Jump to content
AJ Plai

Mosasaur Tooth Beaugei Or Platecarpus?

Recommended Posts

AJ Plai

Just want to get some expertise opinions on this particular tooth since Moroccan Mosasaur teeth are some of the hardest thing to ID.

post-10857-0-26038100-1421425000_thumb.jpgpost-10857-0-55550500-1421425033_thumb.jpgpost-10857-0-25116700-1421425104_thumb.jpg

I have had this tooth for quite a while now and have assumed it to be a Beaugei tooth specimen due to it's facetted nature which I assume whether correctly or not, that it's a key feature of this specie. Though I can't be so sure although, I have always assumed that a Platecarpus teeth specimens have always been small like the ones in the picture below:

post-10857-0-44382900-1421425184_thumb.jpg

But it doesn't mean that a Platecarpus won't grow into a large size thus their teeth will also grow, but I have never seen large mosasaur teeth with striation like the smaller specimens in the picture above, so it makes me wonder if the Platecarpus once they grow and their teeth enlarge, do the striations change into facetted feature like the large tooth that I assumed to be a Beaugei?

Any expert input or opinions would be appreciated to shine light on my specimen so I can label it correctly with enough information. Thx :)

Edited by AJ Plai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sseth

In my experience, it looks like a second premax tooth from Prognathodon, or possible a frontal maxilla tooth. It does not appear angular enough to be Beaugei. It has a more rounded overall shape and a small ridge off the front of the tooth.

Edited by sseth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AJ Plai

Hey thx for the quick reply, Sseth! This is why I love about this forum - throw in any question and you will eventually get experts or the experienced from all over the world to help out.

Anyhow, the possibility of it being a Pronathodon (or do I have to call it Liodon anceps nowadays?) is surprising since I have always assumed that the facetted is more of a Beaugei feature while a Prognathodon's tooth tend to be fat with smooth round curvature like a cylinder. Thx for the new info :)

Edited by AJ Plai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jnoun11

like said sseth : prognathodon sp frontal tooth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Andy-

Seth and jnoun11 are the two experts I consult with my mosasaur questions, so yeah, you can take their word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Macrophyseter

the first one is probably a beaugei. It has flat sides on the side, so that makes it easy. But it can be more puzzling, there is another mosasaur that has it, and if you are lucky, it may be hoffmanni! (and yes, hoffmannis are found in morrocco, but they are extremely rare.) The second teeth are definately platecarpus, they have "pinched" lines going straight down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AJ Plai

I found this pic of another Moroccan tooth online and would like to get an opinion whether if this is what a Beaugei tooth should look like?

post-10857-0-90499900-1423408698_thumb.jpgpost-10857-0-61139300-1423408707_thumb.jpgpost-10857-0-50123800-1423408720_thumb.jpg

This one seems to have a sharper facetted feature and less conical than the one I have. So I assume this one should fit the description of a Beaugei?

Thx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auspex

the first one is probably a beaugei. It has flat sides on the side, so that makes it easy. But it can be more puzzling, there is another mosasaur that has it, and if you are lucky, it may be hoffmanni! (and yes, hoffmannis are found in morrocco, but they are extremely rare.) The second teeth are definately platecarpus, they have "pinched" lines going straight down.

Can you cite your source material for this, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jnoun11

I found this pic of another Moroccan tooth online and would like to get an opinion whether if this is what a Beaugei tooth should look like?

attachicon.gifMos BG 01.jpgattachicon.gifMos BG 02.jpgattachicon.gifMos BG 03.jpg

This one seems to have a sharper facetted feature and less conical than the one I have. So I assume this one should fit the description of a Beaugei?

Thx.

this one is mosasaurus baugei lower front left , that fit with the description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Macrophyseter

Can you cite your source material for this, please?

Well, I dont think I need a source for this cuz I dont think there even is one about identifying different species of mosasaurs. I just found this specific pattern on nearly every platecarpus tooth and decided that's the characteristic. But there's alway a possibility I could be wrong, thou. And I'm not sure about the M. hoffmanni thing. I'm keep on hearing contriadictory information on whether m. hoffmanni is found in morrocco or not, but I'm still not sure now.

Edited by superhamdav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
piranha
On 12/17/2015 at 6:26 PM, superhamdav said:

Well, I dont think I need a source for this cuz I dont think there even is one about identifying different species of mosasaurs. I just found this specific pattern on nearly every platecarpus tooth and decided that's the characteristic. But there's alway a possibility I could be wrong, thou. And I'm not sure about the M. hoffmanni thing. I'm keep on hearing contriadictory information on whether m. hoffmanni is found in morrocco or not, but I'm still not sure now.

 

 

Unfortunately, you continue to be one of the leading sources of contradictory information on the validity of M. hoffmanni in Morocco.

Perhaps you missed this earlier reply from six months ago to another one of your many inquiries on this topic:

 
Sorry to burst the bubble again, but as it's already been mentioned to you a couple of times now, commercial websites are not reliable for identifying fossils. If you're interested in fact-based scientific research then the peer-reviewed literature is where you should focus your attention. In addition to all the excellent papers listed previously, another one was published recently that also confirms the absence of Mosasaurus hoffmanni in Morocco.
 
Please take a look at the attached figures from that paper showing all the different mosasaurid species from Morocco that does not include M. hoffmanni.
 
The choice is yours: you can believe in the claims of a couple random commercial websites, or trust the actual experts conducting the research on the ground in Morocco.
 
IMG1.jpg
 
Bardet, N., Houssaye, A., Vincent, P., Suberbiola, X.P., Amaghzaz, M., Jourani, E., & Meslouh, S. (2014)
Mosasaurids (Squamata) from the Maastrichtian Phosphates of Morocco: Biodiversity, palaeobiogeography and palaeoecology based on tooth morphoguilds.
Gondwana Research, 27:1068-1078
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LordTrilobite

Unfortunately, you continue to be one of the leading sources of contradictory information on the validity of M. hoffmanni in Morocco.

Perhaps you missed this earlier reply from six months ago to another one of your many inquiries on this topic:

Sorry to burst the bubble again, but as it's already been mentioned to you a couple of times now, commercial websites are not reliable for identifying fossils. If you're interested in fact-based scientific research then the peer-reviewed literature is where you should focus your attention. In addition to all the excellent papers listed previously, another one was published recently that also confirms the absence of Mosasaurus hoffmanni in Morocco.
Please take a look at the attached figures from that paper showing all the different mosasaurid species from Morocco that does not include M. hoffmanni.
The choice is yours: you can believe in the claims of a couple random commercial websites, or trust the actual experts conducting the research on the ground in Morocco.
Bardet, N., Houssaye, A., Vincent, P., Suberbiola, X.P., Amaghzaz, M., Jourani, E., & Meslouh, S. (2014)
Mosasaurids (Squamata) from the Maastrichtian Phosphates of Morocco: Biodiversity, palaeobiogeography and palaeoecology based on tooth morphoguilds.
Gondwana Research, 27:1068-1078

This is not a complete list. Though still pretty useful.

For example, Halisaurus walkeri also appears in the Maastrichtian Phosphates of Morocco. Though it seems fairly rare and it hasn't officially been described from this location yet. It's teeth are similar to that of H. arambourgi but they are smaller and more recurved. H. walkeri also has a lot more teeth in it's jaw.

med_gallery_3991_1190_439846.jpg

And concerning Mosasaurus hoffmanni.

On the Dutch forum of fossiel.net there is a lot of expertise on M. hoffmanni since there are some members that have a lot of experience with that species on there. I once posted a tooth from Morocco thinking it was probably M. beaugei. Sure enough some said it was M. beaugei. Though some others with enough experience for me not to question it said it was M. hoffmanni. But I don't really remember the reasoning as it was quite a while back.

I personally do not have the experience to differentiate between M. beaugei and M. hoffmanni though.

In any case this is the tooth that I currently have labeled as Mosasaurus hoffmanni from Khouribga, Morocco.

med_gallery_3991_1190_592695.jpg

Edited by LordTrilobite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auspex

As isolated teeth with disagreement among even the experts, I think it would be prudent to use the suffix "cf" on the label.

Until M. hoffmanni skeletal remains are described from the area, there is an unavoidable burden of proof placed on the interpretation of what amount to form-types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
piranha

This is not a complete list. Though still pretty useful.

For example, Halisaurus walkeri also appears in the Maastrichtian Phosphates of Morocco. Though it seems fairly rare and it hasn't officially been described from this location yet. It's teeth are similar to that of H. arambourgi but they are smaller and more recurved. H. walkeri also has a lot more teeth in it's jaw...

You might want to verify that more carefully. According to the cited paper, the report of Halisaurus walkeri from Morocco is dubious at best:
Halisaurines are the most plesiomorphic and smallest bodied mosasaurids represented in the Phosphates of Morocco, and include Halisaurus arambourgi Bardet & Pereda Suberbiola, 2005a, possibly together with Halisaurus walkeri (Lingham-Soliar, 1998) based on an unpublished black-market specimen (NB pers. obs.). As the only definitively identified taxon, H. arambourgi is based on an incomplete skeleton including disarticulated skull and associated vertebrae (MNHNPMC14) found in the Upper CIII phosphatic level (Upper Maastrichtian) of the NE part of the Oulad Abdoun Basin (Bardet et al., 2005a) (Fig. 2A).

...And concerning Mosasaurus hoffmanni.

On the Dutch forum of fossiel.net there is a lot of expertise on M. hoffmanni since there are some members that have a lot of experience with that species on there. I once posted a tooth from Morocco thinking it was probably M. beaugei. Sure enough some said it was M. beaugei. Though some others with enough experience for me not to question it said it was M. hoffmanni. But I don't really remember the reasoning as it was quite a while back.

I personally do not have the experience to differentiate between M. beaugei and M. hoffmanni though...

Many people on the various forums are quite knowledgeable, but so far there are no published examples of M. hoffmanni from Morocco.

If anyone wants a pdf of Bardet et al. 2014, please send me a PM with email address and I'll be happy to send it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LordTrilobite

You might want to verify that more carefully. According to the cited paper, the report of Halisaurus walkeri from Morocco is dubious at best:

Halisaurines are the most plesiomorphic and smallest bodied mosasaurids represented in the Phosphates of Morocco, and include Halisaurus arambourgi Bardet & Pereda Suberbiola, 2005a, possibly together with Halisaurus walkeri (Lingham-Soliar, 1998) based on an unpublished black-market specimen (NB pers. obs.). As the only definitively identified taxon, H. arambourgi is based on an incomplete skeleton including disarticulated skull and associated vertebrae (MNHNPMC14) found in the Upper CIII phosphatic level (Upper Maastrichtian) of the NE part of the Oulad Abdoun Basin (Bardet et al., 2005a) (Fig. 2A).

Many people on the various forums are quite knowledgeable, but so far there are no published examples of M. hoffmanni from Morocco.

If anyone wants a pdf of Bardet et al. 2014, please send me a PM with email address and I'll be happy to send it

Well I cannot agrue with the M. hoffmanni part.

The piece of Halisaurus dentary fragment I posted in my previous post is from the Phosphates of Morocco so far as I know. I bought it off a Moroccan merchant at a fair in Amsterdam as it was a nice unprepped piece without any tampering. I could see it was probably Halisaurus at the time. I took it to Naturalis in Leiden and it was identified as Halisaurus walkeri by the Mosasaur expert there. The fragment I have is from the proximal end of the dentary. Besides the tooth shape, the tooth positioning is also different in H. walkeri compared to H. arambourgi. I don't know the exact number of teeth of both off the top of my head but H. walkeri has a lot more teeth and they are more closely packed together. At the proximal end of the dentary though, H. walkeri has teeth very near the end of the bone. H. arambourgi has no tooth positions at the proximal end of the dentary. On my piece, while the two teeth in the back are gone, the tooth positions can still be seen very near the proximal end of the dentary.

As isolated teeth with disagreement among even the experts, I think it would be prudent to use the suffix "cf" on the label.

Until M. hoffmanni skeletal remains are described from the area, there is an unavoidable burden of proof placed on the interpretation of what amount to form-types.

That's actually a good idea. I'll do that.

Edited by LordTrilobite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
piranha

...The piece of Halisaurus dentary fragment I posted in my previous post is from the Phosphates of Morocco so far as I know. I bought it off a Moroccan merchant at a fair in Amsterdam as it was a nice unprepped piece without any tampering...

Because the other report of H. walkeri is an unpublished black-market specimen, it will be challenging to establish a confident provenance for your specimen.

For more info you should contact Nathalie Bardet at Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnJ

As isolated teeth with disagreement among even the experts, I think it would be prudent to use the suffix "cf" on the label.

Until M. hoffmanni skeletal remains are described from the area, there is an unavoidable burden of proof placed on the interpretation of what amount to form-types.

Agreed.

There are overlapping similarities within a genus and with related genera. You can add to that, the variation within a species, including: adult, juvenile, premaxilla, maxilla, mandible, and pterygoid teeth. In my opinion, all of these variables have to give pause to the IDs of the overwhelming majority of isolated tooth finds in the absence of associated, identifiable skeletal elements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Andy-

Here's my Mosasaurus cf. hoffmanni, identified by George Corneille.

It matches the one in LordTrilobite's gallery.

post-4888-0-10828800-1450517789_thumb.jpg post-4888-0-34058800-1450517795_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LordTrilobite

Because the other report of H. walkeri is an unpublished black-market specimen, it will be challenging to establish a confident provenance for your specimen.

For more info you should contact Nathalie Bardet at Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle.

Not a bad idea. I'll do that.

Here's my Mosasaurus cf. hoffmanni, identified by George Corneille.

It matches the one in LordTrilobite's gallery.

attachicon.gifHoff_1.jpg attachicon.gifHoff_2.jpg

I agree that the tip seems very similar. Though your tooth is much larger and the base also seems a bit fatter. So I guess that one is also from the Phosphates of Morocco?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Andy-

Not a bad idea. I'll do that.

I agree that the tip seems very similar. Though your tooth is much larger and the base also seems a bit fatter. So I guess that one is also from the Phosphates of Morocco?

Yeah it is. From the Ouled Abdoun Basin.

I bought it seeing how unusually large it is.

Share this post


Link to post
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


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×