North Sulfur River 9/12 - Tylosaur Jr. andthe Kingdom ofthe Wild Hogs

[DPS Ammonite]

10 minutes ago, Brandy Cole said:

To put my money where my mouth is, I'll show why it best resembles petrified wood to me.

Are those pieces from the NSR? If so, any idea as to the age of the wood or where it came from? I have not seen any silicified in situ, non-reworked wood from the Cretaceous rocks in the area.

[Brandy Cole]

@DPS Ammonite My chunk of wood (the redder examples) came from Southeast Texas.

The original poster's piece came from NSR I believe.

 

I have no familiarity at all with NSR finds and very little familiarity with cretaceous remains, so I'm very open to the idea I could be missing the mark.  Just wanted to show the features that led me down the wooden path. 

 

[Metafossical]

On 9/22/2022 at 12:49 PM, JohnJ said:

 

Not sure what you mean by this.  Facts and good evidence educate all of us.

 

Still, if you are confident in your identification, run the photos by Mike Polcyn at SMU and see if he concurs.  I'm sure members here would enjoy hearing his opinion.

 

Your latest photos are much better.  The bone texture reminds me of the turtle pieces I posted previously.

 

 

Thanks for the kind words JohnJ,  I appreciate it. I’ve taken a lot of pics lately, so hopefully I’ve improved some.

 

~

I’ve made my case and presented scientific facts that the fossils are Tylosaur humeri.  In addition,  in the thread, After 90 million years . . . , I made my case the scapula is Tylosaur.

 

Thus far, you have failed to contest those facts.  I do understand   . . .  it would be difficult to refute Dale A. Russell.

 

No use beatin’ a wild hog (so to speak).

Case closed.  Victory for science.

End of sensationalism.

 

[JohnJ]

1 minute ago, Metafossical said:

End of sensationalism.

 

Sensationalism was never on my radar.  I had hoped to present you with some facts and informed opinions.  

 

Does this mean you are not interested in contacting Michael Polcyn?  Does he qualify as someone that might know science?  

[PaleoPastels]

Wow chiming in to compliment that sweet vivid orange ammonite piece!  I have yet to find those variety, just haven’t had that level of luck yet! (I have found a more straight shelled ceph in that color with some iridescence!) Its a very cute specimen you have there even if it’s incomplete. I keep spying on posts like this to try to get an update on the river, glad to see the mud is cracking up and drying. Unfortunately for me it’s just still too hot for me to head out there but I’m hopeful soon it will cool down! 
 

The wild hogs out there can give you a fright, ya’ll be careful! I usually actually see a *ton* of javelina group tracks, they come down to drink in the morning. Encounters with wild boar can be spooky and are somewhat common. We heard a really big one squealing making deep snort sounds when running/breaking twigs along the top of the river bank once last year and I just kinda froze until I could tell it was far away from us. This is a big reason why I recommend always travel there with a group, you know, besides the surprise spots with mid calf-deep mud which is always fun.  
 

***Also chiming in with some info to those curious. As a fall-winter regular NSR goer: in my experience at NSR a lot of the turtle shell pieces I find there are dark to blackish and mosasaurs a chocolate to very deep dark brown color. (Their teeth are usually black or the darkest possible brown.) Important note is that although this is the Cretaceous Ozan formation there’s also *tons* of pet. wood there of all kinds of cool colors. Theres more than ocean fossils found here! Arrowheads, petrified wood and fossilized mammal remains can also be found there too. What I personally see in the OP post petrified wood, not mosie bone. Usually Moroccan  mosasaurus specimen will have that lighter “sandy” color but NSR mosasaur bones are typically rich and dark. I sometimes a find something there can look similar to bone fragments at first glance (especially the darker pieces of pet wood!) and that can trick ya especially if you’re experiencing sun-blindness out there like I often do. I always bring a loupe necklace and “splash water” with me to help rule out the smaller pieces I find. Fish bone can also look splintery and might look also like darker pet wood and vice versa. At NSR mosasaurus bone should definitely stick out. With a lot of mosie finds Ive seen pulled out there from both myself and other members you should be able to see the small “pores” in the mosasaurus bones, usually they are filled in with a quartz-like mineral, even the really worn ones. I can show you some of my pieces of mosasaur phalanges I personally pulled out of there if it would help.  

Edited September 25, 2022 by AmmoniteDelight
Typos

[Fin Lover]

I think, perhaps, there is some confusion between "facts" and "assertions".

 

@Brandy Cole, I also thought the additional photos looked more like petrified wood, so you are not alone.  

[Metafossical]

On 9/25/2022 at 3:04 PM, AmmoniteDelight said:

Wow chiming in to compliment that sweet vivid orange ammonite piece!  I have yet to find those variety, just haven’t had that level of luck yet! (I have found a more straight shelled ceph in that color with some iridescence!) Its a very cute specimen you have there even if it’s incomplete. I keep spying on posts like this to try to get an update on the river, glad to see the mud is cracking up and drying. Unfortunately for me it’s just still too hot for me to head out there but I’m hopeful soon it will cool down! 
 

The wild hogs out there can give you a fright, ya’ll be careful! I usually actually see a *ton* of javelina group tracks, they come down to drink in the morning. Encounters with wild boar can be spooky and are somewhat common. We heard a really big one squealing making deep snort sounds when running/breaking twigs along the top of the river bank once last year and I just kinda froze until I could tell it was far away from us. This is a big reason why I recommend always travel there with a group, you know, besides the surprise spots with mid calf-deep mud which is always fun.  
 

***Also chiming in with some info to those curious. As a fall-winter regular NSR goer: in my experience at NSR a lot of the turtle shell pieces I find there are dark to blackish and mosasaurs a chocolate to very deep dark brown color. (Their teeth are usually black or the darkest possible brown.) Important note is that although this is the Cretaceous Ozan formation there’s also *tons* of pet. wood there of all kinds of cool colors. Theres more than ocean fossils found here! Arrowheads, petrified wood and fossilized mammal remains can also be found there too. What I personally see in the OP post petrified wood, not mosie bone. Usually Moroccan  mosasaurus specimen will have that lighter “sandy” color but NSR mosasaur bones are typically rich and dark. I sometimes a find something there can look similar to bone fragments at first glance (especially the darker pieces of pet wood!) and that can trick ya especially if you’re experiencing sun-blindness out there like I often do. I always bring a loupe necklace and “splash water” with me to help rule out the smaller pieces I find. Fish bone can also look splintery and might look also like darker pet wood and vice versa. At NSR mosasaurus bone should definitely stick out. With a lot of mosie finds Ive seen pulled out there from both myself and other members you should be able to see the small “pores” in the mosasaurus bones, usually they are filled in with a quartz-like mineral, even the really worn ones. I can show you some of my pieces of mosasaur phalanges I personally pulled out of there if it would help.  

 

 

Nice post, informed and informative.

 

Thanks for the compliment on the ammonite.

 

I care little for all these fossils and find them cumbersome.  I’m lookin’ forward to gettin’ rid of the whole lot.  For me  . . .  it is and remains all about the adventure and the learning.

 

I’ve been to “Spooky Creek” twice this year.  I agree, much too hot.  The weather is cooling  . . . but still no heavy rainfall recently.  Here is a link to NOAA/National Weather Service Advance Hydrological Prediction Service.  It shows the NSR River height near Cooper.   If the height is under one foot, I go.  Right now, lowest I’ve seen.

 

I’ve seen dem’ wild hogs up close.  Mr. Hogg was on the upper bank. I stopped and looked at him, he looked at me. He raised his snout, gave a deep snort and scampered away.  Huge animal. He showed no fear. For me, it was too close for comfort.

 

“Spooky Creek” has proved to be fascinating.  I’ve collected over 60 fossils from “Spooky”, some wonderfully exquisite and some terribly rare.  I believe the depositional environment some 90 million years ago, was dynamic and changing over time and distance.  Still a mystery why so many different fossils in this one creek.   I think it is likely there are a bunch more fossil in the “Spooky.”

 

Below are a couple of photos of a “sandy” or “blondie” ammonite.  I thought you might find these photos interesting.   I’m no scientist, but I’ve read the elements in the depositional environment can have an effect on the color of the fossil.

 

 

 

 

I also agree that “mosasaurs [are]  a chocolate to very deep dark brown color.”  I’ve attached a photo of a Tylosaur jaw bone fragment in situ, indeed it was chocolate.  When I turned it over it appeared “tan.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With respect to the fossils in question in this thread, the work by Dale A. Russell remains unchallenged.

 

I would like to thank everyone for all the kind words, I found them motivating.  Special shout out to @Brandy Cole and @FossilNerd.

 

[JohnJ]

1 hour ago, Metafossical said:

I care little for all these fossils and find them cumbersome.  I’m lookin’ forward to gettin’ rid of the whole lot.

 

On 9/23/2022 at 10:45 PM, JohnJ said:

Does this mean you are not interested in contacting Michael Polcyn?  Does he qualify as someone that might know science?  

 

Again, you might consider contacting one of the world's leading mosasaur researchers (certainly at the top in your area of North Texas), Michael Polcyn.  He could inform you as to whether you have anything significant you might consider donating to research.  

 

[Metafossical]

On 10/3/2022 at 9:45 AM, JohnJ said:

 

 

Again, you might consider contacting one of the world's leading mosasaur researchers (certainly at the top in your area of North Texas), Michael Polcyn.  He could inform you as to whether you have anything significant you might consider donating to research.  

 

 

 

Thanks for the kind words JohnJ,  I appreciate it.

 

For the record, I will not be donating any fossils to academia. 

 

I do welcome academia to join me on the next “Spooky Creek” fossil hunt. I’ve found a lot of fossils in the “Spooky”.  I think there are a bunch more in there.  I cannot promise finding any.  I do promise pure adventure and knowing the “Spooky Creek” experience.  Holler. 

~

I think “for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.”  I think that is on display in the following link, I call it Grigoriev Saint Petersburg

 

 #

 

 

 

 

[JohnJ]

10 minutes ago, Metafossical said:

 

 

 

Thanks for the kind words JohnJ,  I appreciate it.

 

 

 

For the record, I will not be donating any fossils to academia. 

 

 

 

I do welcome academia to join me on the next “Spooky Creek” fossil hunt. I’ve found a lot of fossils in the “Spooky”.  I think there are a bunch more in there.  I cannot promise finding any.  I do promise pure adventure and knowing the “Spooky Creek” experience.  Holler. 

 

~

 

I think “for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.”  I think that is on display in the following link, I call it Grigoriev Saint Petersburg

 

 

 

 #

 

Does that mean you are not interested in Polcyn's opinions on your finds?  I'm sure it would be educational for us all, if you did.  But, that is obviously your prerogative, not your obligation.

[Fin Lover]

I'm confused.  If you are not interested in fossils and want to get rid of them, but you aren't willing to donate them for science, what is the point of continuing to fossil hunt?  Why not leave the fossils there for someone who appreciates them to find?

[FossilNerd]

22 hours ago, Fin Lover said:

I'm confused.  If you are not interested in fossils and want to get rid of them, but you aren't willing to donate them for science, what is the point of continuing to fossil hunt?  Why not leave the fossils there for someone who appreciates them to find?

I am also confused…

 

On 10/3/2022 at 8:32 AM, Metafossical said:

I care little for all these fossils and find them cumbersome.  I’m lookin’ forward to gettin’ rid of the whole lot.

So why even pick them up? Why come on this forum to show them off and post a trip report? Why not “get rid of them” by donating them to academia? As @JohnJ mentioned, it’s your prerogative to do what you want with them, but I don’t understand why you even bother picking them up since they are cumbersome and a nuisance to you.
 

If your main enjoyment is to go hiking and adventuring in the “Spooky Creek” (nothing wrong with that), then I would think your experiences would be better shared on another forum. I’m sure there are plenty of forums or social media groups dedicated to hiking and adventuring.

 

My intention is not to tell you to “take a hike” (pun intended), but to understand and clear up my confusion regarding this whole thread.

[Brandy Cole]

@Metafossical Many academics in the field are happy to look at fossils and give you an opinion with absolutely no expectation that you would donate said fossil.  I took several 'bones of contention' to a paleontologist who had a vast comparison collection.  Being able to get his insight and compare what I found helped me confirm ID's on several of my finds. 

 

Maybe I've misunderstood your concerns about going to Dr. Polcyn, but no one is going to force you to donate a specimen if you ask them to take a look.  If someone did ask, you could just politely decline.

[Metafossical]

On 10/7/2022 at 10:27 AM, JohnJ said:

 

Does that mean you are not interested in Polcyn's opinions on your finds?  I'm sure it would be educational for us all, if you did.  But, that is obviously your prerogative, not your obligation.

 

 

 

Thanks for the kind words JohnJ, I appreciate it.

 

I hope you found the Grigoriev Saint Petersburg link informative.  I thought it was kinda neat to read the exchanges between the PhDs.

 

~

 

Speaking of hope, and so as not to get diverted  . . .  back to the topic of this thread.

 

I have made my case and presented facts that the fossils in question are Tylosaur humeri.  In addition, in the thread  “After 90 million years...“, I made my case the scapula is Tylosaur.

 

Thus far JohnJ, you have failed to contest those facts.  All you could muster is, “I had hoped to present you with some facts and informed opinions.” 

 

 

This is a scientific forum.  The science doesn’t consider your status, your number of posts, how many awards you have “earned”, nor does the science consider your popularity.  The science considers evidence and facts and you have failed to present any.

 

Please JohnJ, in the future, when you make an assertion be prepared to back it up with evidence and facts

 

Please JohnJ, consider this a teachable moment.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JohnJ]

@Metafossical

Thanks for making your position clear.

[Praefectus]

On 10/3/2022 at 9:32 AM, Metafossical said:

With respect to the fossils in question in this thread, the work by Dale A. Russell remains unchallenged.

Oh please. Russell's book came out in 1967. Everything from the relationships of the mosasaur subfamilies to the detailed accounts of specific bone morphology has been challenged as new discoveries were made. While the book is the fundamental starting place for students of mosasaur paleontology, it is far too dated to be the definitive word for identifications. 

 

Quote

For your perusal, I’ve outlined the features described by Russell.

1. Tylosaur humeri is very long and slender
2. Tylosaur humeri is, compared to most other forms, only slightly expanded at the ends
3. Tylosaur humeri postglenoid process is small
4. Tylosaur humeri postglenoid process is indistinguishable from glenoid condyle
5. Tylosaur humeri distal radial tuberosity is absent
6. Tylosaur humeri radial facet is indistinct
7. Tylosaur humeri ulnar facet is indistinct
8. Tylosaur humeri ulnar tuberosity is very small

Do you even know what a postglenoid process is? Explain it in your own words and point it out on your "Tylosaur humerus." While you are at it, point out the radial tuberosity would be if it wasn't a tylosaur. And since you are sure this is a tylosaur, point out the groove for the radial nerve that would allow for confident identification of your "bones."

 

This is a scientific forum. Science doesn't consider your status, number of posts, awards, nor popularity. It considers evidence and facts. Given your previous posts, it should be rather easy to label up a picture with you "bone" in it. 

 

[Doctor Mud]

Well said @Praefectus and I admire your patience @JohnJ 

 

If @Metafossical wants to think they are the bones he thinks they are - no problem. Enjoy believing it.
 

But @Praefectus has a good point. Proof would require a labelled photo highlighting the features. Every scientific paper, presentation etc. arguing for an ID does this. 
- establish the terminology (who established the naming of the features) you’ve done that part. 

- describe the specimen with the relevant features highlighted in text and in a photo. You haven’t done this. 
 

Personally I would have walked away from this “debate” ages ago and the others have been really patient.  It’s just hardwired into many of us to help out; and hard to stop helping even when we meet resistance.