Vertebrae With Some Strange Markings

[Boesse]

Boesse and Siteseer :bow:

It would seem You are correct and Boesse I owe you an apology and applause.

Siteseer, You speak perfect sense and also deserve an applause, just one question, Is there an example of skin from an ancestor of myliobatis ?

I am a novice in the world of cartilage and skin and was only acting on the knowledge passed to me by a few reputable and experienced collectors some with letters after thier names.

Hey Fossildan,

Don't worry about it - I've amassed a large (perhaps an absurd) collection of calcified upper and lower skate jaws from the Pliocene of California, which I'll be publishing on some day. So, no apology or applause is necessary.

Bobby

[Just Bob]

And next time I shall just keep me mouth shut and hide behind me hair :hair:

Please don't. Opinions are what we need. It helps.

[Just Bob]

Thank you everybody for your Id's, it is much appreciated. I just got this Email, from Jason Schein the assistant curator of Natural History from the New Jersey State Museum

Hi Bob,

I just spoke to Dave and he brought me an example of exactly what I think you have with that shark/ray vert. Squatina sp. He says that kind of preservation is not uncommon for that genus, but that your find is quite rare. In 30 years of collecting at Inversand, he’s only collected 2, and none from the Brooks. He said that if you’re interested in donated that, he’d be very grateful. Again, great find!

Jason

Dave Parris is the Curator of Natural History from the NJ State Museum. In a previous email Jason had told me that it looked a lot like cartilage but that he had to confirm it with Dave. So it looks like most of you were right with the cartilage ID. Thanks again, you all were very helpful.

P.S. I sent them back a email telling them they can have it.

[Auspex]

...if you’re interested in donated that, he’d be very grateful. Again, great find!

WTG!

And to think I knew you when...

[tracer]

please pass on this rather scholarly document regarding calcified cartilage if that isn't your interest, but it finally occurred to me that the presence of a degree of mineralization at the outset could very much assist the preservation process during diagenesis...

link

[lordpiney]

thats awesome bob...i knew dave was gonna want it when he saw it. lol. you've gotta get some spots to hunt from him in trade for all these donations. and let me know when your going up...i'll bring those bones he wants.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Guest

[fossildan]

Dan,

As far as I know, myliobatid origins remain murky at best. Myliobatis appeared during the Early Paleocene but nice dental plates are not well-known until the Late Paleocene. Welton and Farish's book on Cretaceous sharks and rays of Teaxas showed undescribed myliobatid teeth from the Late Cretaceous (Campanian) of Texas. An older genus, Brachyrhizodus, is probably related to the ancestor of Myliobatis. Brachyrhizodus apparently had dental plates made up of medial and lateral grinding teeth but the teeth are found only as isolated elements with no associated dermal denticles of any kind (sites in Texas, New Jersey, and North Carolina). Years ago, Steve Jorgensen found some small Brachyrhizodus teeth in a Turonian site in South Dakota, significantly pushing back the chronologic range of the genus, but I don't know if that has been documented yet.

The dental structure that allows the teeth to lock together to form an effective grinding surface, or dental plate, also increased the chance of the dental plate surviving intact as a fossil (a structure which may have evolved during the Paleocene). However, even under rather unturbulent conditions, the plate generally broke up into its component teeth and fragments across time. As you know, usually, Myliobatis teeth are found as partials, isolated complete teeth, or far less commonly, two or three medial teeth still connected to each other. A partial plate with even just one lateral tooth still attached is a nice prize. I can certainly appreciate your jaw set.

Don't feel bad about defending the skin idea especially if more than one person told you previously that it was skin. After all, it does look like it could be skin. I didn't think it was cartilage because it hardly ever fossilizes, and when it does, it's just a misshapen lump. Fortunately, there are people here on the forum who have seen multiple examples of it firsthand and let us know.

Siteseer,

Some interesting info there, will have to read more into this, took at look at the Brachyrhizodus, the dentition looks simular to the Leidybatis in the london clay fossil book. I also have another very small lower plate with laterals. AS for the Cartilage, I was also sure it was skin so never questioned others opinions as not one person has ever suggested it be cartilage so this has been quite a suprise. Still its always good to learn new things although its a little disapointing that its not skin.

Boesse, Would be great to see some pics of your ray dents :pic:

Phoenix, Lovely example

Mike and Bob, Hiding behind hair is no longer an option as I cut it off, and bob Opinions are great for the forum

[fossildan]

OK, Here's another vert with some strange markings. In this case it is an acipenser vert with acipenser spines attached. thought id add this while on the subject

Dan

[fossilguy]

OK, Here's another vert with some strange markings. In this case it is an acipenser vert with acipenser spines attached. thought id add this while on the subject

Dan

That's interesting with spines attached in the matrix with the vert. It looks cool! I really like associated specimens. However, are you sure that isn't from a megalops sp. instead of acipenser? It looks identical to megalops:

http://www.fossilguy.com/gallery/vert/fish-teleosts/megalops/megalops.htm

Later,

[fossildan]

That's interesting with spines attached in the matrix with the vert. It looks cool! I really like associated specimens. However, are you sure that isn't from a megalops sp. instead of acipenser? It looks identical to megalops:

http://www.fossilguy.com/gallery/vert/fish-teleosts/megalops/megalops.htm

Later,

Hi, yes the vert is simular to megalops but not the same, the spines are alot more central in my specimen, trying to id a fish vert from only a vert is an almost impossible task, there has been some 200+ species of fish found on sheppey sofar and many of the verts look identical, The best way is to id what is attached to the vert as this would be alot more accurate. where nothing is attached it is simply easier and more accurate to say its either fish, shark or ray.

Thanks

Dan