Discussion On Fossil "porpoise" Teeth

[cowsharks]

Back in Jan 2014 I posted a thread here on TFF entitled "Calvert Cliffs Ondontodete Rostrum" (see reference material below). As part of the discussion that ensued, I was surprised to learn that no one has ever found a fossilized Porpoise specimen on the Atlantic coastal plain. In some additional research I learned that some fossil porpoise specimens are known from Antwerp Belgium and Japan (see reference material below).

As part of my own research, mostly Google/Internet searches, I wasn't able to come up with an example of an actual specimen of a fossil porpoise, especially a tooth. Porpoise teeth are described as having a spade or spatulate shape to them, versus the conical shape that Dolphin teeth exhibit.

Below are some pics of various teeth that I've been referring to as my collection of "Dolphin, Whale, and Porpoise" teeth. I believe I might even have a seal tooth or two in there as well. In any event, apparently none of these are "porpoise" teeth, yet collectors such as myself have been referring to them, albeit incorrectly, as such interchangeably with the term "Dolphin" teeth for quite some time.

To add to this confusion, or whatever you want to call it, apparently even using the term "Dolphin" teeth for the teeth I find along Calvert Cliffs, MD (Calvert formation) is entirely correct either, since "Dolphins" didn't come about until the late Miocene, and the area of Calvert Cliffs that I collect at represents the early Miocene.

As part of my research, I reviewed the publications done on Lee Creek, in particular Volume IV which covers marine mammals. As best as I could tell, there was no mention of Porpoise material being found in any of the formations present at Lee Creek. Given the sheer amount of fossil collecting done at that location over the few decades it was open to collectors (Museums, Paleontologists included), one would think that if there was porpoise material there it would have been found.

So, this brings me to the question, what if anything is anyone in the scientific community doing to help correct this confusion, or does it even need to be corrected if it is only the amateurs that continue to propagate this "error"? I understand it is difficult to break old habits; heck, I still can't bring myself to call the fossil tiger shark teeth Galeocerdo contortus by the new name Physogaleus contortus.

At the bottom of this post is the long (sorry) list of research items I came across that I used for this post. I didn't have access to the two publications by Remington Kellog regarding "Micoene Porpoises from Calvert Cliffs, Maryland". I can only surmise that he used the term "Porpoise" possibly because when he wrote the articles (1927 and 1955) it wasn't known that the fossil material found wasn't actually "porpoise"?

Regarding the types of teeth that I have shown in the picture, what would be the most accurate name to use instead of "Porpoise" or even "Dolphin"?

Daryl.

The Fossil Forum: thread title “Calvert Cliffs Odontocete Rostrum”: TFF member cowsharks

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/43580-calvert-cliffs-odontocete-rostrum/?hl=%2Bcalvert+%2Bcliffs+%2Brostrum

TFF member: Siteseer: "Dolphin" and "porpoise" are common names that have been used for particular families and also as general/interchangeable terms for smaller toothed whales. In my own reading I have understood that a dolphin should be used only for members of the Family Delphinidae, the earliest representatives of which date back to the late Miocene; a porpoise is a member of the Family Phocoenidae which doesn't have much of a fossil record.but also seems to extend only to the late Miocene.

TFF Member: Boesse: “Most marine mammal paleontologists colloquially refer to all small-bodied odontocetes as dolphins - referring to non-sperm/beaked whale fossils as dolphin teeth/bones is totally fine. Porpoise is the term that bugs me - nobody on the Atlantic coastal plain has ever found a real porpoise fossil (so far), and it's just puzzling when people argue "oh, well that's clearly a porpoise and not a dolphin" or vice versa, because both terms are being used in the broad sense anyway and both terms in the broad/colloquial sense refer to a small bodied dolphin, and therefore mean exactly the same thing. I've never been able to figure out the distinction that people are making.”

================================================================

The Fossil Forum: thread title:“Tiny tooth” by TFF member jbstedman

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/1611-tiny-tooth/

TFF Member: Boesse: “Its not a porpoise (true porpoises, i.e. Phocoenidae) don't have a fossil record in the Atlantic (they are restricted to the Pacific, and invaded the Atlantic during the Pleistocene.”

TFF Member: Boesse: “As far as the porpoise info goes... people most often use the term porpoise as sort of a collective term for small toothed cetaceans. Porpoises are an actual family of cetaceans (Phocoenidae), like harbor, burmeister's, Dall's, finless, etc. Porpoises have a very short rostrum, and have spatulate teeth - in fact, their teeth sometimes look like those of small ornithopod dinosaur teeth.

Phocoenids, however, only have a fossil record in the North Pacific and Peru - they are pretty much reserved to Peru, Japan, and Alta/Baja California.”

================================================================

Out of the Pacific: A second fossil porpoise from the Pliocene of the North Sea Basin

https://www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app001152014.html

“Although modern porpoises (Phocoenidae, Odontoceti, Cetacea) occupy most oceanic regions of the world, their fossil record outside the Pacific Ocean remains extremely scarce.”

================================================================

Palaeontology Online: http://www.palaeontologyonline.com/articles/2014/fossil-focus-porpoises/

The fossil record, and a particularly special extinct species:

The fossil record of porpoises is quite extensive, and there are still species to be discovered in the field and described from museum collections. The oldest described porpoise (and actually the oldest described delphinoid, although it does not seem to be the most primitive in terms of evolution), Salumiphocaena stocktoni, is found in rocks from the late Miocene epoch (10 million to 11 million years old) in California. Several species from the later Miocene (9 million to 5 million years old) of Japan have been described. Although mostly found on the Pacific coasts of Japan, Mexico, Peru and the United States, some species have been described from Europe, particularly Septemtriocetus bosselaersi from Belgium. This year, a porpoise with a unique jaw shape was described from multiple specimens found along the coast of California, mostly from the San Diego area. It was named Semirostrum ceruttii.

================================================================

A fossil Porpoise from the Early Pliocene of Antwerp Harbour.

http://sciencythoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-fossil-porpoise-from-early-pliocene.html

“Porpoises, Phocoenidae, are small Dolphins, Delphinida, found today across most of the world’s oceans, but with a fossil record restricted almost entirely to the North Pacific. Only a single fossil species from outside the Pacific Basin has been described, Septemtriocetus bosselaersi from Pliocene sediments at Verrebroek Dock in Antwerp Harbour, Belgium, with a few isolated bones tentatively assigned to the group from the Miocene of Malta and the Pliocene of Italy.”

================================================================

Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals: page 921

“there has been confusion regarding the terms “porpoise” and “dolphin”. In part, this is because some early taxonomic accounts included porpoises in the family Delphinidae, although all recent accounts separate the two groups. …

“The earliest porpoise known is Salumiphocaena stocktoni, discovered in the late Miocene strata of southern California.”

===============================================================

Remington Kellog, 1927, “Kentriodon pernix, A Miocene porpoise from Maryland”. Proceedings from the United States National Museum.

Remington Kellog, 1955, “Three Miocene Porpoises from the Calvert Cliffs Maryland”. Proceedings from the United States National Museum.

[Troodon]

Not much I can add to the existing discussion but I attached a couple of photos from the Calvert Museum on their dolphin display.

[Boesse]

Great summary! To further complicate matters, up until the 1970's cetacean biologists referred to species of delphinids by their antiquated common names, such as "spinner porpoise".

As a clarification: the first species of Atlantic phocoenid (Septemtriocetus) was described in 2008, from the North Sea; I mistakenly referred to the entire Atlantic, but intended to mean that no phocoenids were yet known from the Atlantic coast of the USA (which is still true).

Another pet peeve to heap on the pile: amateurs and fossil dealers often identify larger teeth as belonging to "Prosqualodon" - the only fossils of Prosqualodon are from Australia, Argentina, and New Zealand. Nobody from North America has ever found a Prosqualodon.

[cowsharks]

For reference purposes, does anyone have a picture of an actual fossilized Porpoise tooth (or teeth) that can be posted here? With regards to the references that indicate porpoise material has been found in California and Antwerp, are specimens still being found or is that material rare even in those locations? Unfortunately I don't have any of the reference material that talks about fossil porpoise specimens from California. I'm curious to know if porpoise material has been found in what is commonly called the Shark Tooth Hill area. I'm not certain how the age of the STH material compares to the Calvert formation.

[Al Dente]

For reference purposes, does anyone have a picture of an actual fossilized Porpoise tooth (or teeth) that can be posted here?

Here is a modern set.

Most fossil porpoise are described from partial skulls missing the teeth. I found a couple articles with teeth associated with the skulls. Here is a drawing of a tooth from "a new fossil Porpoise (Cetacea; Delphinoidea; Phocoenidae) from the Early Pliocene Horokaoshirarika Formation, Hokkaido, Japan", 2000, Ichishima and Kimura, Journal of Vert. Paleo. vol. 20, no. 3.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Al Dente

[Boesse]

Good question - there's not even that much in the way of truly spatulate teeth in fossil phocoenids from the west coast. There are a few specimens with spatulate teeth, but several primitive phocoenids from the Pacific have delphinid-like conical teeth (e.g. Semirostrum, Piscolithax); others from Japan have strange blunt teeth on their way to becoming spatulate (Haborophocoena, and a separate undescribed porpoise). The conical teeth, if found isolated, would be indistinguishable from those of delphinine delphinids (e.g. Stenella, Delphinus) but the distinctive spatulate teeth (and the freaky little bulb-teeth) have not really been found in abundance on the Atlantic coast. I've seen a handful of spatulate teeth from Santa Cruz and several skulls from elsewhere in CA with them in situ (and dozens of skulls and hundreds of phocoenid periotics) but the only Atlantic coast phocoenid I've ever seen is a single little spatulate tooth somebody emailed or messaged me sometime about a year ago or so (I can't recall who it was, but it was from Florida or North Carolina, I believe).

[cowsharks]

Wow, given what appears to be almost a complete lack of actual specimens (or at least pictures) for folks to reference, where the heck did collectors get the idea to start using the term "porpoise" from? Some of the reference material I came across did mention that many years ago fishermen even referred to dolphins as porpoises and vice-versa.

Which term would be the most accurate to use when referring to or describing the "Dolphin-like" teeth that I find along Calvert Cliffs. As seen in the pics below, I have several "varieties" of various shapes and sizes. Some of the teeth (bottom left row of one pic) are whale teeth, most of the other teeth seem to resemble some sort of Delphinid? Or is Odontocete the right term? I'm a little confused about which term(s) to use to refer to these teeth.

[Auspex]

Dolphins have conical teeth, porpoises have spatulate teeth.

The fossil record for porpoises is all Pacific.

[siteseer]

Daryl,

Yeah, it's pretty much just a case of people using porpoise and dolphin interchangeably. Scientists might still be doing it but I think for the most part to them "porpoise "means phocoenid and "dolphin" means delphinid. They tend to refer to older groups of small toothed whales as "archaic dolphins" but they will still use just "dolphins" as a quick-and-easy term among themselves with the unspoken understanding that they aren't dolphins in the strict sense.

Similar to this situation, I was watching a show a couple of weeks ago in which someone corrected someone else about killer whales. He said killer whales aren't whales, they are dolphins. He's right that the killer whale is the largest delphinid but dolphins are whales too.

The Calvert Formation ranges from about 14 to 19 million years ago. The Sharktooth Hill Bonebed has been dated as about 15.5 million years old. Loxolithax was originally considered a true porpoise, but as far as I know, the name is still based on only petrosals (periotics - one of the ear bones). It's unlikely it was a porpoise - more likely another of the "archaic dolphins" - but if it turns out to be a porpoise, it would be the earliest known one.

Jess

So, this brings me to the question, what if anything is anyone in the scientific community doing to help correct this confusion, or does it even need to be corrected if it is only the amateurs that continue to propagate this "error"? I understand it is difficult to break old habits

For reference purposes, does anyone have a picture of an actual fossilized Porpoise tooth (or teeth) that can be posted here? With regards to the references that indicate porpoise material has been found in California and Antwerp, are specimens still being found or is that material rare even in those locations? Unfortunately I don't have any of the reference material that talks about fossil porpoise specimens from California. I'm curious to know if porpoise material has been found in what is commonly called the Shark Tooth Hill area. I'm not certain how the age of the STH material compares to the Calvert formation.

[cowsharks]

Thanks guys, appreciate all the help, info, and comments.

I'm now looking for some type of chart that shows the relationship between whales, dolphins, etc, and then overlay it on a timescale so I can see which time period each one is from.

[Boesse]

Here's an outdated pseudo-cladogram of cetacean relationships displayed on a timescale. As you can see, there's quite a few different groups, and the Oligocene is getting substantially better known thanks to recent research my colleagues of mine (and myself, cough cough). For example, the group of baleen whales I studied for my Ph.D. - eomysticetids - aren't even on here.

[cowsharks]

Bobby, thanks a bunch for that diagram - it's just what I was hoping to find. Using a chart showing the Stratigraphy of Calvert Cliffs (from "Variation in composition and abundance of Miocene shark teeth from Calvert Cliffs, MD by Stephen Godfrey and Christy Visaggi), I added in to your diagram a close approximation of the time span of the Calvert formation (~14 to 19.5 Mya). The result confirms/shows that Phocoenidae (porpoises) and Delphinds (dolphins) did not occur until "after" the Calvert formation. Does this sound correct?

Daryl.

[mako-mama]

Very interesting thread. Good luck on your quest Daryl. Were all the teeth you posted images of from Calvert? What about your Lee Creek collection (yeah, I'm sure you have one!).

Pat

[Boesse]

Yup! The oldest true phocoenids are from the Tortonian (~13-10 Mya - Salumiphocaena, Pterophocaena) of Japan and California, and the oldest phocoenids from the Atlantic are from the early Pliocene (~3-5 Mya, Septemtriocetus, Brabocetus)

[Shellseeker]

Bobby's reference to an isolated tooth found in Florida was likely me in July 2013.

I had to do a little searching to find this thread:

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/38941-i-want-to-id-as-porpoise-but/

These spatulate teeth are exceedingly rare. When I found this one in 2013, I had see only one previously found by one of 5-10 hunting companions, and I have seen one other in the last 2 years.

The Peace River is a Miocene-Pleistocene mix.

[Boesse]

Yup! That's the one I remember seeing. Nice find - best evidence so far of fossil phocoenids in the west Atlantic, though admittedly possible Pliocene.

[cowsharks]

Very interesting thread. Good luck on your quest Daryl. Were all the teeth you posted images of from Calvert? What about your Lee Creek collection (yeah, I'm sure you have one!).

Pat

Hi Pat. Good to hear from you. Yes, all of the specimens in the pics I posted are from Calvert Cliffs. I probably have two or three times that amount in addition from Calvert Cliffs. I also have a lot of specimens from Lee Creek, but not nearly as much as the Calvert Collection. I need to put the Lee Creek specimens in riker cases so I can actually "see" what I have. I know I have some pretty odd/unusual "whale" type teeth. It's funny, because now I'm afraid to use the word "whale" instead of Cetacean, odontocete, or mysticete. I have some homework to do on those terms so I can use them correctly. I just can't believe how long I've been using the terms "porpoise" and "dolphin" interchangeably for so long and didn't realize how wrong that was. Learn something new everyday, and sometimes it takes a few reminders to make it stick

[non-remanié]

Bobby,

What do you think of the tooth 3/4 of the way down this page, with the caption "MIOCENE: Crocodile teeth? Very rare." http://digsfossils.com/fossils/nj_shark_kirkwood.html I have also found an exactly similar, crown or two from the basal Kirkwood transgressive lag of NJ, earliest Miocene, but contains reworked eocene as well.

-steve

Yup! That's the one I remember seeing. Nice find - best evidence so far of fossil phocoenids in the west Atlantic, though admittedly possible Pliocene.

[Al Dente]

Bobby,

What do you think of the tooth 3/4 of the way down this page, with the caption "MIOCENE: Crocodile teeth? Very rare." http://digsfossils.com/fossils/nj_shark_kirkwood.html I have also found an exactly similar, crown or two from the basal Kirkwood transgressive lag of NJ, earliest Miocene, but contains reworked eocene as well.

-steve

Here is the photo from the page you described. I think the one I circled is from a Tautog. No idea on the other.

[non-remanié]

Yes, you're probably correct. I completely forgot about Tautogs when I read about the spatulate teeth referenced above! I know I have at least one from Calvert as well.

Here is the photo from the page you described. I think the one I circled is from a Tautog. No idea on the other.

tautog.jpg

t

Here is the photo from the page you described. I think the one I circled is from a Tautog. No idea on the other.

tautog.jpg

[cowsharks]

Bobby's reference to an isolated tooth found in Florida was likely me in July 2013.

I had to do a little searching to find this thread:

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/38941-i-want-to-id-as-porpoise-but/

These spatulate teeth are exceedingly rare. When I found this one in 2013, I had see only one previously found by one of 5-10 hunting companions, and I have seen one other in the last 2 years.

The Peace River is a Miocene-Pleistocene mix.

Shellseeker, thank you so much for posting the images to your porpoise tooth. As Bobby said in your original posting of the tooth, that is a "true" porpoise tooth. Finally I have something to use as a reference. I'll provide a link back to this thread/images for others to see as well.

thanks again!

Daryl.

[cowsharks]

Bobby,

What do you think of the tooth 3/4 of the way down this page, with the caption "MIOCENE: Crocodile teeth? Very rare." http://digsfossils.com/fossils/nj_shark_kirkwood.html I have also found an exactly similar, crown or two from the basal Kirkwood transgressive lag of NJ, earliest Miocene, but contains reworked eocene as well.

-steve

Steve, is it possible that the tooth circled in the one image is a crown from a Wahoo (fish)? See Wahoo pic below, with ref link to elasmo.

Edited July 21, 2015 by cowsharks

[Boesse]

I'm now bothered by the size of the tooth I identified as a phocoenid, that's way way too large. So perhaps a land mammal then. A phocoenid tooth root should only be about 2-4 mm in diameter at the most.