bgreenstone Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 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 Link to post Share on other sites
JohnBrewer Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Hi Brian, welcome to the forum. Is this a composite plate? Can't help with your fish ID I'm afraid. Link to post Share on other sites
bgreenstone Posted September 19, 2016 Author Share Posted September 19, 2016 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 post Share on other sites
ashcraft Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 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 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Al Dente Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 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. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
oilshale Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 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: 1 Link to post Share on other sites
doushantuo Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Paratriakis is in here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2008.00757.x/pdf 1 Link to post Share on other sites
JohnBrewer Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 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 post Share on other sites
doushantuo Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 The dealer ,like me,might not have access o the relevant literature 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 post Share on other sites
bgreenstone Posted September 20, 2016 Author Share Posted September 20, 2016 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 post Share on other sites
Fruitbat Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 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 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Taogan Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Doesn't look like a shark to me, the fins seem to have rays Link to post Share on other sites
bgreenstone Posted September 20, 2016 Author Share Posted September 20, 2016 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 post Share on other sites
siteseer Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 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. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
bgreenstone Posted September 21, 2016 Author Share Posted September 21, 2016 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 post Share on other sites
bgreenstone Posted September 23, 2016 Author Share Posted September 23, 2016 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 Link to post Share on other sites
bgreenstone Posted September 23, 2016 Author Share Posted September 23, 2016 I did just find some information about dogfish spines, and apparently primitive sharks and some modern dogfish have them. Check out the Fin Spines section on this page: http://www.fossilguy.com/gallery/vert/fish-shark/remnant.htm -Brian Link to post Share on other sites
siteseer Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 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 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 post Share on other sites
abyssunder Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 I think, Eel could be a good candidate. Here is for example Enchelion montium (HAY, 1903), Cenomanian, Lebanon : https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/list?genus=Enchelion&specificEpithet=montium&nomenclaturalCode=ICZN&scientificNameAuthorship=hay, 1903&collectionCode=f# The other one could be Pharmacichthys venenifer (WOODWARD, 1942) : https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/list?genus=Pharmacichthys&specificEpithet=venenifer&nomenclaturalCode=ICZN&scientificNameAuthorship=woodward, 1942&collectionCode=f Link to post Share on other sites
Darktooth Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 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. Link to post Share on other sites
abyssunder Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 I'm wondering if the third one couldn't be Armigatus brevissimus (BLAINVILLE, 1818) : https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/list?genus=Armigatus&specificEpithet=brevissimus&nomenclaturalCode=ICZN&scientificNameAuthorship=(blainville, 1818)&collectionCode=f Link to post Share on other sites
oilshale Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 Found this http://www.memoryoftime.com/details/140 Identified as "Mesitea" . Must be a wrong name. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
bgreenstone Posted September 28, 2016 Author Share Posted September 28, 2016 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 post Share on other sites
oilshale Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 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. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
oilshale Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 It's a Mesiteia emiliae, a carpet shark. Congrats! This is a page from "Frickhinger Fossilienatlas": 5 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now