Doctor Mud Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Haven't seen this elsewhere on TFF: "A huge, five-million-year-old whale tooth has been discovered on an Australian beach, providing the first evidence of the now extinct killer sperm whale outside the Americas." https://m.phys.org/news/2016-04-fossilised-tooth-gigantic-killer-whale.html I presume this belongs to Livyatan melvillei? @Boesse should know? I liked this bit, and upon finding this I would also be the same: "After I found the tooth I just sat down and stared at it in disbelief," Murray Orr said after the find was announced on Thursday by Museum Victoria, to whom he has donated the tooth." Another great contribution to science by an "amateur" or avocational paleontologist. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Wow!!! That is a big tooth. That is a great discovery!!! "Without fossils, no one would have ever dreamed that there were successive epochs in the formation of the earth" - Georges Cuvier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Mud Posted January 16, 2017 Author Share Posted January 16, 2017 Looks like the mighty @Auspex posted about this already..... My apologies. Did a search in the fossil news section under whale and found this: At least this gives a "bump" to an impressive story and amazing find. Imagine stumbling upon a tooth like this. apparently his first thought was that it was an unexploded shell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 It's a bit youger tha L. melvillei - perhaps 8 Ma (Messinian), whereas L. melvillei is 12-14 Ma (Serravallian). So perhaps Livyatan sp. based on size. A pretty stupendous find! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 How does one decide L. melvillei didnt persist into this time? (if this tooth isnt evidence it did? Or is it a lack of a skeleton to be able to tell?) "Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe" - Saint Augustine"Those who can not see past their own nose deserve our pity more than anything else." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Mud Posted January 16, 2017 Author Share Posted January 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Ash said: How does one decide L. melvillei didnt persist into this time? (if this tooth isnt evidence it did? Or is it a lack of a skeleton to be able to tell?) My guess is that L.melvillei is described and based on other material apart from just teeth. The tooth is a common type, a conical morphology and so could belong to L.melvillei, but without other bits from the skeleton, we can't be sure. it could mean that the beast persisted until 8 ma, this is another species or even that this is a chrono species? L.melvillei evolved into something else. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Thanks, Dr Mud (And for explaining "Chrono species", saved me having to look it up). I think i sent you a PM awhile back, or maybe i forgot to. I'll send another soon "Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe" - Saint Augustine"Those who can not see past their own nose deserve our pity more than anything else." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Mud Posted January 16, 2017 Author Share Posted January 16, 2017 41 minutes ago, Ash said: Thanks, Dr Mud (And for explaining "Chrono species", saved me having to look it up). I think i sent you a PM awhile back, or maybe i forgot to. I'll send another soon Thanks Ash, Could be that you did. Sorry I was inactive for a while. Life got a little crazy with a job transition and moves. Finally next week after months all our stuff will be in the same place. I haven't seen a lot of my fossils in....... Well too long! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Most marine mammal genera have a geochronologic range of only a few million years - some are quite long (sea cows), but for the groups we understand best, it's generally just a few. Most folks on here are quite used to shark assemblages and lineages - where a single species may be worldwide and known over a 10+ my period. That's not the case with marine mammals, which generally are geographically restricted (e.g. North Pacific only - desmatophocid seals) or have a very short duration (e.g. Herpetocetus, 6~1 Ma). If I were a reviewer, and I were reviewing a paper where they reported that tooth as L. melvillei, I would point out some of the same issues as @Doctor Mud: 1) teeth are non-diagnostic in cetaceans, though I'm perhaps willing to accept a genus assignment based on the stupendous size (e.g. Livyatan sp., or cf. Livyatan). Further to the point - the species is diagnosed based on skull features and not really features preservable in isolated teeth. 2) the age and geographic separation argue for conservatism in the ID, though you very well could expect the same species to occur off Peru and Australia IF the ages of the rocks were equivalent (which they are not). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 I hope this find is used to help make the argument that the Beaumaris site (or what is left of it) needs to be protected from development. Currently a private marina is trying to take over the site and plan to cover it in rip-rap, cement over the cliffs, and build storage for rich people to store their yachts. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Mud Posted January 24, 2017 Author Share Posted January 24, 2017 14 hours ago, FossilDAWG said: I hope this find is used to help make the argument that the Beaumaris site (or what is left of it) needs to be protected from development. Currently a private marina is trying to take over the site and plan to cover it in rip-rap, cement over the cliffs, and build storage for rich people to store their yachts. Don I saw that Don when I was looking into the background of this find. It would be a real shame to lose another world class site to construction. So many of the sites where I used to live (in Brisbane) were lost to urbanisation. I used to play "spot the outcrop" in the city. There was one near my house and they mustn't have liked to have a slightly unpredictable rock face that shed the occasional boulder. So they concreted over it and textured and painted it to look like the original rock........ I hope the construction doesn't happen or some sort of compromise is reached. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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