Plesiosaurus Tooth and Fish Fossils?

[Rikache]

Hi there everyone!

 

I acquired this plesiosaur tooth specimen from Oued Zem, Khouribga, Morocco not too long ago and I couldn't help but be fascinated by all of the different fossils found in the single piece of matrix.

 

The front of the specimen contains a beautiful plesiosaur tooth with what I believe is a fish vertebrae and other fish material. On the back, the specimen is riddled with small shark teeth as seen by an exposed root and various exposed crowns.

 

Though I'd greatly appreciate a positive ID on the plesiosaur tooth, I'm really more interested in the identification of the other fossils surrounding the tooth. I'm aware that accurately identifying the other fossils may be nigh impossible, but I'd love to hear what you guys think and I welcome any guesses you all may have just for the fun of it.

 

Cheers,

Rik 

[Fossildude19]

Looks like 3 fish vertebrae on the front with the tooth, and at least 3 teeth on the back.

Can't say much more than that, I'm afraid.

[caterpillar]

10 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

Looks like 3 fish vertebrae on the front with the tooth

 

Only 2 fish vertebras. The third is something else

[Fossildude19]

6 minutes ago, caterpillar said:

 

Only 2 fish vertebras. The third is something else

 

The third could be a croc vert. Looks like maybe a ball and socket arrangement.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

On the front we've got a Zarafasaura oceanis elasmosaurian plesiosaur tooth and two vertebrae from bony fish, probably Enchodus sp.. On top of the second fish vertebra is a procoelous vertebra, which looks too small to be crocodilian. Rather, I think that, since the bone block is Maastrichtian in age (demonstrated by the presence of Z. oceanis) and therefore too early for the sea snake Palaeophis maghrebianus, this could be a vertebra from Pachyvaranus crassispondylus. Or, more likely, due to the fragile nature of the specimen, Simoliophis libycus, an early limbed sea serpent.

 

On the back I count only one shark's tooth crown, and one likely root. Then there are a couple of other bits and bobs in terms of bone.

 

Overall, though, this seems quite a densely packed bit of matrix. They're not always as full of interesting specimens

[caterpillar]

4 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

The third could be a croc vert. Looks like maybe a ball and socket arrangement.

 

I think more serpent than croc.

But it needs to be cleaned to be sure

[caterpillar]

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

which looks too small to be crocodilian

 

Before becoming adults, crocodiles are also juveniles .

But I don't think it's crocodile, given the very globular shape of the centrum

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

1 minute ago, caterpillar said:

Before becoming adults, crocodiles are also juveniles .

But I don't think it's crocodile, given the very globular shape of the centrum

 

You got me there!

Though, I think that juvenile material would all the same have less chances of surviving than would adult material of a smaller species, right? Owing to the fact that juvenile bones would be less mineralised at time of death...

[caterpillar]

True, juvenile material is much rarer, but the possibility exists.

[Rikache]

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

Rather, I think that, since the bone block is Maastrichtian in age (demonstrated by the presence of Z. oceanis) and therefore too early for the sea snake Palaeophis maghrebianus

 

9 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

The third could be a croc vert. Looks like maybe a ball and socket arrangement.

 

5 hours ago, caterpillar said:

But I don't think it's crocodile, given the very globular shape of the centrum

 

Thank you all so much for your input! It's really exciting to see that I may have a specimen in my collection that's a little more special than I originally thought. Your guys' discourse has been extremely insightful and educational and if any of you want more information about the specimen or better angles I'll try my best to provide them. As always, I welcome any more discussion as this has been interesting to read though.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

1 hour ago, Rikache said:

Your guys' discourse has been extremely insightful and educational and if any of you want more information about the specimen or better angles I'll try my best to provide them. As always, I welcome any more discussion as this has been interesting to read though.

 

Not sure if other angles are going to be more informative as the vertebra is incomplete and somewhat crushed. Most diagnostic features will no longer be present. Same goes for if it were extracted from the matrix, which I wouldn't recommend trying as this will mean having to sacrifice the fish vertebra (unless you'd leave them attached to one another, which would, however, be counterproductive to increasing the diagnostic value) - and the vertebra seems too fragile for that anyway...

Edited May 30, 2022 by pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon

[Rikache]

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

 

Not sure if other angles are going to be more informative as the vertebra is incomplete and somewhat crushed. Most diagnostic features will no longer be present. Same goes for if it were extracted from the matrix.

 

Yeah I hear you, but thank you so much for your help anyways. I learned a lot!