

Prognathodon currii is a species of mosasaur which is found in Morocco, but whether any of these particular teeth or bits of bone belong to it, I have no idea. 

Edited January 4, 2022 by Tidgy's Dad

[snolly50]

Hello, and welcome to the Forum. You will discover that Forum members are inherently suspicious of Moroccan material; which your fossil gives every appearance of being. There is a justifiable basis for caution, as forgeries are a cottage industry in that fossil rich country. I realize you inquired regarding ID; but these fossils always engender discussion of authenticity.

 

Your piece is very attractive. However, I have a couple misgivings that I will mention. The matrix visible within the separated areas of the bone does not appear the same color as the supporting matrix "bed." Perhaps that is just the photo (or my eyes); but it raises an issue for me. In addition, the "loaf-shaped" supporting matrix (a hallmark of many manufactured jaw sections) is very uniform in grain size and appears devoid of fragmentary fossil inclusions. I am currently prepping a large jaw and the matrix is chock full of "bit and pieces." The grain size varies somewhat throughout genuine matrix. My hypothesis is, the block of matrix on which your piece rests is man-made. This of course, is just my belief, and even if true it does not necessarily mean the fossil itself is the result of monkey business. Enough from me, let's ask some skilled folk their impression of the fossil itself.

 

There are several Forum members who are experienced with this material. It is hoped they will add to the discussion regarding your piece. @pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon @LordTrilobite @Praefectus

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

Welcome to the forum from France! You've come to the right place with your question!

 

As @snolly50 and others have already mentioned, Moroccan material (which this certainly is and the suggested attribution to P. currii further supports) can be somewhat more tricky to outright assign a label as is material from other places due to the heavy load of "embellished" (to use a neutral term for it) pieces coming out of that country. The same goes for this piece, unfortunately, as it has indeed been made up of various parts set into an artificial matrix (rock), which you can tell from the uniformity of the matrix and lack of inclusions therein. Now this doesn't necessarily imply ill intent, as sometimes fossils are extracted from their original rock and reset into some other stone (or plaster) to increase display value, but it does ask for more careful inspection.

 

This having been said, while the right-most tooth appears to have been placed perpendicular to its natural axis and I have some reservations about the identification of the second tooth from the left - because of it's tip being more covered by artificial matrix and less prominent durophagous features (features seen in the dentition of animals eating hard-shelled prey), giving it the appearance of the more run-of-the-mill Prognathodon cf. giganteus - I'd say that the teeth, at least, can be established as Prognathodon currii - a species, by the way, named in honour of renowned palaeontologist Phil(ip J.) Currie. The bits of jaw are consistent with the heavy jaws seen on the below specimen and, by the shape and placing of the foramina, give the impression of being part of the maxilla, or upper jaw. Moreover, seeing as how the edges of the bones and foramina generally appear to match up, I suspect that the jaw pieces do originally belong together (whether the same can be said for the teeth is another story entirely, as none of them have a clear and uninterrupted connection to the jaw) and were just found in an "exploded" state, as much of the material from durophagous Moroccan mosasaurs appears to be. In order to make the piece more presentable, the jaw-pieces were re-adjoined and may be some teeth added to make it look more attractive. As the sutures of the bone would've originally be interdigitated, however, full reintegration was not possible without grinding away part of the bone; this to me explains the gaps between the different parts of it.

 

 

So, yes, Prognathodon currii, but with reservations

 

Hope this helps!

[LordTrilobite]

To start with, this one photo is not enough to properly judge.

 

The jaw itself is a right upper jaw (right maxilla).

The teeth, or at least most of them do indeed look like Prognathodon currii.

 

That was the good.... The bad news is that the sediment around it has almost certainly been altered. The matrix around it lacks the variation of colour and structure I would expect from unaltered sediment.
Since the matrix is likely altered, I would say it's also likely that most of the teeth were placed. Which means the teeth likely do not belong to the jaw. But a I said, this one photo is not good enough to judge for sure.

[Praefectus]

Hello. I second what the others have said. The teeth are Prognathodon currii tooth crowns (with the exception of maybe the 2nd one). The jaw appears to be prognathodontid. All of the tooth crowns look to have been added to the jaw and are not original. 

 

One jaw bone and several teeth added.