Jump to content

Help with Dogfish identification


bgreenstone

Recommended Posts

We just got back from the Denver show, and while we were there we picked up this really nice fish fossil plate from Lebanon.  What makes it special is that one of the 3 fish is supposedly a Dogfish.  Unfortunately, we didn't get much other information from the dealer, so I'm hoping someone here can help us out with a few questions:

 

1.  Any idea what species this dogfish is, and is this technically a shark or is it a relative of a shark?

 

2.  Any idea what the age would be?

 

Thanks!

 

-Brian

closeup.jpg

full.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JohnBrewer said:

Hi Brian, welcome to the forum. Is this a composite plate? Can't help with your fish ID I'm afraid. 

 

No, this is not a composite. It's actually 3 different species on a single plate.  When I saw it I knew I had to have it because it was such a rare combo.  I haven't been able to find any examples of a dogfish combined with other species on a single plate.  I just wish I knew more about that dogfish.  

 

Thanks,

 

-Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't add to the ID, but several years ago a student brought in a shark in a bottle.  I asked her if it was a dogfish.  She said "No, it is a Sa-von-er shark".  Perplexed, I told her I had never heard of such a thing.  Without missing a beat , she said, "definitely sa-von-er, look at the label on the bottom".

 

Turned it over and then sighed deeply, it read "souvenir".

 

Can't make this stuff up.

Brent Ashcraft

Educating the Utes of America for 16 years now

  • I found this Informative 3

ashcraft, brent allen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paratriakis is one of the more common sharks found in Lebanon. If this is Paratriakis, I think the fins were painted on because they don't really match others that I see online.

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

43 minutes ago, Al Dente said:

Paratriakis is one of the more common sharks found in Lebanon. If this is Paratriakis, I think the fins were painted on because they don't really match others that I see online.

I can't make out the position of the anal fin - it is somehow missing (???). This is how a Paratriakis should look like:

 

  • I found this Informative 1

Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes (Confucius, 551 BC - 479 BC).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bgreenstone said:

What makes it special is that one of the 3 fish is supposedly a Dogfish.  Unfortunately, we didn't get much other information from the dealer

 

It was this that made me ask. Why didn't the dealer give more identification or information on the dogfish? I'm not doubting it, just wondering that's all. :) presumably the two other fish were accurately identified? I know if I were selling a three species plate I'd really do my homework to entice buyers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dealer ,like me,might not have access o the relevant literature:D

Forey/Patterson (2003)heavily paywalled.

Age would be Cenomanian if it's from Nammoura

Small fish to the left underneath might be a kind of pycnodont

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I got some info from the dealer, and he says the species of the dogfish is Mustelus.  Can anyone confirm that?  Plus, any idea of age that I should assign to this?

 

Thanks,

 

-Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mustelus is the generic name for the modern smooth-hound shark.  Looking at your first picture (the close-up), do those rays that are visible on the dorsal surface of the 'shark' belong to that specimen?  If they do, then I don't think that is any kind of shark.  As far as I know, sharks do not have spiny-rayed fins.  I'm also not seeing any signs of any shark dentition.  It looks almost like an eel or a cutlassfish.

 

-Joe

  • I found this Informative 1

Illigitimati non carborundum

Fruitbat's PDF Library

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's what I was wondering too.  They do appear to have rays on the fins.  That just widens the mystery.  Anyone have any clue what that thing is?

 

-Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, bgreenstone said:

So, I got some info from the dealer, and he says the species of the dogfish is Mustelus.  Can anyone confirm that?  Plus, any idea of age that I should assign to this?

 

Thanks,

 

-Brian

 

"Dogfish" is usually employed as a general term for species of the Genus Squalus but has also been used for other genera within the Family Squalidae and to a lesser extent to other genera in the Order Squaliformes.  It might be just a loose translation with dogfish referring to any small shark but it's also easier to sell an identified fish if you call it a shark.  In any case calling it a dogfish is not accurate.  It is also not Mustelus because that genus is not known before the Paleocene and its teeth were shaped for crushing unlike most other sharks.

 

It might be an eel but I don't know.  Close-ups on the skull would be helpful.  Along with the presence of fin rays an operculum (gill cover) would rule out that it is a shark.  It looks like a bony fish to me at this point as well.

 

There is nice book on fossils from that deposit, "The Fossils if Lebanon: Memory of Time" by Gayet, Saad, and Gaudant.

 

I've seen the book at the Tucson shows but the price was too high for me.  I might spring for it next time.

 

That prep is pretty sloppy and that piece could be at least two slabs that were not originally joined. 

 

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

Here's the latest email I got from the dealer:

 

Quote

Well, actually many older shark species have spines. Even a few living ones, like the horn shark Heterodontus.

There was a label I thought...

They are Cretaceous in age, I think that deposit is about 100 million years.

I just got back from the show and can look the name up for you.

But it's definitely a shark

 

Anyone concur with this, or am I still going to have to guess what it is?

 

-Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some hi-rez better lit photos taken with a real camera.  I inspected the matrix itself pretty closely, and I do believe all 3 fish are legit to this plate.  Nothing was glued together to make this because all of the fracture lines and sedimentary lines match up among the repaired pieces.  I'm not an expert on the impressions themselves, however, so I can't tell if the fin spines were painted on or if they're the real deal.

 

Thanks,

 

-Brian

ff1.jpg

ff3.jpg

ff2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On September 22, 2016 at 8:12 PM, bgreenstone said:

Here are some hi-rez better lit photos taken with a real camera.  I inspected the matrix itself pretty closely, and I do believe all 3 fish are legit to this plate.  Nothing was glued together to make this because all of the fracture lines and sedimentary lines match up among the repaired pieces.  I'm not an expert on the impressions themselves, however, so I can't tell if the fin spines were painted on or if they're the real deal.

 

Thanks,

 

-Brian

ff1.jpg

ff3.jpg

ff2.jpg

 

 

Hi Brian,

 

After looking at your close-ups, I'm going to have to stick to the ID as an eel.  I see what looks like a pectoral fin sticking out from the body and its about where it would be for an eel.  I tend to  think that at least most of those fin rays are real and they would also back up an eel ID.

 

I don't know where the fin spine discussion came from but your specimen does not show any sign of fin spines.  Dogfish have fin spine but they are supports for the dorsal fins - only two per individual.  If that were a dogfish, I would think there would be some sign of them given that level of preservation of more delicate bones.

 

Jess 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. "

Thomas Mann

My Library

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well whatever it is it is a nice plate. I have never really been that interested in these types of specimens . Which is weird because I love everything about fish and marine life. But after seeing your plate I have a new appreciation.

Dipleurawhisperer5.jpg

I like Trilo-butts and I cannot lie.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. "

Thomas Mann

My Library

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, oilshale said:

Found this http://www.memoryoftime.com/details/140  Identified as "Mesitea" . Must be a wrong name.

 

Ah ha!  That's the closest thing I've seen yet, and the name is very close to what they told me:  "Mustelus".  Perhaps they meant "Mesitea"?

 

The theory of it being an eel only partly matched.  Looking at other eel fossils and basic eel anatomy there were things that didn't match up.  So far this Mesitea is the most convincing match I've seen so far.

 

Thanks for the info!

 

-Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the chorda is cartilage and not bone - this would rule out Actinopterygii such as Eels and Cutlassfish (Trichiuridae). Seems to be a Chondrichthyes.

  • I found this Informative 2

Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes (Confucius, 551 BC - 479 BC).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a Mesiteia emiliae, a carpet shark. Congrats!

This is a page from "Frickhinger Fossilienatlas":

Mesiteia.JPG

  • I found this Informative 5

Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes (Confucius, 551 BC - 479 BC).

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...