Jaw Bone With A Few Broken Teeth

[Texas Fossil Hound]

The bone itself does not lend to fish. I am hoping this is avian, but would like to see a close-up of the teeth for pterasaur comparison.

WAY cool find! Looking forward to seeing what you have.

Jon

[siteseer]

If it were a fish, the teeth would be attached to the jaw but not rooted into it. If it were a pterosaur, I think you would see that the teeth are rooted into the jaw (evidence of at least shallow sockets).

Another question is if those are pieces of a sawfish rostrum. I can't tell for sure if that lower edge looks like it was split off or is the bottom of a jaw.

Jess

I do not believe that this is a fish jaw.

I'm thinking toothed pterosaur...

I, too, cannot wait to see what others think.

[sward]

...I am hoping this is avian, but would like to see a close-up of the teeth for pterasaur comparison...

[Al Dente]

Looks like fish material to me.

[Boneman007]

Based on ya'lls latest input, I did the best I could to take some pics of the end of the fragment to see if it looks hollow.

What do you think?

Looks hollow to me. Im thinking Pterosaur after seeing the side view especially.

I have some Pterdon material from western Kansas, but this is definitely not Pterodon. How does it compare to your toothed Pterosaur Lance?

Personally, Im excited as heck about this find. I think this one is VERY significant!

Btw, it is definitely NOT swordfish. I have skulls from the swordfish of the Western Interior Seaway and this does not conform to swordfish.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Auspex

[Foshunter]

sward---Can we get a photo of the piece looking straight down on the jaw, would like to see the width?---Tom

[sward]

sward---Can we get a photo of the piece looking straight down on the jaw, would like to see the width?---Tom

Tom,

Here ya go. The thickest part is approximately 4-5mm thick.

[sward]

I also heard from Dr. Myers earlier today. Below is the message he sent me:

"The striations on the horizontal ramus are not typical of pterosaur jaws, and the morphology and spacing of the tooth sockets also doesn't resemble those of pterosaur specimens with which I'm familiar. Some toothed pterosaurs do have raised borders of bone around their sockets, but not to the extent apparent in your specimen. The morphology of the teeth themselves also seems rather unusual, but it's hard to say without seeing the specimen in person. Based on your photos I would say it's not a pterosaur jaw. Still a fascinating specimen, though. Hope this helps.

-Scott Myers"

I guess this means I'm still looking. I appreciate everyones help and interest in this specimen.

[Roz]

Hmmmm, dang!

Well the bone looks hollow to me as well, just filled in with matrix.. Are there

fish jaws that are hollow, does anyone know?

The teeth don't look right to me to be a sawfish rostral.. That's me though..

[KansasFossilHunter]

Bird? Of some kind?

[Auspex]

Bird? Of some kind?

Nope, sorry.

[KansasFossilHunter]

Nope, sorry.

Just checking

[Boneman007]

Again, definitely not swordfish.

I hate to disagree with the experts, but given the size, given the hollow bone structure, given the tooth structure, I cant see it being anything but a pterosaur.

I am very familiar with all the macro fishes of the western interior seaway and this is not anything I've every seen.

I'm going to stick with Pterosaur. I'll bet it's a new one.

[sward]

Again, definitely not swordfish.

I hate to disagree with the experts, but given the size, given the hollow bone structure, given the tooth structure, I cant see it being anything but a pterosaur.

I am very familiar with all the macro fishes of the western interior seaway and this is not anything I've every seen.

I'm going to stick with Pterosaur. I'll bet it's a new one.

I appreciate your, and everyones, interest in this specimen. I guess I would consider this my best find to date. I know none of my other postings has received so much attention. I find ya'lls interest very gratifying.

I was provided contact information for a "fish" person this time. I have forwarded the pics to him for his input. I'll let you know what I hear.

[sward]

Well, I think we may have it identified. I was provided another contact information via pm, and the person was kind enough to repond very quickly. Since the contact info was provided by pm, I assume it may be private so I don't want to disclose that info here. However, here's his response:

"Interesting specimen...

My first impression is that it is the dentary of an aspidorhynchid fish ....

http://www.fossilmal...dorhynchusb.htm

The teeth are widely separated and the jaw is long and narrow in these fish..."

He also attached a paper on the subjct. When you look at the page marked as "208" (there's not that many pages to it, though) I think he's nailed it exactly.

This is a new one to me. I guess I'll be reading up on it to see what else I can learn.

As previously stated, I thank everyone so much for their interest in my find. I find it gratifying and motivating that so many people with much more experience than this newbie are so interested. That's just one of ther wonderful things about this forum

Aspidorhynchid Fish.pdf

[Roz]

How very exciting! That is a rare find and an awesome fish.. I was just reading up on them!

[Boneman007]

I hate to disagree, but I think that ID is WAY off.

We are dealing with a Cretaceous hollow jaw. To compare it to a European SOLID boned swordfish from the Jurrasic of Europe is a bad choice. I have a couple of good examples of the skulls of the cretaceous swordfish Protosphyraena pernicosa and I can tell you that jaw isnt even close.

I still say pterosaur. The more I look at the specimen, the more I believe I am right.

I found a better pic on the web. You can see there is little similarity.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Boneman007

[Roz]

I hate to disagree, but I think that ID is WAY off.

We are dealing with a Cretaceous hollow jaw. To compare it to a European SOLID boned swordfish from the Jurrasic of Europe is a bad choice. I have a couple of good examples of the skulls of the cretaceous swordfish Protosphyraena pernicosa and I can tell you that jaw isnt even close.

I still say pterosaur. The more I look at the specimen, the more I believe I am right.

I found a better pic on the web. You can see there is little similarity.

Do you have any contacts that might be able to help with the ID? Scott M. was my best hope..

I can't think of any others in the pterosaur field..

[siteseer]

You can try finding contact info for Peter Wellnhofer, a pterosaur researcher. You can also try Mike Everhart, the "Oceans of Kansas" author.

I'm assuming this is the same hillside noted in another thread as exposing Paw Paw Formation fossils, possibly also containing the Paw Paw/Mainstreet Formation contact. The Paw Paw is an Early Cretaceous formation - Late Albian age with the Mainstreet being Early Cenomanian. There would be weird fishes (and pterosaurs) in there relative to what is found in the younger, more-collected chalks of the Western Interior Sea. I would widen the scope of people to ask to researchers familiar with Mid-Late Albian marine vertebrates from other continents such as Peter Forey, Alison Longbottom, and Angela C. Milner - contributors to the recently published book on fossils from the Gault Clay, England.

Do you have any contacts that might be able to help with the ID? Scott M. was my best hope..

I can't think of any others in the pterosaur field..

[sward]

I have sent the pics to Scott Myers and Mike Everhart. Scott stated that it probably wasn't pterosaur and Mike provided the aspidorhynchid id.

I'll be more than happy to forward some pics to someone else. If you've got the contact information for someone who may be able to help with the id, please let me know and I'll forward some pics.

[Xiphactinus]

I have to admit the hollowness of this jaw is puzzling. Usually fish jaws are very, very solid. That's why they are some of the more common fish fossils.

You might try Chris Bennett at Ft. Hays State U. He is the pterosaur guy right now.

http://bigcat.fhsu.edu/biology/cbennett/research.html

[sward]

I have to admit the hollowness of this jaw is puzzling. Usually fish jaws are very, very solid. That's why they are some of the more common fish fossils.

You might try Chris Bennett at Ft. Hays State U. He is the pterosaur guy right now.

http://bigcat.fhsu.e...t/research.html

Xiphactinus,

Thanks for the contact information. I have forwarded the pics to him to see what he has to say.

I have also sent a follow-up email to Mike Everhart asking if it would be common for this jawbone to be hollow on a aspidorhynchid fish.

I'll let ya'll know what I find out.

[sward]

...I have also sent a follow-up email to Mike Everhart asking if it would be common for this jawbone to be hollow on a aspidorhynchid fish...

Mike's response:

"Steve,

Yeah, I saw evidence of that in your photos.

Honestly, I don't know, but I doubt that a fish jaw would be truly hollow.....

I've attached pictures of another specimen at KU.

The other possibility (a real long shot) that occurred to me was that it belonged to some kind of a toothed pterosaur.. I have no experience with that variety, but the toothless kinds (Pteranodon and Nyctosaurus) all have hollow bones...

I think it would be good idea to show it to one of your local paleontologists at SMU.

http://news.national...s-dallas-texas/

http://www.scienceda...00427131359.htm

Myers, Timothy S. 2010. A new ornithocherid pterosaur from the Upper Cretaceous (Cenomanian-Turonian) Eagle Ford Group of Texas. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 30(1):280–287.

Regards,

Mike"

The photo that Mike referenced is shown below.

So, the photos that Mike has provided both yesterday and today of the aspidorhynchid fish look very similar to the specimen I found. However, the fact that my specimen appears hollow supports the pterosaur theory.

I'm still confused.

[Boneman007]

I have to admit the hollowness of this jaw is puzzling. Usually fish jaws are very, very solid. That's why they are some of the more common fish fossils.

You might try Chris Bennett at Ft. Hays State U. He is the pterosaur guy right now.

http://bigcat.fhsu.edu/biology/cbennett/research.html

I agree with Xiphactinus. Chris Bennet is the right person to look at it. If he says it is not a Pterosaur, then I would say it is definitely not Pterosaur.

[sward]

I agree with Xiphactinus. Chris Bennet is the right person to look at it. If he says it is not a Pterosaur, then I would say it is definitely not Pterosaur.

Well, here's the response I just got from Chris Bennett:

"Hi Steven,

The first picture showing the cross section of the bone and thin walls is intriguiing, but it is not clear to me how it relates to the jaw. Is it the small end? I guess it is.

My interpretation of the specimen is that it is a mandible but is not a pterosaur, and there are threee main things that support that interpretation:

1 - On the marked image 3958 that I attach, I have circled at left an area where the lateral surface of the bone has distinct longitudinal striations. I do not remember ever seeing that sort of texture on a pterosaur bone.

2 - On the marked up image, I have circled a tooth and adjacent tooth attachment scar. I have not seen that sort of tooth shape with the swollen middle on a pterosaur, and more important the way in which the teeth are attached to the jaws does not look like a pterosaur. Pterosaurs have teeth that are clearly in sockets, and though I know of one basal pterosaur that then seems to fuse teh teeth to the jaw like what your jaw shows, I have never seen it in a pterodactyloid.

3 - The small distal end of the jaw is too small to have participated in a sizeable symphysis, and virtually all pterodactyloids have an extensive symphysis.

If I had to bet $20 on the identity of the specimen, I would bet on a fish, but I will point out that the texture of the bone seems to differ from the texture that I am used to on fishes in the Niobrara Formation. That might simply be because the PawPaw depositional environment differed from that of hte Niobrara.

Hope this helps,

Chris"

Here's the marked-up pic he refers to:

So, as I currently understand it, Mike Everhart (the fish expert) believes the specimen to be an aspidorhynchid fish, but cannot understand why the bone is hollow. Chris Bennett and Tim Myers (pterosaur experts) believe the specimen to be fish as well. Both reference the longitudinal striations and the teeth.

Here's a close-up of the opposite side of what I believe Chris is referring to as a "tooth attachment scar" is his item #2:

I didn't interpret these as "tooth attachment scars" as he referenced. I was thinking more along the lines of possibly tooth sockets. However, I read the paper that Tim published regarding Lance's find and the teeth sockets are very visible, much more so than mine.

I guess as of right now, the general concensus of everyone I've sent the photos to is that this specimen belongs to a fish.

Edited November 8, 2012 by sward