Jump to content

Moroccan Mosasaurs


jnoun11

Recommended Posts

On 16/03/2020 at 6:22 PM, dxj said:

Hi, i am form Germany and have been tasked to identify this tooth by my biology teacher. According to a profile (that seems to have been produced by a fifth grader) it is from Oued Zem and/or Khouribgha and the upper cretaceous. 

I apologize for the lack of a size reference, but the tooth itself is About 2,5 to 3 cm Long. 

My best guess is that it is from Prognathodon.

 

Many thanks in Advance, this thread is absolutely Incredible!

IMG_20200306_133726.jpg

hi dxj

prognathodon anceps

  • I found this Informative 1

The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. Terry Pratchett ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...

after some update in my collection, i supected globidens phosphaticus is globidens simplex, the hight density of the ribs is due to the locality, bones from sidi chenane( grey matrix and white bones). the bones are compressed by the geology. for the lack of zygosphene, i will be curious to see more vertebrae, because of this compression ,they seems brocken on the specimen described. i prepared a complete skull of globidens phosphaticus from the sidi chenane locality and i will verified all the differents features and coming back for explaining with evidences my point of view.i really need some professional advisor to help me to understand and update this topic.

the best will be for someone ,to visiting me in morocco, and staying a while for see the material in my lab.

 

Edited by jnoun11
changing point of view. update
  • I found this Informative 1

The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. Terry Pratchett ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi @jnoun11,

I hope you don't mind me cross-posting this here. But as I know this has become a standard reference for those interested in Moroccan mosasaurs, I thought it might be useful to have this information here as well...

 

That is, that a new publication (which I haven't read, by the way, as it's behind a pay-gate) has rejected the validity of the nomen Platecarpus ptychodon, and has instead replaced it with a holotype for a new genus and species called Gavialimimus almaghribensis. The publication can be found here:

 

Strong, Caldwell, Konishi and Palci, 2020. A new species of longirostrine plioplatecarpine mosasaur (Squamata: Mosasauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of Morocco, with a re-evaluation of the problematic taxon ‘Platecarpus’ ptychodon

 

Quote

 

The Upper Cretaceous phosphates of Morocco preserve one of the world’s most diverse assemblages of mosasaurs, reflecting the adaptive radiation of this clade during the Maastrichtian. Herein, we describe a new mosasaur from these deposits. Although the teeth of this specimen resemble those of ‘Platecarpusptychodon, suggesting referral to this species, we re-examine and ultimately reject the fundamental validity of ‘P.ptychodon due to the non-diagnostic nature of its holotype and original diagnosis. We instead designate the new specimen as the holotype of a new genus and species, Gavialimimus almaghribensis, gen. et sp. nov. G. almaghribensis is characterized by a highly elongate snout, highly retracted nares and large supratemporal fenestrae, among other features. Phylogenetic analysis under multiple parsimony-based methods reveals novel substructure within the subfamily Plioplatecarpinae, consistently recovering a clade uniting the new species with Selmasaurus and the enigmatic Goronyosaurus. Synapomorphies of this clade include a highly constricted parietal, with Selmasaurus and Gavialimimus being further united by a broadly excavated medial surface of the quadrate suprastapedial process. The cranial morphology of G. almaghribensis also provides new insight into several aspects of mosasaur evolution and comparative anatomy, including adaptive radiation and niche partitioning in Moroccan marine palaeoecosystems.

http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:6896D6EE-2609-4917-A811-904B5AA7A8BB

 

 

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi pachypleuro whatnot odon

thanks for the help, everything that can help ton better understanding the mosasaurs family is welcome, i already update yesterday the platecarpus section of this topic.its whats i like in the fossil forum its the possibility to update the information following the last publications. its lot to do here in morocco about new species of mosasaurs. some publication are wrong because people didn't see enough complete material or ignored the specificity of the local geology.

  • I found this Informative 2

The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. Terry Pratchett ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, jnoun11 said:

hi pachypleuro whatnot odon

thanks for the help, everything that can help ton better understanding the mosasaurs family is welcome, i already update yesterday the platecarpus section of this topic.its whats i like in the fossil forum its the possibility to update the information following the last publications. its lot to do here in morocco about new species of mosasaurs. some publication are wrong because people didn't see enough complete material or ignored the specificity of the local geology.

Hadn't seen that - should've probably checked - but great to see this thread being kept up-to-date so well. Thank you for all your effort! It's been (and still is) a great resource to me personally, and undoubtedly a lot of others as well :)

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I am hoping to get into the mosasaur game but so far I only have two mosasaur teeth (a larger one in matrix and a slightly smaller loose one; both are relatively large). I was wondering if it is possible to identify which species they belonged to. Here are images of the two teeth: https://imgur.com/a/waJcYdh

 

I am also wondering why your list does not include Igdamanosaurus aegyptiacus, which was described based on Moroccan fossils and how one would tell the difference between teeth of Globidens simplexGlobidens phosphaticusIgdamanosaurus aegyptiacaus, Carinodens minalmar and Carinodens belgicus?

Edited by Calcanay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Calcanay said:

I am hoping to get into the mosasaur game but so far I only have two mosasaur teeth (a larger one in matrix and a slightly smaller loose one; both are relatively large). I was wondering if it is possible to identify which species they belonged to. Here are images of the two teeth: https://imgur.com/a/waJcYdh

 

I am also wondering why your list does not include Igdamanosaurus aegyptiacus, which was described based on Moroccan fossils and how one would tell the difference between teeth of Globidens simplexGlobidens phosphaticusIgdamanosaurus aegyptiacaus, Carinodens minalmar and Carinodens belgicus?

I included the images you referred to below, so that they'll be available for future reference:

 

mDZ9mL7.thumb.jpg.996831d8256b7e181415405f271e89c1.jpgwQ7C0mi.thumb.jpg.ff5f48b317655428582da879b76a63e6.jpg

 

7sNkhaM.thumb.jpeg.14549829b8a85ac2f238cfcaecdf7340.jpeg9qDKf7a.thumb.jpeg.5df3d960941d24e6366f5ad3484ec931.jpegdo1rA9l.thumb.jpeg.b11b1c043f14a35e2e25ca2edfc0b21a.jpeg

 

I believe the first (on matrix) is what, following Bardet, Houssaye, Vincent, Suberbiola, Amaghzaz, Jourani, & Meslouh (2014), is popularly referred to as Prognathodon giganteus. The second is probably also P. giganteus, but may be P. anceps, which - as I understand it - differs from the former by being somewhat smaller and more labiolingually compressed.

 

post-4301-0-49771000-1430928004.jpg

 

To answer your second question: mosasaurs are strongly heterodontous, meaning there's a lot of variation in the dentition of individual species. This makes it extremely difficult to identify a species form single teeth. As such, I don't think it will be possible to tell the Globidens-species from one another (hadn't heard about G. simplex before either, to be honest) without having associated cranial material available, especially the quadrate. Same goes for the difference between Igdamanosaurus aegyptiacaus and those Globisensini from the Globidens-genus.

 

Teeth from members of the Carinodens-genus are more easily distinguished from those of the Globidens one, though, as the former have highly labiolingually compressed teeth. That is, they look like a typical Globidens if someone where to have laid them on their side and pressed down with a very heavy weight on them. The below image from a post higher up in this thread illustrates the point:

 

595971bb6000e_Carinodensbelgicus.png.b0bacf4573a5c96be31af663eca666e5.png

  • I found this Informative 2

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

I included the images you referred to below, so that they'll be available for future reference:

 

mDZ9mL7.thumb.jpg.996831d8256b7e181415405f271e89c1.jpgwQ7C0mi.thumb.jpg.ff5f48b317655428582da879b76a63e6.jpg 7sNkhaM.thumb.jpeg.14549829b8a85ac2f238cfcaecdf7340.jpeg9qDKf7a.thumb.jpeg.5df3d960941d24e6366f5ad3484ec931.jpegdo1rA9l.thumb.jpeg.b11b1c043f14a35e2e25ca2edfc0b21a.jpeg

 

I believe the first (on matrix) is what, following Bardet, Houssaye, Vincent, Suberbiola, Amaghzaz, Jourani, & Meslouh (2014), is popularly referred to as Prognathodon giganteus. The second is probably also P. giganteus, but may be P. anceps, which - as I understand it - differs from the former by being somewhat smaller and more labiolingually compressed.

 

post-4301-0-49771000-1430928004.jpg

 

To answer your second question: mosasaurs are strongly heterodontous, meaning there's a lot of variation in the dentition of individual species. This makes it extremely difficult to identify a species form single teeth. As such, I don't think it will be possible to tell the Globidens-species from one another (hadn't heard about G. simplex before either, to be honest) without having associated cranial material available, especially the quadrate. Same goes for the difference between Igdamanosaurus aegyptiacaus and those Globisensini from the Globidens-genus.

 

Teeth from members of the Carinodens-genus are more easily distinguished from those of the Globidens one, though, as the former have highly labiolingually compressed teeth. That is, they look like a typical Globidens if someone where to have laid them on their side and pressed down with a very heavy weight on them. The below image from a post higher up in this thread illustrates the point:

 

595971bb6000e_Carinodensbelgicus.png.b0bacf4573a5c96be31af663eca666e5.png

Going by the image, the tooth in the matrix (to me) looks closest to the one labelled F (Prognathodon nov. sp. - is this anceps?) and the one not in a matrix looks closest to E (Prognathodon giganteus), but I might be wrong - I understand that mosasaurs being heterodont makes ID:ing, especially down to the species level, difficult, but at the very least it looks like both teeth can fairly confidently be ID:d as Prognathodon (and not the only true contender given their size, Mosasaurus). Many thanks for the help!

 

Re the globidensins: I suppose that means that if you buy loose globidensin teeth (thinking of getting some) you could only really confidently identify them as Carinodens sp. (seeing as there are two species present) or Globidensini indet. (for Igdamanosaurus/Globidens if their teeth cannot really be told apart)? I didn't realize just how much Carinodens teeth stand out from the others, so that is at least very useful to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Calcanay said:

Going by the image, the tooth in the matrix (to me) looks closest to the one labelled F (Prognathodon nov. sp. - is this anceps?) and the one not in a matrix looks closest to E (Prognathodon giganteus), but I might be wrong - I understand that mosasaurs being heterodont makes ID:ing, especially down to the species level, difficult, but at the very least it looks like both teeth can fairly confidently be ID:d as Prognathodon (and not the only true contender given their size, Mosasaurus). Many thanks for the help!

 

Re the globidensins: I suppose that means that if you buy loose globidensin teeth (thinking of getting some) you could only really confidently identify them as Carinodens sp. (seeing as there are two species present) or Globidensini indet. (for Igdamanosaurus/Globidens if their teeth cannot really be told apart)? I didn't realize just how much Carinodens teeth stand out from the others, so that is at least very useful to know.

Yeah, the image provided by Bardet et al. has kind of caused issues for me in the past as well, as, indeed, the bigger one is described as Prognathodon nov. sp., but is most often commercially referred to as P. giganteus. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to read up on this myself yet, but trust the knowledge of the vendors I got this ID from. I think part of the confusion arises from the fact that Prognathodon anceps used to be called Liodon anceps, which might have caused confusion even in scientific circles (keep in mind, a lot has been discovered and described since Bardet et al.'s article). In any case, I stick to P. giganteus for the bigger, more robust specimens. Just Prognathodon sp. would be a bit generic, I feel, as this includes the likes of P. solvayi and P. currii, which both have markedly different dentition.

 

As to Carinodens: most of what's available in terms of Globidensini will be either Globidens itself, or Igdamanosaurus. Carinodens-teeth are very rare, and it has taken me quite a while to add a couple of my collection. So I'd be very surprised if you'd come across them on the open market.

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here's something interesting; it should be possible to differentiate the teeth of Globidens phosphaticusGlobidens simplex and Igdamanosaurus aegyptiacus, based on what is said and figured in the descriptions of G. simplex and I. aegyptiacus.

 

I've attached an image of a jaw of Igdamanosaurus, as figured in its description by Lingham-Soliar (1998). Lingham-Soliar notes that its teeth in particular are different from those of Globidens in that they are broad, domed and unconstricted at the base with parallel fine striations (and apparently relatively easy to tell apart; Lingham-Soliar notes that it had been suspected for quite some time that I. aegyptiacus was a different genus from Globidens just on the grounds of its teeth). To me (personal observation) they also look to be slightly longer than typical Globidens teeth.

 

Igdamanosaurus.png

(Jaw and teeth of Igdamanosaurus aegyptiacus)

 

For obvious reasons, the teeth of G. simplex are more similar to the teeth of G. phosphaticus, but LeBlanc et al (2019) do note some features that set its teeth apart in its description; "The crown apices are not recurved and some have very subtle swellings anterior and medial to the tips of the teeth. These swellings are much more developed in the holotype and paratype teeth of G. phosphaticus", "Despite preserving a large number of teeth, none of the tooth crowns possess carinae or sulci, the former being found in Globidens dakotensis and G. alabamaensis (Russell, 1975), and the latter being a feature of the teeth of G. phosphaticus", "aside from the anterior-most teeth, the crowns are slightly mediolaterally compressed, a feature that differs from other species of Globidens, including the holotype of G. phosphaticus. Although they are slightly mediolaterally compressed, they are not as slender as the teeth of Carinodens". I suppose this compression, as something more slender than G. phosphaticus but not as slender as Carinodens, would be the most obvious indicator. I've included the figure in LeBlanc et al (2019) of G. simplex teeth and an additional example i found online.

 

simplex.pngsimplex2.jpg

(Teeth of Globidens simplex)

 

The signs of G. phosphaticus can be derived from the above; a small but clear tip and constriction at the bottom (differentiates from Igdamanosaurus, shared with G. simplex) and rounder than G. simplex (less compressed), with more developed swellings anterior and medial to the tip of the tooth. Perhaps someone who has multiple globidensin teeth from Morocco (I don't have any yet) would be willing to see if any of this info is helpful :)

Edited by Calcanay
  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my own investigation into the teeth of P. solvayi (currently posted on a different site, but the which I can re-report here if interest exists) I know it can be extremely difficult to distinguish between the teeth of disparate species of mosasaur, even when one has the holotype available for comparison (as I did at the Museum voor Natuurwetenschappen in Brussels). Still, interesting information you found there! Based on it, I've compiled the below table to record the differences between the three species:

 

Globidensini.png.49816626ccc9665ab7642159435ef6ec.png

 

Note that some of the characters mentioned for the Globidens-species weren't described for Igdamanosaurus, and I thus marked them with a question-mark in the table above. Also note the question-mark with the absent carinae for G. phosphaticus. I added this based on a review of the Globidens-teeth in my collection (currently still all presumed G. phosphaticus), on one of which I observed a straight but weak apicobasal striation on the distal plane that I think may represent a residual carina. Finally, observe the lack of mention of striations for any of the teeth. This is because, on the one hand, terminology in the description of (mosasaur) teeth becomes unclear at this level (see Hornung and Reich, 2015. Tylosaurine mosasaurs (Squamata) from the Late Cretaceous of northern Germany, esp. figure 3 , for an attempt to structure the use of said terminology), and, on the other, the description of Igdamanosaurus' teeth has me confused as to this particular aspect. That is, the original classification of the species under Plioplatecarpinae, clear representation of lines in illustration of the teeth, and mention of a definite number of striations gives me the impression of faceting or, at the very least, the type of striations/folds found on Gavialimimus almaghribensis (previously Platecarpus ptychodon), rather than the irregular dental enamel typically found on the teeth of Globidensini.

 

That having been said, I had a look through my collection of Globidens spp. teeth (n=8). And, after excluding two anterior teeth from the sample - as these don't have mediolateral compression in G. simplex and, therefore, presumable can't be differentiated from those of G. phosphaticus - there are a couple of specimens that might be somewhat compressed. It's hard to say, though, as very few of the teeth in my collection are truly round, with only one having a slightly elliptical cross-section at the base. To complicate matters, what I think is the described anteromedial swelling can be observed on both the rounded and more compressed teeth, as can be grooves - sometimes parallel, so as to make the space in between look like a very thick fold - that I interpret to be the sulci referred to. What this could mean is that all of my teeth are G. phosphaticus, or, alternatively, that the distinction is difficult to make, as 1) the definition of "slight mediolateral compression" is very subjective, and 2) the term "sulci" in context of Globidens-teeth is not well-defined. As such, I'm not sure whether the two Globidens-species can be differentiated without referring back to the original description of G. phosphaticus.

 

globidens_aegypticus_teeth_set_09.jpg.9d264996ec16b987e6359657860fe87b.jpgglobidens_aegypticus_teeth_set_06.jpg.5e58224f19f4d11795035d78884e1fdf.jpgGlobidens_phosphaticus_mosasaur_tooth_2_01.jpg.7cd6f18b6cfc13e63a9d6f97cb940828.jpgAre these sulci?

 

5ff1155122679_Globidenssimplex.png.227453503aefc68fa70a842340b012a4.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5ff10f3878fa8_Globidens_aegypticus_toothroot_3.3cm_04.jpg.5a0b5b4999cd68623eda7f6c899e0dce.jpgIs this mediolateral compression?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to the aforementioned Globidens-teeth, I also have a tooth in my collection that looks a lot like a P. currii tooth, except that it's less tall than the teeth typical for this species. As such, I've currently got it written up as Harranasaurus khuludae. However, it's also a rather close match to the original description and illustration of I. aegypticus, with its low, round and conical shape, unwaisted tooth base, carinae, and fine striations... As said, I'm not sure how this works out with I. aegypticus' reclassification under Globidensini, as current images seem to suggest teeth more akin to those of the other Globidens-species. But here are some images of it anyway:

 

Harranasaurus_khuludae_tooth_04.jpg.bcfb2512dbb127405bac3d630b860c0c.jpgHarranasaurus_khuludae_tooth_02.jpg.33da7384eb9efc5e5dbc20cdad197fd7.jpgHarranasaurus_khuludae_tooth_01.jpg.50dfbe1c2147630bf5a4b4be31b5edac.jpgHarranasaurus_khuludae_tooth_03.jpg.19fcb18b4bd366b369796512f5e20f59.jpg

  • I found this Informative 1

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would definitely be interested in more detailed info on P. solvayi!

 

On the Globidens teeth, yeah you may be right. The original description of G. phosphaticus can be found here (open access). Bardet et al . (2005) provides a reconstruction of the entire tooth row here; virtually every single tooth looks to be pretty round (the difference to the teeth assigned to G. simplex in 2019 is not enormous but, unless my eyes are playing tricks on me, still able to be seen in how round/compressed they are); here is the image in question (maybe helpful?):

5ff23ae3eb8d0_phosphaticustoothrow.thumb.png.ac61b05ba32241d4cc2c77087c23476c.png

G. phosphaticus also appears to have been strongly heterodont - there is a lot of info on characteristics of its teeth in the paper but I don't want to clog up the post with terms I don't understand. I don't think it would be surprising that G. simplex teeth would be rarer than G. phosphaticus since the species wasn't even described until 2019 (perhaps rarer overall), but there might be a lot of overlap in morphology. The last of the Globidens teeth you include looks to me as if it could be G. simplex rather than G. phosphaticus by how it doesn't look as round as any of the teeth Bardet et al assign to G. phosphaticus.

 

They also note in this paper that the teeth of P. currii are similar to those of Igdamanosaurus in that they are straight; differences between P. curri and Igdamanosaurus are apparently that the teeth of Igdamanosaurus are noticeable shorter, with a height almost equal to their length, and that they have "crude anastomosing striations" along their height. As for the last tooth you include, that it is specifically less tall than a typical P. currii tooth is certainly interesting, since this is one of the specific differences between Igdamanosaurus and P. currii teeth that they bring up. I haven't seen any photos of 100% identified Igdamanosaurus teeth (as Lingham-Soliar just includes the drawing) so I can't compare directly with anything though. Has Harranasaurus been found in Morocco (and is it a valid genus at all - I can't find any mentions of it beyond the paper in which it was described)?

 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say you're quite good at tracking these articles down, @Calcanay! Very interesting!

 

On 03/01/2021 at 11:05 PM, Calcanay said:

On the Globidens teeth, [...] virtually every single tooth looks to be pretty round (the difference to the teeth assigned to G. simplex in 2019 is not enormous but, unless my eyes are playing tricks on me, still able to be seen in how round/compressed they are);

I'm coming back from my original observations a bit after having had another look at those teeth in my collection, and having read through the article you posted. Though it appears true that the teeth of G. phosphaticus are typically more rounded than those of G. simplex, some of the teeth in G. phosphaticus have an elliptical cross-section, much like those in G. simplex. The difference lies, however, in that the teeth of G. simplex are mediolaterally compressed, while those teeth in G. phosphaticus as are elliptical appear compressed mesiodistally (that is, front-to-back). It thus becomes important to orientate the teeth in order to determine the species they derive from. The apical curvature the teeth can be used to this end, as can the mediolateral swelling, with the curvature moving distally, while the swelling is located mesially.

 

On 03/01/2021 at 11:05 PM, Calcanay said:

The last of the Globidens teeth you include looks to me as if it could be G. simplex rather than G. phosphaticus by how it doesn't look as round as any of the teeth Bardet et al assign to G. phosphaticus.

Keeping the above in mind, I had another look at this specific tooth, as I indeed felt this specimen had the highest chance of belonging to G. simplex. However, though difficult to make out, the apicobasal curve of the tooth runs across the short side of the tooth, which means the compression observed in the tooth is front-to-back, rather than side-to-side. As such, I think it's just another example of G. phosphaticus.

 

Interestingly, however, it seems like I got right what was meant with sulci above, as this corresponds to the description by Bardet et al. (2005) gives, as does my observation that some of the G. phosphaticus teeth have carinae. The comparison between P. currii and I. aegypticus provided in the paper further allow me to update the table I provided above.

 

5ff4e5cec5706_Durophagousmosasaursofmorocco.png.1a0c3f4720ebfde56ac76ee76c422ded.png

 

On 03/01/2021 at 11:05 PM, Calcanay said:

As for the last tooth you include, that it is specifically less tall than a typical P. currii tooth is certainly interesting, since this is one of the specific differences between Igdamanosaurus and P. currii teeth that they bring up. I haven't seen any photos of 100% identified Igdamanosaurus teeth (as Lingham-Soliar just includes the drawing) so I can't compare directly with anything though. Has Harranasaurus been found in Morocco (and is it a valid genus at all - I can't find any mentions of it beyond the paper in which it was described)?

Based on our exercise here, I now rather believe this specific tooth might indeed belong (or at least be a good candidate to be referred) to I. aegypticus. As to Harranasaurus khuludae, I unfortunately really don't know anything about it, other then what has been remarked about it in this thread. I have indeed not come across it anywhere else either, so it could be that its material is, in fact, assignable to either P. currii or I. aegypticus...

 

On 03/01/2021 at 11:05 PM, Calcanay said:

I would definitely be interested in more detailed info on P. solvayi!

Sure thing! Give me a some time to hunt down my previous post about it and repost it here, though ;)

  • I found this Informative 1

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, thanks! Though I'm (as I made clear when I first posted in the thread) not yet an expert at differentiating mosasaur teeth, I'm a mosasaur enthusiast and have some experience navigating the at times messy mosasaur literature. It's been a pleasure seeing the snippets of your collection of teeth :)  

 

1 hour ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

Keeping the above in mind, I had another look at this specific tooth, as I indeed felt this specimen had the highest chance of belonging to G. simplex. However, though difficult to make out, the apicobasal curve of the tooth runs across the short side of the tooth, which means the compression observed in the tooth is front-to-back, rather than side-to-side. As such, I think it's just another example of G. phosphaticus.

Ah, maybe I got too caught up in compression in general being the biggest difference; as I said previously, G. simplex probably is significantly rarer than G. phosphaticus, so that they all are G. phosphaticus shouldn't be too surprising (nice to be able to ID them down to the species level, though!). 

 

Props for making the table; a very useful resource! If you want to add Carinodens minalmamar (the only Globidensin that is missing), as rare as it is, its original description is here (open access). As you pointed out to me, Carinodens teeth are highly distinctive and the genus can easily be differentiated from the other globidensins, but it looks like dental characteristics separates the two species present as well; among the more pronounced differences are that the teeth of C. minalmamar are flattened to an even more considerable degree than those of C. belgicus and that they have a different pattern of alveoli.

 

1 hour ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

Based on our exercise here, I now rather believe this specific tooth might indeed belong (or at least be a good candidate to be referred) to I. aegypticus. As to Harranasaurus khuludae, I unfortunately really don't know anything about it, other then what has been remarked about it in this thread. I have indeed not come across it anywhere else either, so it could be that its material is, in fact, assignable to either P. currii or I. aegypticus...

IMO Harranasaurus seems a bit fishy so I'd hold off using it and see if it's brought up in future research (I can't seem to track down an online copy of the paper which describes it so I can't tell on what grounds it was described either). I did find the image below (apparently from the original description) - looks like the teeth are constricted/waisted at the base, which regardless of the status of Harranasaurus looks like it separates this specimen from your tooth (which looks straight, like I. aegyptiacus). 

Harranasaurus_mandible.jpg.502a4b1765d93bac61409d91920f6200.jpg

Based on my limited experience, and after google image-searching "Igdamanosaurus tooth" (which disappointingly only brings up what is clearly misidentified Globidens teeth), your tooth appears to be one of the best candidates for actually being I. aegyptiacus that I've seen. Seeing as we can't actually track down any photos of other examples, having an actual I. aegyptiacus tooth would be no small feat!

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2021 at 12:17 AM, Calcanay said:

Ah, maybe I got too caught up in compression in general being the biggest difference; as I said previously, G. simplex probably is significantly rarer than G. phosphaticus, so that they all are G. phosphaticus shouldn't be too surprising (nice to be able to ID them down to the species level, though!). 

You might be right on this, though it's also possible that G. simplex is just not being identified as such. Most of what you'll find online is either sold as Globidens sp. or simply as either Globidens aegypticus or Globidens phosphaticus. I've also seen a vendor selling all of their teeth as Igdamanosaurus aegypticus. And without proper knowledge of how to make the distinction, I think most people just call them what the seller told them, if not simply Globidens.

 

Interestingly, I came across a possible candidate for G. simplex (circled in red) amongst some teeth at one of the sellers I know. Unfortunately, the tooth had already been sold, so no way to know whether it was one or see how it compares to the more typical G. phosphaticus tooth:

 

5ff64f783794b_globidenstanden.png.5ffce39b19a069d23f3cd54726882318.png

 

On 1/6/2021 at 12:17 AM, Calcanay said:

Props for making the table; a very useful resource! If you want to add Carinodens minalmamar (the only Globidensin that is missing), as rare as it is, its original description is here (open access). As you pointed out to me, Carinodens teeth are highly distinctive and the genus can easily be differentiated from the other globidensins, but it looks like dental characteristics separates the two species present as well; among the more pronounced differences are that the teeth of C. minalmamar are flattened to an even more considerable degree than those of C. belgicus and that they have a different pattern of alveoli.

Thanks! I hope others will indeed find it useful as well!
I'm not sure whether I'll be added C. minalmamar, though, as - except for G. simplex and I. aegypticus, which had excellent descriptions - I've been able to extract and verify most of the characters in the above table using specimens in my own collection. With C. minalmamar being so rare and having such minimal differences from C. belgicus, I think it would be difficult to properly describe the characters. As such, I prefer to wait for more data.

 

On 1/6/2021 at 12:17 AM, Calcanay said:

IMO Harranasaurus seems a bit fishy so I'd hold off using it and see if it's brought up in future research (I can't seem to track down an online copy of the paper which describes it so I can't tell on what grounds it was described either). I did find the image below (apparently from the original description) - looks like the teeth are constricted/waisted at the base, which regardless of the status of Harranasaurus looks like it separates this specimen from your tooth (which looks straight, like I. aegyptiacus). 

Harranasaurus_mandible.jpg.502a4b1765d93bac61409d91920f6200.jpg

Based on my limited experience, and after google image-searching "Igdamanosaurus tooth" (which disappointingly only brings up what is clearly misidentified Globidens teeth), your tooth appears to be one of the best candidates for actually being I. aegyptiacus that I've seen. Seeing as we can't actually track down any photos of other examples, having an actual I. aegyptiacus tooth would be no small feat!

Very interesting mandible that! The variety of mosasaurs, even just in Morocco, is just amazing! I think I'll take your advice, though, especially seeing as how the research you set me off upon has actually convinced me that this one particular tooth could indeed be I. aegypticus.

 

Though it's probably not as common a species as G. phosphaticus, I think it's still probably somewhat more common than obvious at first glance, though. This is because a lot of confusion used to exist about the name associated with the teeth now classed as G. phosphaticus, with them having been referred to as G. aegypticus about just as much of the time. I mean, the genus name is the same in both cases, right? So would the specific name really make that much of a difference? Well, yes, as it turns out. However, since I. aegypticus is just a renaming of G. aegypticus, I guess the image of how these teeth are supposed to look stuck. My guess is that if you were to look amongst P. currii and Globidens spp. teeth, you'll probably find some misclassified I. aegypticus amongst them...

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi

the dentary of harranasaurus described by hani kaddumi in fossils of the harrana fauna and adjacent areas, present the 3 anteriors teeth on a dentary like they are complete, but they are just the core of the teeth when enamel broke, on the skull i have the teeth are something beetween prognathodon currii and globidens phosphaticus.and feet exactly with the other complete teeth described page 39.

for the differences beetween globidens simplex and globidens phosphaticus ,the variation on morphology in globidens is enought for be just one specie globidens phosphaticus, i will soon published here one complete skull ,perhaps that will give some new informations about this group of durophageous mosasaurs.

its much more on a phosphate mines ,but i work slowly,and i wait until i found a complete skull before speacking on it. for the globidens, its relatively easy to find partial skulls ,dentary,or maxillary, but only one complete skull tell the exact membership of the teeth.

  • I found this Informative 3

The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. Terry Pratchett ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

You might be right on this, though it's also possible that G. simplex is just not being identified as such. Most of what you'll find online is either sold as Globidens sp. or simply as either Globidens aegypticus or Globidens phosphaticus. I've also seen a vendor selling all of their teeth as Igdamanosaurus aegypticus. And without proper knowledge of how to make the distinction, I think most people just call them what the seller told them, if not simply Globidens.

Very true.

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

Thanks! I hope others will indeed find it useful as well!
I'm not sure whether I'll be added C. minalmamar, though, as - except for G. simplex and I. aegypticus, which had excellent descriptions - I've been able to extract and verify most of the characters in the above table using specimens in my own collection. With C. minalmamar being so rare and having such minimal differences from C. belgicus, I think it would be difficult to properly describe the characters. As such, I prefer to wait for more data.

Yeah, I can see staying off adding it to the table. C. belgicus is already rare enough so the likelihood that a private collector would get their hands on a tooth from the even rarer C. minalmamar probably isn't very high in the first place. You're also of course correct that the differences appear to be more minimal than the other differences that have been brought up here.

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

Very interesting mandible that! The variety of mosasaurs, even just in Morocco, is just amazing! I think I'll take your advice, though, especially seeing as how the research you set me off upon has actually convinced me that this one particular tooth could indeed be I. aegypticus.

Definitely! We are lucky that there's so much mosasaur stuff to be found in Morocco in the first place. Here's hoping you've got your hands on a I. aegyptiacus tooth; don't really know how you would go about confidently placing an ID there, but regardless it's a pretty unique specimen!

4 hours ago, jnoun11 said:

hi

the dentary of harranasaurus described by hani kaddumi in fossils of the harrana fauna and adjacent areas, present the 3 anteriors teeth on a dentary like they are complete, but they are just the core of the teeth when enamel broke, on the skull i have the teeth are something beetween prognathodon currii and globidens phosphaticus.and feet exactly with the other complete teeth described page 39.

So first of all, good work on this thread and on your own examinations on Moroccan mosasaurs, it is a great resource for collectors. I feel like Harranasaurus seems like a more questionable taxon than Globidens simplex, however? G. simplex has a quite detailed description with quite clear differentiating characteristics and it has been mentioned in later research (example of that). If you have fossil specimens substantiating synonymization, those would be cool to see, though (and certainly make ID:ing fossil teeth easier). Harranasaurus does not appear to be mentioned in any subsequent research (0 hits on Google Scholar), which is weird if it was to be considered a valid taxon, and it doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. I don't know why it would be considered invalid, though, but something doesn't add up there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jnoun11 said:

hi

the dentary of harranasaurus described by hani kaddumi in fossils of the harrana fauna and adjacent areas, present the 3 anteriors teeth on a dentary like they are complete, but they are just the core of the teeth when enamel broke, on the skull i have the teeth are something beetween prognathodon currii and globidens phosphaticus.and feet exactly with the other complete teeth described page 39.

I presume this article is in French? Is it available through an open access channel somewhere, or where might one find it? It would be very interesting to be able to read up on it a bit, as information currently seems so sparse...

 

4 hours ago, jnoun11 said:

for the differences beetween globidens simplex and globidens phosphaticus ,the variation on morphology in globidens is enought for be just one specie globidens phosphaticus, i will soon published here one complete skull ,perhaps that will give some new informations about this group of durophageous mosasaurs.

There'll always be lumpers and splitters amongst us, of course, but I have to agree with you that based on the dental morphology alone, the evidence for G. simplex and G. phosphaticus being separate species is rather slim - the more as they both have a very similar number of dental positions/alveoli (13 in G. simplex versus 14 in G. phosphaticus) and only one specimen of G. simplex seem to have been found (or, at least, reported upon in scientific literature). That's also part of the reason why I prefer holding off from C. minalmamar. Still, the article reporting on G. simplex does describe other skull elements as well, which should allow proper evaluation against G. phosphaticus.... On the other hand, the description of the former species is rather recent, and I'm not even sure whether it has, by now, been published in a peer-reviewed journal and thus can be scrutinized for its merit. Only time will tell whether G. simplex will remain as a valid taxa. But that's part of the wonderful process of science, the continuous flux ;)

 

Anyway, I'd really be interested in seeing this skull material you have available, when you're ready to share it. I don't doubt but that it will bring to light a lot of new insights!
 

4 hours ago, jnoun11 said:

ts much more on a phosphate mines ,but i work slowly,and i wait until i found a complete skull before speacking on it. for the globidens, its relatively easy to find partial skulls ,dentary,or maxillary, but only one complete skull tell the exact membership of the teeth.

Although incontestably true, a lot of isolated teeth have been found as well. And though identification of these teeth is certainly problematic, and in the best cases based on educated guessed and statistical likelihood, for many of us I guess it's better than nothing... But I agree, when uncertain, it's best to err on the side of caution, and attribute isolated finds to genera, clades, or whatever level of certainty you can attain.

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Calcanay said:

and it doesn't even have a Wikipedia page

:BigSmile:

 

Google Scholar I can see, but since when has Wikipedia become a source of scientific truth? :D

 

In all fairness, though, I use Wikipedia as a source of reference as much as the next guy. But it's information, publicly editable as it is, should be taken with a grain of salt, and it's certainly not uncommon for certain information not to have found it's way onto the medium yet. As an example, I could easily add a page for Harranasaurus (and, yes, I understand that there are certain rules and regulations for adding new pages to Wikipedia, so it would take a bit of work), but that doesn't make it a valid taxon - even if it does give the name more face. Still, I guess nobody has taken the effort (though there is a mention of the name on the French page on Globidensini).

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

:BigSmile:

 

Google Scholar I can see, but since when has Wikipedia become a source of scientific truth? :D

 

In all fairness, though, I use Wikipedia as a source of reference as much as the next guy. But it's information, publicly editable as it is, should be taken with a grain of salt, and it's certainly not uncommon for certain information not to have found it's way onto the medium yet. As an example, I could easily add a page for Harranasaurus (and, yes, I understand that there are certain rules and regulations for adding new pages to Wikipedia, so it would take a bit of work), but that doesn't make it a valid taxon - even if it does give the name more face. Still, I guess nobody has taken the effort (though there is a mention of the name on the French page on Globidensini).

You're of course right that Wikipedia isn't exactly the most reliable source :ironic:, just noting that Harranasaurus is the only mosasaur that I can't find any mention of being explicitly invalid that doesn't have a page (Google Scholar is the more strong point there). There appears to have been a Harranasaurus article but it has been deleted three times (!). I'm thinking that Harranasaurus's wonky status might have to with how it was described; it's described in a chapter/paper in a book (not a scientific journal), Fossils of the Harrana Fauna and the Adjacent Areas, published by the Eternal River Museum of Natural History (which I can't seem to track down any info on); it might not constitute a "proper" description of a new taxon since it was not published in a more standard academic way?

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Calcanay said:

You're of course right that Wikipedia isn't exactly the most reliable source :ironic:, just noting that Harranasaurus is the only mosasaur that I can't find any mention of being explicitly invalid that doesn't have a page (Google Scholar is the more strong point there). There appears to have been a Harranasaurus article but it has been deleted three times (!).

That's very curious indeed! All the attempts to add them were made by users since blocked or deleted from the system, by what I understand! :o Wonder if that's any coincidence...

 

11 minutes ago, Calcanay said:

I'm thinking that Harranasaurus's wonky status might have to with how it was described; it's described in a chapter/paper in a book (not a scientific journal), Fossils of the Harrana Fauna and the Adjacent Areas, published by the Eternal River Museum of Natural History (which I can't seem to track down any info on); it might not constitute a "proper" description of a new taxon since it was not published in a more standard academic way?

But, I'm guessing you might be right on the target with this one. Didn't really think of that. I mean, if a species hasn't been systematically described, I'm indeed not sure whether consensus would consider it a valid holotype and taxon...

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

But, I'm guessing you might be right on the target with this one. Didn't really think of that. I mean, if a species hasn't been systematically described, I'm indeed not sure whether consensus would consider it a valid holotype and taxon...

Yeah, at the very least I would guess that this is the reason why it's not brought up in academia beyond its description. This obviously does not mean that Harranasaurus was not a real, distinct, genus of mosasaur, just that barring a systematic description it won't be treated as such by other paleontologists. Could be a distinct mosasaur, distinct teeth matching those on the Harranasaurus holotype could exist in Morocco, and we as fossil collectors can obviously use the name Harranasaurus for them in that case as it's easier and clearer than "Mosasauridae indet.", paleontologists are just unlikely to do the same.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

hi

like calcanay said, i used the specie harranasaurus because the remains in moroccan phosphates fit with the description and shape fo the specimen in the book. unfortunately the specimen in a book must be first accepted by the official scientist before be an official name.

i want just show the richness and the incredible diversity of the Moroccans phosphates, and helping people for their identifications, this topics have not the pretention to be the ultimate true ,or having scientific value.

lot of specimen here will be described officially  in a future , "harranasaurus" is a new mosasaur, something between currii and globidens.

for the fun another rare carinodens lower jaw...

20210128_124036.jpg

  • I found this Informative 3

The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. Terry Pratchett ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jnoun11 said:

hi

like calcanay said, i used the specie harranasaurus because the remains in moroccan phosphates fit with the description and shape fo the specimen in the book. unfortunately the specimen in a book must be first accepted by the official scientist before be an official name.

i want just show the richness and the incredible diversity of the Moroccans phosphates, and helping people for their identifications, this topics have not the pretention to be the ultimate true ,or having scientific value.

lot of specimen here will be described officially  in a future , "harranasaurus" is a new mosasaur, something between currii and globidens.

for the fun another rare carinodens lower jaw...

20210128_124036.jpg

Hi Serge,

Not to worry! I think I can speak for most people here when I say your work on this thread is greatly appreciated and it has become the go-to place for many collectors of (commercial) mosasaur material. Of course no-one can expect you to keep all the information up to date and without errors. As I see it, it's up to individual readers to determine whether they accept what is presented there or not - although, admittedly, not everybody might be able to properly estimate the value of individual bits of information provided. Still, that's why, like in actual scientific research, this thread keeps developing and being expanded upon. I, for one, have learned a lot from the experience you've shared here.

 

As for the specimen: it's simply amazing! I haven't seen that many Carinodens mandibles come out of the phosphates, so each and every one is exciting! Thanks for sharing - and I take my hat of to you, Sir! :tiphat:

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...