Peace River ID help

[PODIGGER]

Finally made it back to the Peace River ,Fl for my first hunt of the season. It was a good day overall. Along with numerous and varied small shark teeth I came up with these two finds that I am hoping for some input on for a positive ID.

 

First up is a piece of ivory that I believe must be Gomphotherium due to the black banding. I considered it might be staining from the river but it looks to uniform and seems to be layered.

 

 

 

 

Next is what I believe to be Artiodactyl in nature. Maybe camel or llama. My hesitation with this ID is the size. I believe it is a partial molar 2 7/8” tall x 1” thick x 3/4” wide. This seems quite large for either camel or llama. I looked at bison but didn’t think the bite surface was a match.

 

 

Any insights or opinions would be appreciated, Thanks.

[HynerpetonHunter]

Very nice fossils! I'm afraid I have a low knowledge of mammals, but the top definitely look like Gomphotherium.

[PODIGGER]

Thanks for your input!

[Shellseeker]

10 hours ago, PODIGGER said:

Finally made it back to the Peace River ,Fl for my first hunt of the season. It was a good day overall. Along with numerous and varied small shark teeth I came up with these two finds that I am hoping for some input on for a positive ID.

 

First up is a piece of ivory that I believe must be Gomphotherium due to the black banding. I considered it might be staining from the river but it looks to uniform and seems to be layered.

Very Nice!!! Had to be a great feeling.. I had only been out of the River for 2 weeks (burns healing) and went yesterday also. It was cool , but I had 7 mm.  What a beautiful day..

I am thinking that the only Gomph that has the enamel bands in Florida is Cuvieronius rynchotherium.

We will see if @digitKen has a view.

 

Rynchotherium would place you back in the Pliocene... exciting !!!

 

Now this other one. I have not seen a Pleistocene llama/camel tooth length this size.  Unless you really traveled on your way to the hunt, you are not likely to have an Aepycamelus major  tooth. I think that it is Bison.... Maybe your tooth is Latifrons.... I do not have any comparisons.  

 

It is always nice to find fossils you are not sure of...

 

[PODIGGER]

Thanks Jack! Great feeling to find that banded piece of ivory. I won’t be surprised if the consensus is bison on the tooth.

jim

[digit]

13 minutes ago, Shellseeker said:

It is always nice to find fossils you are not sure of...

It's the only way to learn something new from your fossils.

 

From the size of the tooth, I was getting a bison tooth (frag) vibe as well.

 

17 minutes ago, Shellseeker said:

I am thinking that the only Gomph that has the enamel bands in Florida is Cuvieronius rynchotherium.

We will see if @digitKen has a view.

I'm tall so I always have a view--sometimes I even have ideas that prove true (but I too am always open for learning).

 

I'm not familiar with the binomial "Cuvieronius rynchotherium" as I know both of these names individually as genera of gomphotheres.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuvieronius

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhynchotherium

 

The gomph at the Montbrook site (which I know to possess enamel bands on the tusks) is Rhynchotherium sp. (likely an as yet undescribed species). I know the gomph from the Moss Acres Racetrack Site is Ambelodon britti (I'm rebuilding a gator skull from that site so I've become familiar with that site and its faunal list). It too had an enamel band on the upper tusks (gomphs have uppers and lowers and so we actually need to specify).

 

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/florida-vertebrate-fossils/sites/moss-acres-racetrack-site/

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/florida-vertebrate-fossils/species/amebelodon-britti/

 

I would have to ask Richard how many gomph species can be found in Florida (and which occur in the Bone Valley Formation that would appear in the Peace River). I'm guessing (from limited data) that any and all gomphs might have this enamel tusk banding.

 

And while all of the above might prove enlightening (I hope it does), I'm not convinced that the find in question is indeed gomph. Yes, it is definitely a tusk chunk (all I've ever found in the Peace) but it is small and the blacker layer on the outside spans the entire surface of the outer layer. Jack's photo above clearly shows uniform brown material with a thin shiny enameled layer which appears to have clear edges limiting it to a band. In the item in question, the darker layer looks more like the (un-enameled) outer layer of a tusk that was stained darker before additional fragmenting. Only my opinion but that's what it looks like to me.

 

Glad to see folks getting out and starting to post Peace River finds.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[PODIGGER]

Thanks Ken. Great to get the benefit of your knowledge and experience. I look forward to checking out the links you provided.

jim 

[Shellseeker]

2 hours ago, digit said:

I would have to ask Richard how many gomph species can be found in Florida (and which occur in the Bone Valley Formation that would appear in the Peace River). I'm guessing (from limited data) that any and all gomphs might have this enamel tusk banding.

Possibly,

This description of Montbrook Gomphothere seems to identify the find(s) ?? as R. edense.

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/montbrook/blog/life-after-death/

 

From Wikipedia.

So currently Rynchotherium is a Genus with 5 Species,  I agree that the definition may be "in process"  possibly with differing viewpoints among the experts. I will try to discover where the 5 species were found  !!!!  R. edensis was Mt, Eden, California, and R .falconeri in Arizona.

 

and ...

Quote

Rhynchotherium was first described in 1868 on the basis of a lower jaw from the Miocene of Tlaxcala, Mexico.^[3] Later, the type species epithet R. tlascalae was erected for the jaw by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1918. In 1921, a gomphothere skull from the Mt. Eden area of southern California was described as a subspecies of Trilophodon shepardi (a now-defunct combination for Mastodon shepardi), T. s. edensis,^[4] but was subsequently reassigned to Rhynchotherium.^[5] Other species subsequently assigned to Rhynchotherium included R. falconeri,^[6] R. paredensis, R. browni,^[7] and R. simpsoni.^[8] It was the closest relative to Cuvieronius, and may be ancestral to it.^[9]

 

[digit]

41 minutes ago, Shellseeker said:

This description of Montbrook Gomphothere seems to identify the find(s) ?? as R. edense.

Interesting that the FLMNH website has this as R. edense and the Wiki page has it as R. edensis.

 

There are only a few search results on the inter-webber-net for each of these spellings. I managed to dig up a paper that explained the complicated and confused naming surrounding this taxon:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281863115_Taxonomy_of_Rhynchotherium_Mammalia_Proboscidea_from_the_Miocene-Pliocene_of_North_America

 

Osborn (1929, p. 6) coined the name Rhynchotherium paredensis
new species for one of the specimens from the Mt. Eden fauna: AMNH
18216B/18218, an associated dentulous maxillary and dentary of a juvenile
individual. Frick (1926, p. 170) had previously described this specimen
as (?)Rhynchotherium (Dibelodon) edensis.

In 1933, Frick termed the Mt. Eden gomphothere Rhynchotherium
edensis and described additional specimens, most notably a subadult
skull and lower jaw (F:AM 18225) that he proclaimed the “neotype” of
the taxon (Fig. 5). However, as May (1981) correctly noted, this neotype
designation is not valid, as the lectotype (UCMP 23501) was still
extant, as Frick (1933) acknowledged.

Osborn (1936) correctly modified edensis to “edense” in the combination
Rhynchotherium shepardi edense, which he applied to the taxon
with lectotype UCMP 23501. Osborn (1936) also recognized another
taxon from Mt. Eden, Cordillerion edensis, with its holotype UCMP
24047.

The following points are thus clear:
1. Frick (1921) named a taxon Trilophodon shepardi edensis with
lectotype UCMP 23501.
2. Osborn (1929) named another taxon Rhynchotherium paredensis
with holotype AMNH 18216B/18218.
3. Osborn (1936) named a third taxon Cordillerion edensis with
holotype UCMP 24047.
4. All three names apply to specimens from a single locality,
UCMP locality 3269, the “Eden ledges” (Frick, 1921, p. 339, fig. 1c—
locality 12).

 

So it seems that R. edense is the proper term (sorry Wikipedia). I know someone who is studying the Montbrook gomph and I can check with her to see if this is now being considered a novel taxon.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

 

[PODIGGER]

Wow, very enlightening conversation. Thank you gentlemen!

[Shellseeker]

6 hours ago, digit said:

There are only a few search results on the inter-webber-net for each of these spellings. I managed to dig up a paper that explained the complicated and confused naming surrounding this taxon:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281863115_Taxonomy_of_Rhynchotherium_Mammalia_Proboscidea_from_the_Miocene-Pliocene_of_North_America

Thanks Ken !!!!

Also in this research paper, from 2008  !!! with a proposed definition and diagnostic features of Rhychotherium as a genus under Gomphothere... @darrow The spiral enamel on the upper tusks and the straight enamel band on the lowers..  The holotype for R. simpsoni came from Bone Valley , Florida.

Quote

The taxonomy of the gomphothere genus Rhynchotherium Falconer, 1868 is beset with problems that encompass the generic assignment of its type species, R. tlascalae Osborn, 1918, the inclusivity of the genus and the validity of its contained species. We regard the holotype lower jaw of R. tlascalae as a specimen of Gomphotherium Burmeister, 1837, and we assign the species Mastodon euhypodon Cope, 1889, Blickotherium blicki Frick, 1933 and Aybelodon hondurensis Frick, 1933 to Gomphotherium as well. This means that Rhynchotherium could be regarded as a junior subjective synonym of Gomphotherium, but we agree with most previous workers that the stability and universality of nomenclature is best served by conserving the long and widely used name Rhynchotherium. To do so, we advocate that the type lower jaw of R. browni be made the neotype of R. tlascalae (as Osborn originally intended), which provides a holotype specimen of R. tlascalae that is diagnosable from specimens of Gomphotherium. The little-used name R. browni thus needs to be suppressed, and our solution conserves Rhynchotherium as a gomphothere genus diagnosed by its upper tusks with spiral enamel bands, M3/m3 with 4-4.5 relatively simple lophs/lophids, lower jaw with two tusks with flat medial sides and on the lateral sides straight external enamel bands that extend to their tips, a low and blunt coronoid process, deep and thick horizontal ramus below the cheek tooth row, short horizontal symphysis and sharply downturned symphyseal region in which the symphyseal angle is 45 o or more. Only one species of Rhynchotherium is valid, R. tlascalae (= R. edense, =R. falconeri, = R. simpsoni)

 

[digit]

7 minutes ago, Shellseeker said:

Only one species of Rhynchotherium is valid, R. tlascalae (= R. edense, =R. falconeri, = R. simpsoni)

Also interesting in the above quote is that they've collapsed all Rhynchotherium into a single species.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Bone Daddy]

I have nothing to add to the ID of these specimens. I just wanted to comment that I am always impressed by the collective knowledge of this forum's members and staff. I've learned a good bit about gomphos in Florida here. I've never given much thought to the partial/broken ivory specimens I have found. Maybe now I will.