4 Moroccan teeth

[Max-fossils]

Hi all,

 

At the local market yesterday I bought these 4 teeth (in total for a very low price). All 4 are said to come from Morocco, but the seller didn't say the exact location. But I suppose that they are either from Kem Kem or Khouribga. 

 

Anyways I would just like your opinion on them (what species, 100% original or slightly reconstructed, anything I could do to "improve" them, etc). 

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Best regards,

 

Max

 

 

 

Tooth #1: sold as a spinosaur tooth (so I suppose it's from Kem Kem). 

 

[Max-fossils]

 

 

Tooth #2: sold as a mosasaur tooth. But I'm not totally convinced by this ID; the two "blade lines" are not on the "back" and the "front", but parallel to the curve of the tooth. And I'm not completely sure if this criteria is there in mosasaurs... What could it then be? Croc?

 

[Max-fossils]

 

 

Tooth #3: sold as a pterosaur tooth (so I suppose it's from Kem Kem). Is it possible to tell the species of this tooth?

 

[Max-fossils]

 

 

Tooth #4: sold as a pterosaur tooth. Doesn't look like one to me; I'm thinking this is more likely a tooth of some kind of theropod dinosaur. You can notice the serrations in some pics. Perhaps raptor? Or a very small Carcharodontosaurus tooth (juvenile)?

 

[Vieira]

I have to admit that Pterosaur teeth don't looks like Pterosaur to me!

 

Wait for specialists

[Max-fossils]

1 minute ago, Vieira said:

I have to admit that Pterosaur teeth don't looks like Pterosaur to me!

 

Wait for specialists

The second one (#4) indeed really doesn't... the first one does though (#3)

[Troodon]

Your first tooth is a Spinosaurid.  There is no way to determine species of these type of teeth.  Again there are multiple species in this fauna and lots of disagreement among paleontologists.

Tooth two looks like mosasaur and I believe they have cutting edges but @LordTrilobite can address that.

Tooth three I think is also a spinosaurid.  Your first picture shows vertical ribbing typical of spino and is round.

Tooth 4 is a theropod tooth and it's not a pterosaur or raptor..  Could be a Carch but the preservation is not good enough to make that call. Another possibility is Abelisaurid but would lean more toward Carch.  I would ID it as theropod indet.   There is evidence of Dromaeosaurid material in this fauna but very little as been published so raptors may exist.

 

 

[Max-fossils]

1 hour ago, Troodon said:

Your first tooth is a Spinosaurid.  There is no way to determine species of these type of teeth.  Again there are multiple species in this fauna and lots of disagreement among paleontologists.

Tooth two looks like mosasaur and I believe they have cutting edges but @LordTrilobite can address that.

Tooth three I think is also a spinosaurid.  Your first picture shows vertical ribbing typical of spino and is round.

Tooth 4 is a theropod tooth and it's not a pterosaur or raptor..  Could be a Carch but the preservation is not good enough to make that call. Another possibility is Abelisaurid but would lean more toward Carch.  I would ID it as theropod indet.   There is evidence of Dromaeosaurid material in this fauna but very little as been published so raptors may exist.

 

 

Great, thanks for all the info! I'll wait for Olof's reply about the possible mosa tooth.

[LordTrilobite]

I'd like to echo some of Troodon's IDs. and I think your location ID's are correct.

 

#1 is indeed Spinosaurid. But I'm wondering what those strange paralel marking are at the bottom of the tooth. Those look like articifial markings, so I'm wondering if this has been altered in any way. Yeah, Kem Kem.

 

#2 Looks like Mosasaur to me. Though there is still some sediment on it, the bottom looks quite charactaristic of Mosasaurs. I've never seen that shape on anything else but Mosasaurs. The cutting edges, or carinae, are not directly to the sides of the tooth because of the tooth position. The position of the carinae is dependant on the position of the tooth. So due to them seemingly being situated on the concave side of the tooth might indicate that this tooth might have sat somewhere more to the front of the jaw of the animal. But placing isolated reptile teeth to a jaw position is very, very diffficult. This is something I personally also want to learn more about as to find out what isolated teeth can be placed in a certain position and which cannot. Likely from the Khouribga area.

 

#3 Does not look like a Pterosaur tooth to me. It looks too fat for that. It has a vague similarity to Spinosaurid teeth, but it looks too flattened for that. This tooth seems consistent with Croc teeth I've seen from Kem Kem.

 

#4 Definitely not a Pterosaur tooth. This is a Theropod tooth. The closeups are very blurry but it looks like there's some sediment on there that you might be able to scrape off. This looks like it could become a really pretty tooth. I'd say Abelisaurid or raptor are a possibility. though Abelisaurid is more common and I think that's a better match. Though it's hard to tell from these photos.

 

 

For cleaning, I always use a microscope for small fossils like this. And I use steel dental picks to scrape away the sediment. Generally since the enamel is quite hard you generally won't damage the tooth surface if you're careful. If there are fragile gaps or cracks in the enamel you might want to be axtra careful though. And some Cyanoacrylate is good for stabilising the fragiile parts.

[Max-fossils]

7 minutes ago, LordTrilobite said:

I'd like to echo some of Troodon's IDs. and I think your location ID's are correct.

 

#1 is indeed Spinosaurid. But I'm wondering what those strange paralel marking are at the bottom of the tooth. Those look like articifial markings, so I'm wondering if this has been altered in any way. Yeah, Kem Kem.

 

#2 Looks like Mosasaur to me. Though there is still some sediment on it, the bottom looks quite charactaristic of Mosasaurs. I've never seen that shape on anything else but Mosasaurs. The cutting edges, or carinae, are not directly to the sides of the tooth because of the tooth position. The position of the carinae is dependant on the position of the tooth. So due to them seemingly being situated on the concave side of the tooth might indicate that this tooth might have sat somewhere more to the front of the jaw of the animal. But placing isolated reptile teeth to a jaw position is very, very diffficult. This is something I personally also want to learn more about as to find out what isolated teeth can be placed in a certain position and which cannot. Likely from the Khouribga area.

 

#3 Does not look like a Pterosaur tooth to me. It looks too fat for that. It has a vague similarity to Spinosaurid teeth, but it looks too flattened for that. This tooth seems consistent with Croc teeth I've seen from Kem Kem.

 

#4 Definitely not a Pterosaur tooth. This is a Theropod tooth. The closeups are very blurry but it looks like there's some sediment on there that you might be able to scrape off. This looks like it could become a really pretty tooth. I'd say Abelisaurid or raptor are a possibility. though Abelisaurid is more common and I think that's a better match. Though it's hard to tell from these photos.

 

 

For cleaning, I always use a microscope for small fossils like this. And I use steel dental picks to scrape away the sediment. Generally since the enamel is quite hard you generally won't damage the tooth surface if you're careful. If there are fragile gaps or cracks in the enamel you might want to be axtra careful though. And some Cyanoacrylate is good for stabilising the fragiile parts.

Awesome, thank so a lot for the info! I'm currently enjoying some holidays in Zeeland (Zeeland, vakantieland!), but when I'm back on Sunday I will work a bit on the teeth. 

Attached is a picture of my prepping material. (Very slim, I know!!! But it does the job I need it to do ). The "steel dental pick" that you talk about is the one with the blue handle right?

 

[LordTrilobite]

Yeah that looks like a good pick. Do you have any form of magnification, like a microscope? Without any magnification I personally wouldn't prep small teeth like these. Especially cleaning the serrated carinae can be quite a challenge even with a goood microscope.

[Haravex]

Not sure personally on the second one but the first and 3rd are spinosauruid .sp and the last one seems to look like a juvenile carchar due to the shape of it. (it's fatter than most usual ablesaurid teeth I've seen) 

[zekky]

Tooth#2 really looks like a croc to me. The asymmetry, one side being less round, the other longer and rounder. 

[Troodon]

10 hours ago, Max-fossils said:

Awesome, thank so a lot for the info! I'm currently enjoying some holidays in Zeeland (Zeeland, vakantieland!), but when I'm back on Sunday I will work a bit on the teeth. 

Attached is a picture of my prepping material. (Very slim, I know!!! But it does the job I need it to do ). The "steel dental pick" that you talk about is the one with the blue handle right?

 

 

Everyone's prepping tools and techniques are different especially with teeth and there is no wrong method, whatever works.  I like to clean my small teeth, under magnification, using a scope so I can see can easily see the denticles.   The two primary tools for me are a pin vise and a small X-acto knife with a very sharp blade.  The blade allows me to get under the matrix and scrape it away.  The thinness of the tools allows me access around the denticles.  I also use a heavy duty cotton swab with solvent to soften and remove excess the matrix around the denticles.   Good luck cleaning. 

[Troodon]

Just a couple of thoughts on your theropod tooth #4.  Identifying isolated teeth from the Kem Kem is not an easy task since so little is known.  Paleontologists cannot agree on the number of Spinosaurids or Carch'd that exist in the Kem Kem and some believe Spinosaurus aegyptiacus only belongs to Egyptian assemblages and not Moroccan.   So for us to try to identify a small tooth without diagnostic features is an uphill battle why I labeled that tooth as "theropod indet."   It's just not clear what it is and it could also be something completely different than what we think.

For your reference the profile of teeth is very important but so are the serrations, compare these pictures with your tooth.  With small bodied Abelsaurids the denticles typically are long, narrow and are inclined slightly to the tip, see top picture.  Carch denticles are rectangular in shape and see second picture

 

[Max-fossils]

20 hours ago, LordTrilobite said:

Yeah that looks like a good pick. Do you have any form of magnification, like a microscope? Without any magnification I personally wouldn't prep small teeth like these. Especially cleaning the serrated carinae can be quite a challenge even with a goood microscope.

 

10 hours ago, Troodon said:

Everyone's prepping tools and techniques are different especially with teeth and there is no wrong method, whatever works.  I like to clean my small teeth, under magnification, using a scope so I can see can easily see the denticles.   The two primary tools for me are a pin vise and a small X-acto knife with a very sharp blade.  The blade allows me to get under the matrix and scrape it away.  The thinness of the tools allows me access around the denticles.  I also use a heavy duty cotton swab with solvent to soften and remove excess the matrix around the denticles.   Good luck cleaning. 

Alright, thanks for the advice. I do have a magnification tool which could be useful, which I'll post a pic of when I get home. I'm not sure if it's any good for tooth prepping, but I'll give it a try.

 

17 hours ago, Haravex said:

Not sure personally on the second one but the first and 3rd are spinosauruid .sp and the last one seems to look like a juvenile carchar due to the shape of it. (it's fatter than most usual ablesaurid teeth I've seen) 

Huh, interesting. I'll look into that.  

 

11 hours ago, zekky said:

Tooth#2 really looks like a croc to me. The asymmetry, one side being less round, the other longer and rounder. 

That is one of the thoughts that first came into my mind when I saw the tooth. But I do trust Olof on his judgement of it still being mosasaur, as I know that he has a lot of experience with these critters.

 

10 hours ago, Troodon said:

Just a couple of thoughts on your theropod tooth #4.  Identifying isolated teeth from the Kem Kem is not an easy task since so little is known.  Paleontologists cannot agree on the number of Spinosaurids or Carch'd that exist in the Kem Kem and some believe Spinosaurus aegyptiacus only belongs to Egyptian assemblages and not Moroccan.   So for us to try to identify a small tooth without diagnostic features is an uphill battle why I labeled that tooth as "theropod indet."   It's just not clear what it is and it could also be something completely different than what we think.

For your reference the profile of teeth is very important but so are the serrations, compare these pictures with your tooth.  With small bodied Abelsaurids the denticles typically are long, narrow and are inclined slightly to the tip, see top picture.  Carch denticles are rectangular in shape and see second picture

 

I knew that Morocco teeth were really tricky to ID, but I was also confident that the experts on this forum would still be able to help me in my mysteries. Which you guys did fantastically !!! 

I'll take a closer look at the tooth then, and try to identify what it might be. I'll take some good closeup pics with the little scope I have; I trust it will be able to shed light on this. Very interesting and useful info; thanks a lot Frank!

 

Amd thanks so much to everyone else too! 

[Max-fossils]

@LordTrilobite @Troodon @Haravex @zekky @Vieira

 

Alright, so here are some close ups on the serrations of tooth #4. It seems like it's pretty worn...   But according to Frank's argument, I think this would lean more towards the juvenile carch.

 

Inside curve

Side A

 

Side B

 

 

Outside curve

Side B

 

[Max-fossils]

 

Frank and Olof; this is the magnifying item I was planning to use. The magnification is not very strong... Do you think that this will still be good enough?

 

If not, I have a stronger magnifier that will be coming sometime soon. (It looks like a microscope, but is not exactly one...) But I will have to wait till I get it then.

 

[Haravex]

enhancing the image so to speak brings out details that lead me to believe carchar juvenile if you look in this photo you can see no incline to the denticles. I feel like the microscope is slightly blurring the pictures maybe try to adjust with lighting and focus.

[LordTrilobite]

 

1 hour ago, Max-fossils said:

 

Frank and Olof; this is the magnifying item I was planning to use. The magnification is not very strong... Do you think that this will still be good enough?

 

If not, I have a stronger magnifier that will be coming sometime soon. (It looks like a microscope, but is not exactly one...) But I will have to wait till I get it then.

 

Well I think you're the best judge of that. If you think you can see it well enough under that scale of magnification then I suppose it's enough

[Troodon]

Agreed it's what you feel best comfortable with to get the job done.

[Anomotodon]

I might be wrong, but I think tooth #2 is crocodylian. It doesn't look like a mosasaur to me and the coloration is slightly more typical for Kem Kem.

Here is a picture of Elosuchus cherifiensis teeth. They are labio-lingualy recurved, have both carinae and large enamel striations (ribs).

 

Here are some species of mosasaurs from my collection. As far as I know, striations are present only on 'Platecarpus ptychodon' , C (there usually are a few ribs on M. beaugei D and some others, but they are not so frequent as on tooth #2). Differences between 'P. ptychodon' and tooth #2 are obvious - mosasaur teeth are more labio-lingualy compressed, carinae are more complete, teeth are usually smaller, coloration is usually white or like it. Some info on Moroccan mosasaurs

1. Bardet et al. Mosasaurids (Squamata) from the Maastrichtian Phosphates of Morocco: Biodiversity, palaeobiogeography and palaeoecology based on tooth morphoguilds Gondwana Research Volume 27, Issue 3, April 2015, Pages 1068–1078 
2. http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/35999-moroccans-mosasaurs/ 
3. Leblanc et al. A new mosasaurine from the Maastrichtian (Upper Cretaceous) phosphates of Morocco and its implications for mosasaurine systematics Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology Volume 32, 2012 - Issue 1 

[Max-fossils]

On 10/21/2017 at 5:06 PM, LordTrilobite said:

 

Well I think you're the best judge of that. If you think you can see it well enough under that scale of magnification then I suppose it's enough

 

On 10/21/2017 at 6:55 PM, Troodon said:

Agreed it's what you feel best comfortable with to get the job done.

Haha okay 

 

On 10/21/2017 at 4:22 PM, Haravex said:

enhancing the image so to speak brings out details that lead me to believe carchar juvenile if you look in this photo you can see no incline to the denticles. I feel like the microscope is slightly blurring the pictures maybe try to adjust with lighting and focus.

 

I'm afraid that I won't be able to get any better than this, sorry... But honestly, I think the pictures are fine. As I said before, the tooth itself is slightly worn; this is maybe why you think that the picture is blurry.

Otherwise, the serrations on this tooth do point towards juvenile carch.

 

23 hours ago, Anomotodon said:

I might be wrong, but I think tooth #2 is crocodylian. It doesn't look like a mosasaur to me and the coloration is slightly more typical for Kem Kem.

Here is a picture of Elosuchus cherifiensis teeth. They are labio-lingualy recurved, have both carinae and large enamel striations (ribs).

 

 

Here are some species of mosasaurs from my collection. As far as I know, striations are present only on 'Platecarpus ptychodon' , C (there usually are a few ribs on M. beaugei D and some others, but they are not so frequent as on tooth #2). Differences between 'P. ptychodon' and tooth #2 are obvious - mosasaur teeth are more labio-lingualy compressed, carinae are more complete, teeth are usually smaller, coloration is usually white or like it. Some info on Moroccan mosasaurs

1. Bardet et al. Mosasaurids (Squamata) from the Maastrichtian Phosphates of Morocco: Biodiversity, palaeobiogeography and palaeoecology based on tooth morphoguilds Gondwana Research Volume 27, Issue 3, April 2015, Pages 1068–1078 
2. http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/35999-moroccans-mosasaurs/ 
3. Leblanc et al. A new mosasaurine from the Maastrichtian (Upper Cretaceous) phosphates of Morocco and its implications for mosasaurine systematics Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology Volume 32, 2012 - Issue 1 

 

Ah, now this is interesting. You make a great argument! Though (because of a lack of personal knowledge) I can't say whether or not you are right, your point does make a lot of sense. 

Yet, a quick google search for "elosuchus tooth" doesn't show any teeth that are strikingly ressemblant to mine... Do you maybe have a good picture to show this?

[Anomotodon]

2 minutes ago, Max-fossils said:

Ah, now this is interesting. You make a great argument! Though (because of a lack of personal knowledge) I can't say whether or not you are right, your point does make a lot of sense. 

Yet, a quick google search for "elosuchus tooth" doesn't show any teeth that are strikingly ressemblant to mine... Do you maybe have a good picture to show this?

 

Here are a few examples from the internet. I think your tooth might be from the front part of the jaw

[Max-fossils]

Just now, Anomotodon said:

 

Here are a few examples from the internet. I think your tooth might be from the front part of the jaw

 

That might be a good explanation