Guest Smilodon Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 NJ, Here is why I did a double take when first looking at your photos and asked you about the locality That would be a cretaceous elasmosaur from Russia on the left and a bigger cretaceous pliosaur from russia on the right. The hollow roots are identical too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njfossilhunter Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 Smilodon Did you collect those teeth yourself....??????? very nice and I can see why you questioned the locale and the tooth..... but like I said marine deposit in Virgina....... I just had a thought maybe mine is a pilosaur tooth and the lockness monster really does exist....... sorry only kidding......Or am IIIIIIIII LOL...... The left tooth looks to have the same preservation as mine....... but the right tooth looks more like the shape of mine...... Thanks for the comparison......Time for dinner....... TonyThe Brooks Are Like A Box Of Chocolates,,,, You Never Know What You'll Find. I Told You I Don't Have Alzheimer's.....I Have Sometimers. Some Times I Remember And Some Times I Forget.... I Mostly Forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Smilodon Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 Smilodon Did you collect those teeth yourself....??????? very nice and I can see why you questioned the locale and the tooth..... but like I said marine deposit in Virgina....... I just had a thought maybe mine is a pilosaur tooth and the lockness monster really does exist....... sorry only kidding......Or am IIIIIIIII LOL...... The left tooth looks to have the same preservation as mine....... but the right tooth looks more like the shape of mine...... Thanks for the comparison......Time for dinner....... Of course I collected them myself, right off a Russian dealer's table in Tucson. . You don't see these bad boys very often (acutally never) - got a good sized ichthyosaur with root as well to complete the triple play but ichthyosaur roots are actually squared off. Similar preservation though. Jeez that must have been quite a site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 Hey Guys, I agree with Harry, for the exact same reason - the conical shape of the pulp cavity; in juveniles there may be a pulp cavity still, but it pinches off during ontogeny and eventually completely fills in. It could be something like Thecachampsa. I know Gavialosuchus is of Miocene age (but cannot recall if it was marine or not...) Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Smilodon Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 Hey Guys,I agree with Harry, for the exact same reason - the conical shape of the pulp cavity; in juveniles there may be a pulp cavity still, but it pinches off during ontogeny and eventually completely fills in. It could be something like Thecachampsa. I know Gavialosuchus is of Miocene age (but cannot recall if it was marine or not...) Bobby Given that crocodile parts are not very derived, it's often hard to distinguish as to genus much less species especially from a single bone or tooth. With the formations given they are generally ID'd as Thecachampsa. But if you get a crocodylian expert aside, they will tell you crocodile id is pretty fuzzy unless you have a whole bunch of the critter. 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