xaar Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Good as I can not buy my dinosaur egg what do you think of this molar mammoth? Excellent Miocene Mammoth molars, an extinct elephant ancestor with long, curved tusks that evolved in the Pliocene of North America. These large mammoth molars were found in Florida. Authenticity guaranteed. A GEM Pleistocene Mammoth molar. The Mammoth, an extinct elephant ancestor with long, curved tusks that evolved in the Pliocene of North America. This large molar with an incredibly articulated chewing surface. Complete root. An exceptionally well perserved specimen. Well fossilized. Weighs 7 lbs. No damage. No repair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDudeCO Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 both look to be quite nice specimens! Do they come with information about where they were found and such? I will not purchase fossils without information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaar Posted July 19, 2017 Author Share Posted July 19, 2017 the second A beautifully perserved Pliocene Mammoth molar. This is the early form of the Mammoth, an extinct elephant ancestor with long, curved tusks that evolved in the Pliocene of North America. A large molar with a nicely articulated chewing surface.. Nearly complete root. Well fossilized. Weighs 3 lbs+. No damage. No repair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seguidora-de-Isis Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Undoubtedly this molar tooth is 100% authentic! Apparently it is a European specimen and may well be Mammoth Primigenius (woolly mammoth). But in Europe there are still: Mammoth trogontherii Mammoth rumanus Mammoth meridionalis It is a very attractive molar tooth and is in excellent condition. Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaar Posted July 19, 2017 Author Share Posted July 19, 2017 They are not woolly mammoths ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDudeCO Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Ah you have updated your post! The first is a very nice tooth, and appears to have most of the information. I would ask to see if they can get a little more detailed such as what city / river was it found near. The roots are broken off of the end, but not too much, large parts of them are still attached, it appears to about 95% complete from what I can see. The second is very nice as well. showing about the same level of preservation. I cannot comment as to where they may be from. 1 minute ago, Seguidora-de-Isis said: Undoubtedly this molar tooth is 100% authentic! Apparently it is a European specimen and may well be Mammoth Primigenius (woolly mammoth). But in Europe there are still: Mammoth trogontherii Mammoth rumanus Mammoth meridionalis It is a very attractive molar tooth and is in excellent condition. Why do you say these are European? On the first one the seller states Florida, and on the second it doesn't mention a state but says "the Pliocene of North America" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaar Posted July 19, 2017 Author Share Posted July 19, 2017 I will ask for more precision on the exact provenance. They just say North America Florida for the first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seguidora-de-Isis Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 6 minutes ago, FossilDudeCO said: Ah you have updated your post! The first is a very nice tooth, and appears to have most of the information. I would ask to see if they can get a little more detailed such as what city / river was it found near. The roots are broken off of the end, but not too much, large parts of them are still attached, it appears to about 95% complete from what I can see. The second is very nice as well. showing about the same level of preservation. I cannot comment as to where they may be from. Why do you say these are European? On the first one the seller states Florida, and on the second it doesn't mention a state but says "the Pliocene of North America" It is only now that the Xaar has updated the information. Before he had not put the information of provenance, and since he lives in France, I assumed that the tooth could be European. Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaar Posted July 19, 2017 Author Share Posted July 19, 2017 yes sorry Seguidora i just update now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seguidora-de-Isis Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 27 minutes ago, FossilDudeCO said: both look to be quite nice specimens! Do they come with information about where they were found and such? I will not purchase fossils without information. You also asked him where the tooth came from, for until that moment, he had not put the provenance of the tooth. Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 According to Hulbert, all Mammuthus from Florida are columbian mammoths, Mammuthus columbi. Further, Hulbert says all these mammoths from Florida date to Middle-to-Late Pleistocene. How much other misinformation do these descriptions contain?! http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seguidora-de-Isis Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 I was confused at the beginning, too, because I did not know where it came from, but now with no problems. It's a beautiful exhibit specimen. Analyzing the photos and counting the enamel ridges, they really look like Mammuthus columbi. I agree with Harry Pristis. Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellseeker Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 3 hours ago, Harry Pristis said: According to Hulbert, all Mammuthus from Florida are columbian mammoths, Mammuthus columbi. Further, Hulbert says all these mammoths from Florida date to Middle-to-Late Pleistocene. How much other misinformation do these descriptions contain?! So Harry. I am just confused but certainly have not discussed this topic with Hulbert. I have read stuff like this item below and I know that numerous Florida based fossil dealers sell molars that they claim are Imperial Mammoth teeth. Is Richard saying that Imperial Mammoths never existed ( were always a logical subset of columbi) or they do exist, but never have been scientifically found or verified in Florida? I have Florida Geologic Surveys from the 60s that listed Imperial Mammoths as a species. Is there something that I should be reading to understand current state of the science? Quote Imperial Mammoth, right foreleg. Historic photo from the Smithsonian Institution. The Imperial Mammoth (Mammuthus imperator) is an extinct species of mammoth endemic to North America from the Pliocene through Pleistocene, living from 4.9 mya—11,000 years ago.[1] It was said to be the second-largest known species of mammoth after the Songhua River Mammoth (Mammuthus sungari), and the largest on the Western Hemisphere reaching a height of 4.9 m (16 ft)[citation needed]at the shoulder. M. imperator ranged from Canada to New Mexico about 4.6 million - 17,000 years ago (Late Pleistocene). It was slightly larger than its more famous cousins, the Woolly Mammoth, the Steppe mammoth and several others. Because it was much warmer in central and southwestern North America than in northern Eurasia and North America, the Imperial Mammoth is not presumed to have had a thick fur coat like some of its relatives. It lived alongside Jefferson's Mammoth (Mammuthus jeffersonii) and the Columbian Mammoth (Mammuthus columbi). The latter is often confused with M. imperator, because of its similar size and fossil range. The primary way to distinguish the two mammoths is that M. imperator's tusks curve to the point of overlap, whereas M. columbi's tusks do not. M. imperator was originally described as a fossil species of Elephas by Joseph Leidy in 1858.[2] Excellent fossils of the Imperial Mammoth have been found in the La Brea Tar Pits, in southern California.[3] The White Queen ".... in her youth she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 The taxonomy has changed over time. I'm citing Hulbert's 2001 organization in his book. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellseeker Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 16 minutes ago, Harry Pristis said: The taxonomy has changed over time. I'm citing Hulbert's 2001 organization in his book. Thanks Harry. Good answer. I realized that if you and Richard were on the same page, I needed to update my understanding. I have the book. Quote The taxonomic situation was simplified by various researchers from the 1970s onwards: all species of mammoth were retained in the genus Mammuthus, and many proposed differences between species were instead interpreted as intraspecific variation.[4] In 2003, paleontologist Larry Agenbroad reviewed opinions about North American mammoth taxonomy, and concluded that several species had been declared junior synonyms, and that M. columbi (the Columbian mammoth) and M. exilis (the pygmy mammoth) were the only species of mammoth endemic to the Americas (as other species lived both there and in Eurasia). The idea that species such as M. imperator (the imperial mammoth) and M. jeffersoni (Jefferson's mammoth) were either more primitive or advanced stages in Columbian mammoth evolution was largely dismissed, and they were regarded as synonyms. In spite of these conclusions, Agenbroad cautioned that American mammoth taxonomy is not yet fully resolved.[5] Sometimes it takes me a decade to update my brain. The White Queen ".... in her youth she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaar Posted July 20, 2017 Author Share Posted July 20, 2017 Then the seller tells me that the first is a Mammouth imperial from Venice Florida the second is mammoth meridionalis from arcadia Horse Creek Florida is it wooly Mammoth ?? Then what tooth would you prefer ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seguidora-de-Isis Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 In fact, the mammoth taxonomy of North America has not yet been completely resolved, even more so if we take into account that different species crossed all the time, forming hybrids.... As Harry said, several and various taxonomies were proposed over time, but the best taxonomic organization was made by Hulbert in the year 2001. In this new organization, all mammoths discovered in Florida are now considered columbian mammoth species. In this case his two teeth are of this species (columbian mammoth). No, these molar teeth are not woolly mammoths. The closest woolly mammoths lived in Arctic Canada. The columbian mammoths were much larger than the woolly mammoths and as their habitat was warmer, they are believed to have had less fur (hair). It is difficult to decide, both teeth have a fairly similar state of conservation, but I really liked the first tooth. Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaar Posted July 20, 2017 Author Share Posted July 20, 2017 well understood I would also like a woolly mammoth tooth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellseeker Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 4 hours ago, xaar said: well understood I would also like a woolly mammoth tooth Xaar, I am tentative on stepping back into this thread because I was confused about Columbia and Imperial Mammoths in Florida -- the current scientific experts for the State of Florida believe that the two are synonyms and selected Columbia Mammoth as the preferable term. You could call your first tooth either name. These are found in my normal hunting grounds (Peace River and Horse Creek not infrequently). Here is a recent great find by digit. Horse Creek is a tributary of the Peace River, Florida. Your 2nd Molar seems familiar to me . I have found many partial molars in Florida that look almost the same to the chewing surface that you display. Your seller indicates that the second is mammoth meridionalis from arcadia Horse Creek Florida. That can not be correct. The Southern Mammoth is a Eurasian species -- it's teeth are never found in Florida. So, IF it was found in Horse Creek, it must be Columbia (Imperial) Mammoth. Both are great molars, I have a slight preference for the 2nd molar The White Queen ".... in her youth she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 3 hours ago, Shellseeker said: Xaar, I am tentative on stepping back into this thread because I was confused about Columbia and Imperial Mammoths in Florida -- the current scientific experts for the State of Florida believe that the two are synonyms and selected Columbia Mammoth as the preferable term. You could call your first tooth either name. These are found in my normal hunting grounds (Peace River and Horse Creek not infrequently). . . . Horse Creek is a tributary of the Peace River, Florida. Your 2nd Molar seems familiar to me . I have found many partial molars in Florida that look almost the same to the chewing surface that you display. Your seller indicates that the second is mammoth meridionalis from arcadia Horse Creek Florida. That can not be correct. The Southern Mammoth is a Eurasian species -- it's teeth are never found in Florida. So, IF it was found in Horse Creek, it must be Columbia (Imperial) Mammoth. Both are great molars, I have a slight preference for the 2nd molar I wish you hadn't said this. It encourages a misunderstanding of taxonomy. Assignment and re-assignment of a species requires evidence and peer acceptance. When speaking carefully, one assignment (M. columbi) is not interchangeable with another which has not been accepted as the correct assignment. Thus, it is not optional here to call a tooth M. columbi OR M. imperator. By extension, the tooth cannot be both a columbian mammoth AND an imperial mammoth. Taxonomic names are cumulative historically. They are not invested with equivalence except in that historical sense (e.g. a species synonomy). http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldigger Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 I personally am more attracted to the first, but everybody is going to have their own preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossiling Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 On 7/20/2017 at 1:56 PM, caldigger said: I personally am more attracted to the first, but everybody is going to have their own preference. Me too Keep looking! They're everywhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.