Jump to content
Shellseeker

Curious Mammal Bone

Recommended Posts

Shellseeker

Was hunting yesterday in the Peace River.  Good friends, sunshine, LOTS of small shark teeth, a couple of nice finds and a couple of unknowns. My BEST Meg of the day was small and broken:2018Jan23rdSmBrokeMeg.thumb.jpg.9536d5d702b121513ec82e035f3fd072.jpg

A very complete and large (2.5 inches across) Puffer Fish Mouthplate:

IMG_0319puffer.jpg.5860188441679d6b32d26b93789611be.jpgIMG_0322puffer.jpg.9fd6c7229a81980c1ddadf59ffbff423.jpg

A JAW with 2 teeth,  I think it is raccoon but would love confirmation...MaybeRaccoon.JPG.8e9e359769521616fb6759d5fd18f0ac.JPG

and then this fossil (2.75 x 1.0 inches) for identification.

IMG_0338bone3.jpg.b26960d673626a69efcb4e08620cdc26.jpgIMG_0340bone4Big.jpg.65ed94dd5070f5028714a6002907fbfe.jpgIMG_0342Bone5G.jpg.edf09327f428520875bbcd3b567fbc89.jpg

This bone is complete! I thought I knew what it was before looking at the end in this last photo... Now I will look for TFF and Florida experts...

 

Interesting fossils with good friends on a beautiful day.... :D:D:D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhodamanHD

Nice finds! Sorry I can’t help any. That meg has deep serrations for a juvenile, most I’ve seen have finer ones. Wonder why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpc

Raccoon is a pretty good guess.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SailingAlongToo
2 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

Nice finds! Sorry I can’t help any. That meg has deep serrations for a juvenile, most I’ve seen have finer ones. Wonder why.

Not all "small" megs are from juvenile animals. Even "big 'uns" had small posterior teeth. This looks like a posterior tooth to me and the pronounced cusplet leads me to believe it's one of the pre-meg species. Can't be sure of which one though as that is usually tied to age of stratigraphy and this was found in a lag deposit. @sixgill pete may offer more on it.

 

Sorry Jack. I know you are looking for ID on the other 2 items but I wanted to dispel the myth that small tooth size equals small, not fully developed animal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhodamanHD
26 minutes ago, SailingAlongToo said:

Not all "small" megs are from juvenile animals. Even "big 'uns" had small posterior teeth. This looks like a posterior tooth to me and the pronounced cusplet leads me to believe it's one of the pre-meg species. Can't be sure of which one though as that is usually tied to age of stratigraphy and this was found in a lag deposit. @sixgill pete may offer more on it.

 

Sorry Jack. I know you are looking for ID on the other 2 items but I wanted to dispel the myth that small tooth size equals small, not fully developed animal.

I had not considered it being a predecessor to the meg, the cusps were the reason I thought it was a juvenile. That makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shellseeker
2 hours ago, jpc said:

Raccoon is a pretty good guess.  

Thanks, These seemed similar to some individual teeth that have been identified as raccoon on TFF.. Raccoon is not one of my common finds.

2 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

Nice finds! Sorry I can’t help any. That meg has deep serrations for a juvenile, most I’ve seen have finer ones. Wonder why.

No verified ancestors of Megs have ever been found in the Peace River. If you search TFF for Mark Renz, he wrote about regressive genes causing cusps in juvenile megalodons.

 

I also found this site:

http://galactic-stone.com/fossil-dugong-rib-mineralization-rings-like-tiger-eye/

Quote

This is a fossil dugong veterbra process (Metaxytherium Floridanum) that was recovered from the Peace River in the Bone Valley formation of Florida (Miocene Period, approx. 7-14 million years ago). This piece measures approx. 3 inches by 2 inches. This specimen is well mineralized and is very solid.

What I did not understand is that I found broken fragments of dugong vertebrae that looked like this,xMT2680.jpg.pagespeed_ic.GYDmElJBn_.jpg.ebba8d0d63849e73bd1b99b6fcd5da4e.jpg

Those "wings" are the vertebrae processes, but those wings are fused!!!

So , are these like a whale epiphysis? They are free standing in baby/juvenile dugongs, and fuse at some sub_adult age. @Harry Pristis most certainly knows what is going on here.

1 hour ago, SailingAlongToo said:

Not all "small" megs are from juvenile animals. Even "big 'uns" had small posterior teeth. This looks like a posterior tooth to me and the pronounced cusplet leads me to believe it's one of the pre-meg species. Can't be sure of which one though as that is usually tied to age of stratigraphy and this was found in a lag deposit. @sixgill pete may offer more on it.

 

Sorry Jack. I know you are looking for ID on the other 2 items but I wanted to dispel the myth that small tooth size equals small, not fully developed animal.

No Problem on adding any info or question in any of my threads.  Knowledge is the goal...:1-SlapHands_zpsbb015b76:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coled18

Maybe a worn calcaneus for the last one? I can definitely see it being a vertebral process as well though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Pristis

 

I think the tooth is a juvenile megalodon lateral tooth. 

The bone appears to be a vertebral process. 

The vertebra is missing the growth plates (epiphyses).

 

 

raccoonmaxillaryteeth.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sixgill pete
17 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

Nice finds! Sorry I can’t help any. That meg has deep serrations for a juvenile, most I’ve seen have finer ones. Wonder why.

 

15 hours ago, SailingAlongToo said:

Not all "small" megs are from juvenile animals. Even "big 'uns" had small posterior teeth. This looks like a posterior tooth to me and the pronounced cusplet leads me to believe it's one of the pre-meg species. Can't be sure of which one though as that is usually tied to age of stratigraphy and this was found in a lag deposit. @sixgill pete may offer more on it.

 

Sorry Jack. I know you are looking for ID on the other 2 items but I wanted to dispel the myth that small tooth size equals small, not fully developed animal.

Those are some pretty gnarly serrations for a meg or even a chubutensis. While I am not fully familiar with the geology of the formations of the Peace River, I believe it is old enough that chubutensis could be found there. 

 

The tooth, by looking at the picture appears to be about 1 inch wide. This would make it a smallerish shark, I have seen posteriors 3 inches wide. Possibly a juvenile but not a new born or neonatal  at least in my opinion. I have megs from Lee Creek that are less than 1 centimeter wide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Pristis

 

Compare with this Peace River tooth which lacks the atavistic cusplets.  This tooth is 27 mm (1.06 inches) on its longest side:

 

 

shark_box_meg.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad

I love the puffer fish mouth plate! 

Lovely finds! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plantguy

Interesting collection of finds Jack. Like the shark tooth....:zen:

Regards, Chris 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
megaholic

Jack, That bone is a process from a dugong vert.  Even the texture should be a clue.  It is very very solid like the ribs and verts we find all over the river, Yes?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shellseeker
On 1/25/2018 at 2:33 PM, Harry Pristis said:

 

Compare with this Peace River tooth which lacks the atavistic cusplets.  This tooth is 27 mm (1.06 inches) on its longest side:

 

 

shark_box_meg.JPG

Just getting back to this thread.. I am trying to determine if I am missing the implications of fatter gnarly proportional serrations on a Meg. Some times I find small Megs this size with very fine serrations so twice as many serrations fit in the same length.

I have found many small megs with these fatter serrations and also many with finer serrations.

What, if anything, should I make of that difference?  @sixgill pete@SailingAlongToo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shellseeker
On 1/31/2018 at 5:51 PM, megaholic said:

Jack, That bone is a process from a dugong vert.  Even the texture should be a clue.  It is very very solid like the ribs and verts we find all over the river, Yes?  

 

Agree. This is a dugong Vert process and looks much like the processes that I have seen that are firmly connected to the Vert.. My question was : How is this single process disconnected?

The obvious answer is that the processes must be disconnected at birth and at sometime later, fuse to the rest of the vertebrae..

I find that thought eye_opening. I have not found any write_up on how the process fuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SailingAlongToo
28 minutes ago, Shellseeker said:

Just getting back to this thread.. I am trying to determine if I am missing the implications of fatter gnarly proportional serrations on a Meg. Some times I find small Megs this size with very fine serrations so twice as many serrations fit in the same length.

I have found many small megs with these fatter serrations and also many with finer serrations.

What, if anything, should I make of that difference?  @sixgill pete@SailingAlongToo

 

@MarcoSr  any thoughts on his  question?  I would hazard a guess that serration size (# per given distance) could change during the aging progression of the animal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarcoSr
17 hours ago, SailingAlongToo said:

 

@MarcoSr  any thoughts on his  question?  I would hazard a guess that serration size (# per given distance) could change during the aging progression of the animal.

 

I worked with a group of imaging, statistical and computer algorithm experts who were looking at serrations in the O. obliquus to O. megalodon  lineage.  They used very high resolution images of teeth and ran computer algorithms on the images which captured a good number of measurements on each tooth including serration measurements such as serrations per inch, average width of each serration, average height of each serration, serration shape etc. and general tooth measurements like tooth slant height, tooth vertical height, crown width, crown height, root measurements etc.  The serrations per inch were normalized using other tooth measurements to try to normalize tooth size differences.  Both the normalized serrations per inch and non normalized serrations per inch were plotted for a good number of teeth and looked at statistically.  Site location found for each tooth and site age were also used in different plottings to see those affects.  Bottom line from the data I saw is that serrations per inch vary a lot with teeth of the same species roughly the same size and with teeth of different sizes.  Sample sizes were too small to make any really firm other conclusion.  Hopefully with much larger sample sizes from many sites of different ages worldwide data will show statistically useful groupings of measurements taken.

 

Marco Sr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×