4 Moroccan teeth

[Troodon]

I am not a mosasaur tooth expert but still inclined yours is one.  Elosuchus per the paper have strong false serrations on the carina which can be seen on image T from the paper shown above and have a much more rounded tip.  Check yours for those type of serrations.

 

Clarification I am not saying your small theropod tooth is Carch but a  "theropod indet".   The denticles on that tooth do have more affinities to a Carch but there is not enough diagnostic details available to make a call.   I know everyone likes to put a species name on teeth but sometimes you cannot as is the case with ALL Kem Kem teeth.

 

[Max-fossils]

5 minutes ago, Troodon said:

I am not a mosasaur tooth expert but still inclined yours is one.  Elosuchus per the paper have strong false serrations on the carina which can be seen on image T from the paper shown above and have a much more rounded tip.  Check yours for those type of serrations.

 

Clarification I am not saying your small theropod tooth is Carch but a  "theropod indet".   The denticles on that tooth do have more affinities to a Carch but there is not enough diagnostic details available to make a call.   I know everyone likes to put a species name on teeth but sometimes you cannot as is the case with ALL Kem Kem teeth.

 

Ok, thanks. I'll take a closer look

 

"ALL"? Aren't there some that are clearly Carcharodontosaurus saharicus? I know that most are "unspecies-able"...

[Troodon]

No we do not know how many Carcharodontosaurids exist in the Kem Kem.   Like I said earlier in a previous post there is lots of disagreement among paleontologists in what dinosaurs exist in this fauna.  Sauroniops pachytholus is described from the Kem Kem and its a Carcharodontosaurid.  So if its valid, how do you distinguish it's teeth from C. saharicus?  Just going to take time and more discoveries to understand the Kem Kem.  You might see it in your lifetime  

[LordTrilobite]

Could you post some other photos of your #2 tooth? I'm wondering whether it's a Kem Kem tooth or a Khouribga tooth. There seems to be some sediment still on the bottom of the tooth that might show where it came from. And that will likely give a clue as to what it could be.

[Anomotodon]

1 hour ago, Troodon said:

I am not a mosasaur tooth expert but still inclined yours is one.  Elosuchus per the paper have strong false serrations on the carina which can be seen on image T from the paper shown above and have a much more rounded tip.  Check yours for those type of serrations.

Here is a quote from that paper (de Lapparent de Broin, 2002):

"Based on characters found in Elosuchus characters (partly hypothesised for Stolokrosuchus), it is stated that the Elosuchidae belong to a grade corresponding to ‘Mesosuchia’ auctorum (i.e. with palatino-pterygoidian choanae, amphicoelous vertebrae etc.). They are progressive mesosuchians as Dyrosauridae, Pholidosauridae and several brevirostrines in various degrees, due to homoplastic characters: antorbital fenestra reduced to a depression, moderately arched rostrum, heterodonty in relative mensurations (diameter and height) conical teeth which are posterioly shorter and not serrated (Fig. 1U–W), although newly grown teeth possibly have a false serration (Fig. 1T)"

Therefore, most important criteria should be "teeth show costulations (T, W), anastomosed ridges at the apex (U, V)", but I am not sure they can be seen on that tooth due to its preservation. The same is with the tip - it looks broken.

 

 

[Troodon]

I don't disagree an closeup photos of the carina would help but Im also basing  my thoughts on the profile.

[amon81]

In my opinion the first one is a Spinosaur and the lastone is Carcharodontosaurus.

[LordTrilobite]

imo that last tooth is much too thin for Carcharodontosaurus. Abelisaurid is more likely.

[Max-fossils]

21 hours ago, Troodon said:

No we do not know how many Carcharodontosaurids exist in the Kem Kem.   Like I said earlier in a previous post there is lots of disagreement among paleontologists in what dinosaurs exist in this fauna.  Sauroniops pachytholus is described from the Kem Kem and its a Carcharodontosaurid.  So if its valid, how do you distinguish it's teeth from C. saharicus?  Just going to take time and more discoveries to understand the Kem Kem.  You might see it in your lifetime  

Didn't know this before, thanks. Well, let's keep our fingers crossed that paleontologists are able to solve this mystery soon! 

 

21 hours ago, LordTrilobite said:

Could you post some other photos of your #2 tooth? I'm wondering whether it's a Kem Kem tooth or a Khouribga tooth. There seems to be some sediment still on the bottom of the tooth that might show where it came from. And that will likely give a clue as to what it could be.

 

19 hours ago, Troodon said:

I don't disagree an closeup photos of the carina would help but Im also basing  my thoughts on the profile.

Will do that soon. 

 

21 hours ago, Anomotodon said:

Here is a quote from that paper (de Lapparent de Broin, 2002):

"Based on characters found in Elosuchus characters (partly hypothesised for Stolokrosuchus), it is stated that the Elosuchidae belong to a grade corresponding to ‘Mesosuchia’ auctorum (i.e. with palatino-pterygoidian choanae, amphicoelous vertebrae etc.). They are progressive mesosuchians as Dyrosauridae, Pholidosauridae and several brevirostrines in various degrees, due to homoplastic characters: antorbital fenestra reduced to a depression, moderately arched rostrum, heterodonty in relative mensurations (diameter and height) conical teeth which are posterioly shorter and not serrated (Fig. 1U–W), although newly grown teeth possibly have a false serration (Fig. 1T)"

Therefore, most important criteria should be "teeth show costulations (T, W), anastomosed ridges at the apex (U, V)", but I am not sure they can be seen on that tooth due to its preservation. The same is with the tip - it looks broken.

 

 

 

Interesting... Me making some more pictures of the tooth will surely be useful as comparison.

 

9 hours ago, amon81 said:

In my opinion the first one is a Spinosaur and the lastone is Carcharodontosaurus.

 

We already agreed that the first tooth was spinosaurid. The last one is still being discussed; but your opinion is useful, thanks! 

 

 

 

9 hours ago, LordTrilobite said:

imo that last tooth is much too thin for Carcharodontosaurus. Abelisaurid is more likely.

Huh, good to hear... It's gonna take a lot of research I think to try and ID this one; there are strong arguments on both sides, and nothing yet definitive...