filling the blanks on an Ammonite label

[JoeS]

Hi all, due to various moves across continents I lost information on this particular Ammonite.
I know you love some good detective work and I would be so grateful if anyone could help getting the label back up to speed

Size is 12 cm long and 5 cm wide.

 

What I could decipher/infer from the remnants of the label:
Meto(f).... sp.
Djebel Ait ...

north of Goulmima, Morocco

 

 

Thanks for taking a look!


 

[Ludwigia]

I'm not sure what the label should be reading, but this looks like a Mammites nodosoides to me. I've never heard of an ammonite genus beginning with Meto..... , but I do know that tons of Mammites come out of the area north of Goulmima.

[JoeS]

31 minutes ago, Ludwigia said:

I'm not sure what the label should be reading, but this looks like a Mammites nodosoides to me. I've never heard of an ammonite genus beginning with Meto..... , but I do know that tons of Mammites come out of the area north of Goulmima.

Thanks for taking a look! I did not find anything either, Mammites nodosoides does look like a good hit perfect!

[Mart1980]

I agree with Mammites nodosoides (Schlüter 1871). Djebel Aït M’goun nord of Goulmima?

The question is whether the determination on the label is correct.

Edited September 11, 2022 by Mart1980

[JoeS]

11 minutes ago, Mart1980 said:

I agree with Mammites nodosoides (Schlüter 1871). Djebel Aït M’goun nord of Goulmima?

The question is whether the determination on the label is correct.

Thanks for the confirmation! That partial label is sadly all I have, bought the ammonite many years back.
But I take a TFF ID over a seller labeI any day
 

[fifbrindacier]

Hi, i also agree with @Ludwigia.

[BobWill]

I don't know about Moroccan ammonites but we have one in Texas, Metoicoceras geslinianum; 1988, Kennedy. It is found in the Eagle Ford Group, Cenomanian Stage. I can see some vague similarities.

[JohnJ]

The sutures are visible enough to make a comparison to the suggested species.

[BobWill]

2 hours ago, JohnJ said:

The sutures are visible enough to make a comparison to the suggested species.

They might be close but if it's a Metoicoceras it would have the ribs worn down some so the sutures might be worn into the septa a little. One of the pictures I have also shows a slightly more compressed whorl cross-section but there are differences and similarities with other characters of the species in the Treatise, the Index Fossils book and our Texas ammonite book.

[Ludwigia]

I've had a look at Metoicoceras (learned something new ) and find that the nodes are differently arranged than those on the ammonite that the OP is showing us. It also has prominent ribbing which Mammites does not have and the whorl cross section is also narrowerer than that of Mammites whose sutures appear to be congruent with this sample.

[jpc]

I agree that he label could say Metoicoceras, but this looks nothing like the Metoicoceras we get here in Wyoming, which has prominent wavy ribs all along its coils, and no spines, like this guy. 

 

Here is my google search for that genus name:

https://www.google.com/search?q=metoicoceras&rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS867US867&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiisqbXh5D6AhWbAzQIHQTiA-4Q_AUoA3oECAIQBQ&biw=1615&bih=836&dpr=1.1

[BobWill]

19 hours ago, jpc said:

I agree that he label could say Metoicoceras, but this looks nothing like the Metoicoceras we get here in Wyoming, which has prominent wavy ribs all along its coils, and no spines, like this guy. 

 

Here is my google search for that genus name:

https://www.google.com/search?q=metoicoceras&rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS867US867&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiisqbXh5D6AhWbAzQIHQTiA-4Q_AUoA3oECAIQBQ&biw=1615&bih=836&dpr=1.1

Yes, I believe it was mislabeled. I can see where they may have tried to compare it to the species with weaker ribs and the ones that developed ventrolateral tubercles on the last whorl, described as "bullate" on M. geslinianum. The missing ribs and simpler sutures are why I suggested it could be a highly worn specimen but we have all made corrections on original IDs and this was almost certainly a bad, first guess.

Edited September 13, 2022 by BobWill

[JoeS]

I want to thank you all for the great help and lively discussion - it's highly appreciated!