North Sulfur River - Unknown Fossils Group #2

[Metafossical]

Newbie Notes                                                                                                                                                                                                      Updated and revised from 6/28

~

September 2020 I decided to become a fossil hunter. I searched the internet and found the North Sulfur River.  My first three visits I found coral fragments and small fossil wood.  I was still hopeful. 

 

I then reviewed several maps of the area and decided on the road less traveled by.  Went there November 2020 and found my first fossil.  I followed the strata in which that fossil was found. The strata led me up a  creek and that creek was laden with fossils. I hunted that creek countless times and found a bunch of nice fossils. On my last two visits they were scarce, so I stayed away for six months. I returned this May and it was the same as it ever was.

 

I’ve had these fossils for a while. I’ve had a chance to research them and I have an idea of what they might be  . . .  but as a newbie I’m not positive. In the first group I posted for ID, I thought a cervical vert was a pygal/postpygal and a scapula was a coracoid.  So, and as it should be,  I defer to the professionals for the final ID.

 

With the help of the veterans at this forum, (7) fossils were ID in my first post; they made it look easy.

 

Thanks   

 

The following pics are set number two.   I thought the fossil dated 1/18 was a piece of wood until I turned it over. The second and third on 2/7 came in quick succession. Three months later I found the fourth fossil in this set.  I did review Russells's Manual and found the last fossil on page 50  . . . I've got more here related to these, just got to process the pics.

[ClearLake]

I'm no expert on this stuff, but in the book I referenced to you in a previous post (Fossil Collectors Guide to the North Sulphur River) I see very similar items on plate 34 labelled as Mososaur jaws, specifically Tylosourus proriger. Hopefully, one of our numerous NSR experts will be along soon to give you a more confident answer.

[Praefectus]

 

Big sharp tooth crown like that. This is Tylosaurus. I believe T. proriger is the NSR species. 

 

 

This is the anterior tip of a mosasaur dentary bone. See how it projects ahead of the first tooth position? That is diagnostic of Tylosaurus. Similarly, the Meckelian canal (groove at the bottom) originating right at the tip of the bone points towards Tylosaurus proriger. 

 

It is hard to say for the other bones. They all look mosasaurid, but I don't think that the identifications can be narrowed down much more beyond that. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Praefectus
Fixing the images

[JohnJ]

@Metafossical what a beautiful discovery.  Were all these pieces found within a small area?

[Metafossical]

3 hours ago, ClearLake said:

I'm no expert on this stuff, but in the book I referenced to you in a previous post (Fossil Collectors Guide to the North Sulphur River) I see very similar items on plate 34 labelled as Mososaur jaws, specifically Tylosourus proriger. Hopefully, one of our numerous NSR experts will be along soon to give you a more confident answer.

 

57 minutes ago, Praefectus said:

 

Big sharp tooth crown like that. This is Tylosaurus. I believe T. proriger is the NSR species. 

 

 

This is the anterior tip of a mosasaur dentary bone. See how it projects ahead of the first tooth position? That is diagnostic of Tylosaurus. Similarly, the Meckelian canal (groove at the bottom) originating right at the tip of the bone points towards Tylosaurus proriger. 

 

It is hard to say for the other bones. They all look mosasaurid, but I don't think that the identifications can be narrowed down much more beyond that. 

 

43 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

@Metafossical what a beautiful discovery.  Were all these pieces found within a small area?

 

Thanks Praefectus, Clear Lake and JohnJ for responding to my post.  I appreciate your time, efforts and kind words.

 

With JJ identifying the cervical verts and jps identifying the scapula, and with the ID process moving forward today, the info is pointing towards this lizard as Tylosaurus.

~

I've been to this creek countless times and no doubt due to my lack of experience many fossils lay there undiscovered or I've picked them up and didn't realize they were fossils.    I've reviewed the flood plain maps for Lake Ralph Hall and the creek I've found these fossils, like most of the North Sulfur River area, will soon be under water.

 

It is my hope that you can bend the forum rules in this particular case so that in the near future I can post the maps showing where I found these fossils.

 

[JohnJ]

2 minutes ago, Metafossical said:

It is my hope that you can bend the forum rules in this particular case so that in the near future I can post the maps showing where I found these fossils.

 

This is not a guideline to be bent for all the reasons previously explaining its purpose.    Nor is it really necessary.

 

On the other hand, did these come from a relatively small stretch of the creek, suggesting they may all be associated?

 

 

[Metafossical]

25 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

 

This is not a guideline to be bent for all the reasons previously explaining its purpose.    Nor is it really necessary.

 

On the other hand, did these come from a relatively small stretch of the creek, suggesting they may all be associated?

 

 

 

I respect the rules of the forum.

~

Interesting question. 

 

Yes, some of the fossils were found in relatively small stretches of the creek.  There were some days where I found four and five fossils in a relatively short period of time in a short distance. However, on some days I found fossils throughout the creek.

 

I think in some respects it was a matter of timing.  The “fossil bunches” no doubt would have been dispersed had it rained or I visited the creek at a later time. I also think it is a matter of the geology of the creek. Some stretches of the creek I found more likely to trap and or expose fossils. 

 

Most of the fossils were found in the same strata.  Interestingly, I’ll visit the creek on a particular day, return after it rains and the strata has washed away.  When I took pictures of the fossils, I also took pictures of the strata.  I’ve got a bunch of pictures of the strata and how it has changed over time.

[JohnJ]

Your documentation and attention to details are very useful... especially when the memory gets crowded with so many wonderful finds.  Keep up the good work.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

Oh, wow! These are some beautiful jaw sections! Not often you find them in this condition on the NSR, so my guess is that you probably found them very shortly after they were washed out. I second @JohnJ's suspicion that - based on preservation, the rapid succession in which these were found (with little time of exposure in between) within a relatively small catchment area (allowing for a bit of fluvial transfer due to rains, yet, again, not over too great distances due to the good preservation), and matching size and species - these pieces appear to be from an articulated specimen.

 

All pieces seem to be part of a mosasaur mandible, with the two visible replacement teeth (growing out of the jaw to eventually push the old ones out) of sections 1 and 3 pointing in the same direction as the anterior dentary fragment Trevor mentioned in being tylosaurine. And the foremost one known from that area would be Tylosaurus proriger. You can tell that the teeth are tylosaurine by their lateral compression as well as apically restricted curvature and near straight posterior edge of the tooth.

 

Very exciting finds and I don't mind admitting to being a bit envious!

[Metafossical]

3 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

Your documentation and attention to details are very useful... especially when the memory gets crowded with so many wonderful finds.  Keep up the good work.

 

I'm working on the next two groups.  Looking forward to posting the pics.  It's been fun.

 

I think this little collection I have would be dwarfed by your no doubt magnificent collection . . .

[Metafossical]

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

Oh, wow! These are some beautiful jaw sections! Not often you find them in this condition on the NSR, so my guess is that you probably found them very shortly after they were washed out. I second @JohnJ's suspicion that - based on preservation, the rapid succession in which these were found (with little time of exposure in between) within a relatively small catchment area (allowing for a bit of fluvial transfer due to rains, yet, again, not over too great distances due to the good preservation), and matching size and species - these pieces appear to be from an articulated specimen.

 

All pieces seem to be part of a mosasaur mandible, with the two visible replacement teeth (growing out of the jaw to eventually push the old ones out) of sections 1 and 3 pointing in the same direction as the anterior dentary fragment Trevor mentioned in being tylosaurine. And the foremost one known from that area would be Tylosaurus proriger. You can tell that the teeth are tylosaurine by their lateral compression as well as apically restricted curvature and near straight posterior edge of the tooth.

 

Very exciting finds and I don't mind admitting to being a bit envious!

 

Thanks pachy  . . .

 

I believe I did find them shortly after they "were washed out."  Any time earlier of later, or had I not been there on that day at that time, I would have missed them;  the timing was critical.  Of course, so is luck.  Should I ever find another mosasaur mandible I'll keep in mind, "the teeth are tylosaurine by their lateral compression as well as apically restricted curvature and near straight posterior edge of the tooth."  I've got some fossils here you might find interesting  . . .

 

Thanks for the info and the kind words.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

33 minutes ago, Metafossical said:

I believe I did find them shortly after they "were washed out."  Any time earlier of later, or had I not been there on that day at that time, I would have missed them;  the timing was critical.  Of course, so is luck.

 

Definitely! The two most important things when hunting for fossils is opportunity and a luck - which you seem to have a healthy dose of

 

33 minutes ago, Metafossical said:

I've got some fossils here you might find interesting  . . .

 

I'm always interesting in having a look and glad to help out where I can, so feel free to reach out to me

[Metafossical]

11 hours ago, JohnJ said:

@Metafossical Were all these pieces found within a small area?

 

After some reflection i think I better understand the nature of this question. 

 

Is there a particular area where a majority of the fossils were found, if so that might be where you can find the rest of the beast.   (I think that's it, or somethin' similar).

 

When I found that mandible fragment back in January 2021,  it was my intent to find that beast, where ever it might lay.  On every visit I searched for where it might be.  If I didn't find it, I changed the way I focused my search next time out. Did that countless times.  Searched the farthest ends of the creek, north and south.   I thought I might have found the home of that lizard on one particular occasion . . . but it wasn't meant to be. I arrived too late and I knew it. The lizard had been washed out long before I got there and all that was left for me to find were the parts, pieces and fragments. 

 

I'll keep your question in mind should I find another.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

2 hours ago, Metafossical said:

After some reflection i think I better understand the nature of this question. 

 

Is there a particular area where a majority of the fossils were found, if so that might be where you can find the rest of the beast.   (I think that's it, or somethin' similar).

 

Yip, that's about the gist of it. Seeing as these pieces are all so similar for the reasons I mentioned above, it's possible there is or was more out there. Tracking down where such fragments are coming from can be a bit tricky at times, especially when there's a lot of river action to transport elements, since you'll need to determine a possible trajectory for the piece to have taken and backtrack to the place of their most likely origin. But it may also well be that there was just this one mandible, of which, by the looks of it, you did manage to get most pieces I'd still say a job well done

[JohnJ]

The most likely area for the source is obviously upstream of your finds.  Look for the closest exposed fossil bearing strata.  It may be in a deep hole behind a log or an eroding shelf of the matrix.  If you have found pieces very similar in color, they could be related.  Also bear in mind this was a large animal, so there may be much more to find depending on the original parts deposited.

[Metafossical]

16 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

The most likely area for the source is obviously upstream of your finds.  Look for the closest exposed fossil bearing strata.  It may be in a deep hole behind a log or an eroding shelf of the matrix.  If you have found pieces very similar in color, they could be related.  Also bear in mind this was a large animal, so there may be much more to find depending on the original parts deposited.

 

As pachy would say "Oh wow!"

~

Good stuff  JJ . . . I'll need to give this some additional thought. 

 

[ThePhysicist]

Killer finds! I'm still waiting to find a jaw with a developing tooth at NSR. 

[Metafossical]

On 7/2/2022 at 4:19 PM, ThePhysicist said:

Killer finds! I'm still waiting to find a jaw with a developing tooth at NSR. 

 

Thanks ThePhysicist  . . .  

 

It was fun to find that one.  It was one of the few I cleaned completely and when I was done cleaning it, turned out to be a nice one.  Lookin' for the next one.

[Metafossical]

On 7/2/2022 at 1:21 PM, JohnJ said:

The most likely area for the source is obviously upstream of your finds.  Look for the closest exposed fossil bearing strata.  It may be in a deep hole behind a log or an eroding shelf of the matrix.  If you have found pieces very similar in color, they could be related.  Also bear in mind this was a large animal, so there may be much more to find depending on the original parts deposited.

 

I've given this post some thought.

 

I'd like to wait until I post fossil groups five and six before I respond.  There may be some information in those next two groups that is relevant to your post.