Moroccan Mosasaurs

[LeeB]

On 9/23/2022 at 3:24 AM, jnoun11 said:

hi leeB

its just prognathodon anceps or mosasaurus anceps update.

i didnt understand why is a new specie, or why prognathodon anceps is not anymore a valid specie. is so much morphodiversity in prognathodon .

also i didnt like the privacy around this publication, to me a scientific publication must be shared around the community for a verification of the validity of the new name.

 

Prognathodon anceps was first named from English material as Leiodon anceps; then changed to Liodon anceps when Leiodon was discovered to be already used for a fish.

The trouble is that it was named for a couple of teeth and a piece of jawbone and according to the Wikipedia article on Liodon the teeth have since gone missing.

When it was named, there weren't many known Mosasaur genera known and it was obviously different from the faceted teeth of Mosasaurus; but nowadays many mosasaurs with smooth teeth and sharp carinae are known.

Examples such as Kourisodon, Prognathodon kianda, Eremiasaurus and Tylosaurus (Hainosaurus) bernardi spring to mind. 

According to the cladogram in the wikipedia article on Thalassotitan it is related to some members of Prognathodon; but not particularly close to the type species Prognathodon solvayi.

This appears to be the first step in the process of breaking up Prognathodon into several genera.

I also do not like articles in papers that are not open access; and one thing that is really annoying me is that the cladogram shows a Liodon related to Mosasaurus.

What exactly is included in this?

There is no sign of Eremiasaurus or Prognathodon kianda; do the authors include these in Liodon?

Given the inadequate remaining material of Liodon anceps and that some people have suggested that it may in fact be a specimen of Tylosaurus bernardi I think it would be a bad idea to revive this genus unless they have a new specimen of it from the original location in England.

Alternately I suppose they could petition the IUCN to make a different species the type specimen; perhaps L. sectorius or even L. mosasauroides.

This is what was done with Clidastes when the original type was found to be inadequate. 

 

One other thing with the cladogram in the Thalassotitan article on Wikipedia; for the first time Carinodens and Xenodens have been put in a cladogram and appear in the Mosasaurini and not close to Globidens.

To be able to do this suggests that someone has got hold of some decent Carinodens skull material; either the Jordanian species or perhaps some better Moroccan material.

In either case it is going to be interesting to see this properly described.

[LeeB]

On 10/2/2022 at 2:47 PM, LeeB said:

Prognathodon anceps was first named from English material as Leiodon anceps; then changed to Liodon anceps when Leiodon was discovered to be already used for a fish.

The trouble is that it was named for a couple of teeth and a piece of jawbone and according to the Wikipedia article on Liodon the teeth have since gone missing.

When it was named, there weren't many known Mosasaur genera known and it was obviously different from the faceted teeth of Mosasaurus; but nowadays many mosasaurs with smooth teeth and sharp carinae are known.

Examples such as Kourisodon, Prognathodon kianda, Eremiasaurus and Tylosaurus (Hainosaurus) bernardi spring to mind. 

According to the cladogram in the wikipedia article on Thalassotitan it is related to some members of Prognathodon; but not particularly close to the type species Prognathodon solvayi.

This appears to be the first step in the process of breaking up Prognathodon into several genera.

I also do not like articles in papers that are not open access; and one thing that is really annoying me is that the cladogram shows a Liodon related to Mosasaurus.

What exactly is included in this?

There is no sign of Eremiasaurus or Prognathodon kianda; do the authors include these in Liodon?

Given the inadequate remaining material of Liodon anceps and that some people have suggested that it may in fact be a specimen of Tylosaurus bernardi I think it would be a bad idea to revive this genus unless they have a new specimen of it from the original location in England.

Alternately I suppose they could petition the IUCN to make a different species the type specimen; perhaps L. sectorius or even L. mosasauroides.

This is what was done with Clidastes when the original type was found to be inadequate. 

 

One other thing with the cladogram in the Thalassotitan article on Wikipedia; for the first time Carinodens and Xenodens have been put in a cladogram and appear in the Mosasaurini and not close to Globidens.

To be able to do this suggests that someone has got hold of some decent Carinodens skull material; either the Jordanian species or perhaps some better Moroccan material.

In either case it is going to be interesting to see this properly described.

 

[LeeB]

If you are on research gate you can find supplementary information including the full cladogram here: 

(PDF) 17 phylogenetic analysis.pdf (researchgate.net)

There is a lot of interesting things in it; Eremiasaurus heterodontus is near Prognathodon kianda and Prognathodon waiparaensis; Liodom mosasauroides is near Mosasaurus and a fossil listed as MGGC 21876; Carinodens and Xenodens are no where near Globidens; instead Ancylocentrum hungerfordi (= Prognathodon rapax) is grouped with Globidens; and several species that have been called Prognathodon are actually not closely related to it.

Very interesting.

[jnoun11]

hi mosasaurs lovers

something new in moroccans phosphates. ... no clue for this kind of teeth. but this year lot of pachyvaranus parts show off in phosphate.

 

 

 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

27 minutes ago, jnoun11 said:

hi mosasaurs lovers

i have a problem with this one, anatomy look like baugei ,but the teeth are like gavialimimus... and is not a fake.

couche 6 maestrichian

 

The photographs are broken. Would be glad to take a look, though, if you could re-upload them

[jnoun11]

On 4/14/2023 at 8:32 AM, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

 

The photographs are broken. Would be glad to take a look, though, if you could re-upload them

hi pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon

pictures of this skull are on mosasaurus beaugei section, i was thinking its new ,but seems to be just a jung beaugei.

[LeeB]

And now there is yet another new Moroccan Mosasaur Stelladens mysteriosus named from some weird teeth.

Nick Longrich discusses it on his blog here:  Nick Longrich - Blog

 

The paper describing it is  also open access.

[jnoun11]

stelladens mysteriosus

Diagnosis. Mosasaurine mosasaurid characterized by the following unique character
combination: low, triangular, weakly recurved crowns with a strong U-shaped cross-section;
two prominent serrated carinae, the posterior one being more marked and pinched”from
the main shaft; labial surface almost flat bearing 6–8 subtle low ridges; lingual surface
strongly convex and bearing 2 to 4 very prominent, sharp and serrated ridges.

 

3.1. Systematic Paleontology
Squamata Oppel, 1811 [37].
Mosasauridae Gervais, 1852 [38].
Mosasaurinae Gervais, 1852 [38].
Stelladens mysteriosus new genus and species.
Etymology. The genus’ name is from the Latin stella, ‘star’ + dens, tooth. The species’
name is from the Latin mysterium, ‘mystery’, because of the mysterious structure of the teeth.
Holotype. MHNM.KHG.1436, partial left dentary and two associated teeth (Figures 3–5).
Locality and Horizon. The holotype comes from Sidi Chennane phosphate mine, in the
Oulad Abdoun Basin, Khouribga Province, Morocco.

 

publication: https://www.mdpi.com/2813-6284/1/1/2

                  

                             Fossils 2023, 1(1), 2-14; https://doi.org/10.3390/fossils1010002

                             Received: 16 April 2023 / Revised: 2 May 2023 / Accepted: 9 May 2023 / Published: 17 May 2023

                             https://www.nicklongrich.com/blog/yet-another-weird-new-mosasaur-species-from-the-maastrichtian-of-morocco

                              

 

 

 

 

Edited May 21 by jnoun11
update

[DD1991]

On 10/1/2022 at 6:47 PM, LeeB said:

Prognathodon anceps was first named from English material as Leiodon anceps; then changed to Liodon anceps when Leiodon was discovered to be already used for a fish.

The trouble is that it was named for a couple of teeth and a piece of jawbone and according to the Wikipedia article on Liodon the teeth have since gone missing.

When it was named, there weren't many known Mosasaur genera known and it was obviously different from the faceted teeth of Mosasaurus; but nowadays many mosasaurs with smooth teeth and sharp carinae are known.

Examples such as Kourisodon, Prognathodon kianda, Eremiasaurus and Tylosaurus (Hainosaurus) bernardi spring to mind. 

According to the cladogram in the wikipedia article on Thalassotitan it is related to some members of Prognathodon; but not particularly close to the type species Prognathodon solvayi.

This appears to be the first step in the process of breaking up Prognathodon into several genera.

I also do not like articles in papers that are not open access; and one thing that is really annoying me is that the cladogram shows a Liodon related to Mosasaurus.

What exactly is included in this?

There is no sign of Eremiasaurus or Prognathodon kianda; do the authors include these in Liodon?

Given the inadequate remaining material of Liodon anceps and that some people have suggested that it may in fact be a specimen of Tylosaurus bernardi I think it would be a bad idea to revive this genus unless they have a new specimen of it from the original location in England.

Alternately I suppose they could petition the IUCN to make a different species the type specimen; perhaps L. sectorius or even L. mosasauroides.

This is what was done with Clidastes when the original type was found to be inadequate. 

 

One other thing with the cladogram in the Thalassotitan article on Wikipedia; for the first time Carinodens and Xenodens have been put in a cladogram and appear in the Mosasaurini and not close to Globidens.

To be able to do this suggests that someone has got hold of some decent Carinodens skull material; either the Jordanian species or perhaps some better Moroccan material.

In either case it is going to be interesting to see this properly described.

An unpublished thesis by Street (2016) erects new genera for a number of mosasaurine taxa assigned to Mosasaurus and Prognathodon, and given that Prognathodon overtoni is found by Longrich et al. to be closely related to Thalassotitan rather than to the Prognathodon type species, Brachysaurana Strand, 1926 may be eventually resurrected for P. overtoni. Also note that Ancyclocentrum hungerfordi requires a new generic name due to the fact that Ancylocentrum Schmidt, 1927 is a junior objective synonym of Brachysaurana.

 

Street, H.P., 2016. A re-assessment of the genus Mosasaurus (Squamata: Mosasauridae). University of Alberta. doi:10.7939/R31N7XZ1K.

[LeeB]

Yes I have seen Street's thesis online.

When she publishes on her research "Mosasaurus" conodon from the east coast of the U.S.A. is going to have a new genus; as are a lot of the N.Z. mosasaurs and Moanasaurus is going to be much more widespread globally.

But she did not write about all the N.Z. mosasaurs; you can see another one that has been considered "Prognathodon" on the University of Otago website here:  https://www.otago.ac.nz/geology/research/paleontology/otago065923.html   (scroll down  to the bottom of the page).

It has unique heterodont teeth and in my opinion probably deserves it's own genus; certainly not Prognathodon.

 

With respect to A. hungerfordi; I have seen pictures of a skull with pointed raptorial teeth; do you happen to know if the type specimen had these kind of teeth or ones closer to Globidens?