Jump to content

Recommended Posts

akazaran

Hello,

The skull is supposed to be a platicarpus... it has been examined by paleontology students and phd (according to the seller and to a report signed by a geologist) who concluded that it s 70-75% authentic.

Concerning the identification of the specie, the report state:

"The anatomy of this skull suggests an evolution of the Tympaniticus, with the palate
dentition similar to, but more evolved than, the Prognathodon - and exhibiting the elongate maxilla
and dentary of common Mosasuarus, for example the Plotosaurus bennisoni"

They datted the fossil to mid-late cretaceous ad think taht its origin is from the Khourigba aera in Morocco.

Now, as you can see on the picture, the rear part of the cranium looks to have been heavily restaured, if not totaly reconstructed with artificial material (quadrate, posterior extension of the pterygoid, supratemporal and supraoccipital...).

The report states:

"In this case, there are parts of the angular/articular; coronoid, jugal, parietal,
postorbitalfrontal, quadrate, squamosal and surangular that have been repaired, augmented or
replaced."

post-18373-0-11008900-1431427488_thumb.jpg

post-18373-0-88991300-1431427501_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TriloAnt

The skull has def been restored quite a bit. 70 percent original is close. Do you have a question or just asking for an opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sseth

There is some restoration to the back of the skull, and a few teeth have been put back in. It is a platecarpus without a doubt. Khourigba area in Morocco also matches up. Nice piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
akazaran

Do you think that it s possible that it has only 25 to 30% of restoration as specified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TriloAnt

I see the back of the skull is not original. Its hard to see the rest with the photos supplied. Do you have any more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
akazaran

Here is a picture of the anterior part of the skull

post-18373-0-59881300-1431447663_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TriloAnt

There is restoration on the bottom jaw too. The pics arent the greatest. Its a pretty cool skull though. Its def a platecarpus. Restoration is common with these. Idk what other members think, but i think there is a bit more than 30 percent. Id love to know what they are charging for it. Maybe pm me? Im sure its a lot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auspex

I would want to examine it in person. From the images, I get the sinking feeling that it is less than 50% original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnJ

I would want to examine it in person. From the images, I get the sinking feeling that it is less than 50% original.

Agreed. The quality of the images available to you are not sufficient to judge the level of restoration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jnoun11

like i said in some other post about morocco , asking for the preparation pictures or for the pictures before preparation, nobody can remonted such skull without pictures, no pictures is supicious. platecarpus is very common in maestrichian of phosphates in morocco, but lot of time completely crushed. the lower jaw is probably faked, mosasaurs didnt have a the jaw in one piece, and the coronoide is not from platecarpus. the connection between the jugal and the post orbito-frontal is fake. for the rest the pictures are too small .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
akazaran

Concerning the lower jaw it was actually in 2 pieces... the separation is clearly visible (and anatomicaly correct) on the original pictures but i had to reduce the format to be able to post it on the forum.

Thanks for your advice

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jnoun11

like that ?

post-2284-0-71362500-1431869283_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
akazaran

Yes mostly.

Nevertheless the angulair articular and coronid bones have been restored or completely replaced... as most other bones of the posterior part of the skull. This has been described by the scientist who examined the specimen. Anyway I would be very surprised that the whole lower jaw is fake as you sugested in your previous email.

On the picture it appears that the coronoid and subangulair are in one piece (wich would obviousely be incorrect) but it s hard to be sure.

The main issue (for me) with this skull is the lack of pictures of the specimen in his original matrix and of the restoration process.

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.

×