Moroccan mosasaurs #4

[Notidanodon]

Hi guys got a few more mosasaur teeth with unconfirmed identities  

1. slightly pathological M,beaugi ?

2. faceted, eramiasaurus?

 

[Notidanodon]

@pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon @Praefectus

[Praefectus]

One looks to be Thalassotitan atrox. Two is Gavialimimus ptychodon. The "facets" you are seeing on the Gavi tooth are tightly spaced striations - a feature common to Russellosaurine mosasaurs (Tylosaurines + Plioplatecarpines). 

 

Facets have more of a flat plane look to them (see Mosasaurus beaugei below). 

[Notidanodon]

54 minutes ago, Praefectus said:

One looks to be Thalassotitan atrox. Two is Gavialimimus ptychodon. The "facets" you are seeing on the Gavi tooth are tightly spaced striations - a feature common to Russellosaurine mosasaurs (Tylosaurines + Plioplatecarpines). 

 

Facets have more of a flat plane look to them (see Mosasaurus beaugei below). 

Great. thanks  is the first one mildly pathological the crown is weirdly bumpy.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

Agree with the identification, and do think the first tooth is pathological.

 

As to the concepts of facets, striations and prism faces on mosasaur teeth, see below diagram from Hornung and Reich (2014).

 

[Praefectus]

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

Agree with the identification, and do think the first tooth is pathological.

 

Actually, I didn't see this at first. It does look like there is some pathology to the tooth. The little tuck and budge around the base of the crown. 

[Notidanodon]

2 hours ago, Praefectus said:

 

Actually, I didn't see this at first. It does look like there is some pathology to the tooth. The little tuck and budge around the base of the crown. 

Nice! Thanks I thought it was a little funky  

 

I’ve got 3 more teeth here as well from the same batch

 

3. similiar to one identified earlier Eremiasaurus pterygoidal?

 

 

4. this is a chonker reminded me of a P. Curri tooth I saw

3. large one again, has ridges at the base of the enamel

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

#3 indeed looks like a E. heterodontus pterygoidal tooth.

#4 is not P. currii, as it has a pointed tip, whereas the former species has straight edges and a rounded tip (kind of imagine a solid cylinder that's been "amputated" into a rounded surface at the top, with only minor lateral compression towards the tip). This specimen seems a bit compressed, so @Praefectus might call it E. heterodontus mid-lateral again. But I'd go with T. atrox.

#5 is one of those faceted prognathodontid teeth we've spoken about before.

[Notidanodon]

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

#3 indeed looks like a E. heterodontus pterygoidal tooth.

#4 is not P. currii, as it has a pointed tip, whereas the former species has straight edges and a rounded tip (kind of imagine a solid cylinder that's been "amputated" into a rounded surface at the top, with only minor lateral compression towards the tip). This specimen seems a bit compressed, so @Praefectus might call it E. heterodontus mid-lateral again. But I'd go with T. atrox.

#5 is one of those faceted prognathodontid teeth we've spoken about before.

Thanks! so are most other species uncommon compared to T.atrox and E. heterodontus! or is it just the size range these are in

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

16 hours ago, Notidanodon said:

so are most other species uncommon compared to T.atrox and E. heterodontus! or is it just the size range these are in

 

I think it depends on what locations and layers they are mining, as I've seen certain species be more common at certain times and less so at others. This goes for the not entirely uncommon species like Pluridens serpentis, Halisaurus arambourgi, Gavialimimus almagribensis, and even Globidens phosphaticus. They're less common than T. atrox, but still common enough for you to be able to pick them up at fairs and rock shops. At times, I've actually found that E. heterodontus has become somewhat less common on the markets I monitor, so would also consider in this second tier. However, when you look at something like P. currii, H. boubker or M. hoffmannii, those definitely belong to the rarer species. Rarest are species like Carinodens belgicus, Carinodens minalmamar and Xenodens calminechari.

[Notidanodon]

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

 

I think it depends on what locations and layers they are mining, as I've seen certain species be more common at certain times and less so at others. This goes for the not entirely uncommon species like Pluridens serpentis, Halisaurus arambourgi, Gavialimimus almagribensis, and even Globidens phosphaticus. They're less common than T. atrox, but still common enough for you to be able to pick them up at fairs and rock shops. At times, I've actually found that E. heterodontus has become somewhat less common on the markets I monitor, so would also consider in this second tier. However, when you look at something like P. currii, H. boubker or M. hoffmannii, those definitely belong to the rarer species. Rarest are species like Carinodens belgicus, Carinodens minalmamar and Xenodens calminechari.

Never heard of xenodens! how would one tell the difference between Gavialimimus ptychodon and almagribensis? and how uncommon is G.Ptychodon  

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

21 minutes ago, Notidanodon said:

Never heard of xenodens! how would one tell the difference between Gavialimimus ptychodon and almagribensis? and how uncommon is G.Ptychodon  

 

G. ptychodon doesn't exist, with the species name appearing to be a remnant of Platecarpus ptychodon, since dubbed G. almaghribensis.

[Notidanodon]

On 3/23/2023 at 7:10 PM, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

 

G. ptychodon doesn't exist, with the species name appearing to be a remnant of Platecarpus ptychodon, since dubbed G. almaghribensis.

Ahhh ok Thankyou ! That makes sense  

[Praefectus]

On 3/23/2023 at 3:10 PM, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

G. ptychodon doesn't exist, with the species name appearing to be a remnant of Platecarpus ptychodon, since dubbed G. almaghribensis.

 

Depends if you think the 2019 re-evaluation of "Platecarpus ptychodon" is valid nomenclatural revision or just high level taxonomic vandalism. While the genus name certainly needed amendment, technically, the type material for "ptychodon" is uniquely diagnosable.