non-remanié Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 3 hours ago, josephstrizhak said: I somehow can't really see the first one being a broken Archaeolamna upper lateral. The root does seem fairly whole in height, which means that it is not robust enough for Archaeolamna. I always thought the morphology of the last tooth matched with a Cretalamna lower third anterior, but this pic always made me second guess that thought and think it's an Archaeolamna: http://fossilsofnj.com/NJfavorites/album/slides/ct_b1_rs_opt.html I thought the ID on that link was wrong and should be Cretalamna, especially because of the cusplets and fairly flattened shape. Would you say that tooth is actually Cretalamna (probably a lower a3)? Joseph Yep! John is wrong on that one. Its Cretalamna. ---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen--- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 4, 2018 Author Share Posted July 4, 2018 @josephstrizhak @non-remanié How are these pics? The last 4 pics are of another tooth that looks similar too. Hope I’m not posting the wrong tooth lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 4, 2018 Author Share Posted July 4, 2018 Here’s another thing... could be just a rock or concretion but I thought it felt and seemed like a tooth. Not sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jersey Devil Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 @Masp The first tooth looks more like an Archaeolamna than a Paranomotodon, although it is a different tooth than #12. The second one (#15) is definitely a P. angustidens anterior. That last item is a concretion. 1 “You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one.” ― Mikhail Tal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-remanié Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 Joseph, there's nothing definitive in these blurry pics of extremely worn and fragmentary teeth. What's this indentation right where a cusp would be if its Archaeolamna? That's not a fully enameled shoulder as you may think it is from the last pic of #15. Well, maybe it is, but from these pictures we can't tell for sure. Pictures like this, especially of a worn fossil can be very deceptive . ---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen--- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jersey Devil Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 19 hours ago, non-remanié said: Joseph, there's nothing definitive in these blurry pics of extremely worn and fragmentary teeth. What's this indentation right where a cusp would be if its Archaeolamna? That's not a fully enameled shoulder as you may think it is from the last pic of #15. Well, maybe it is, but from these pictures we can't tell for sure. Pictures like this, especially of a worn fossil can be very deceptive . Hi Steve, I thought the first one was Archaeolamna based off of the root which doesn't seem to be porous. I also think the blade doesn't taper that much for the average Paranomotodon of that size. The second tooth I am pretty confident is Paranomotodon because of the less robust crown than most Archaeolamnas have. Its crown also seems thin on the carinae. I know these IDs can't be 100% accurate, but I think that's most likely what these teeth are. Joseph “You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one.” ― Mikhail Tal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-remanié Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 Root porosity? Even if that could be used to differentiate Archaeolamna and Paranomotodon (it can't) it surely couldn't be used on these specific teeth that have been so heavily altered by a number of diagenetic processes. I think you are just reading way too deeply into what's actually observable, especially with these not very clear pictures. Also, 12 actually looks to be "thinner on the carinae" (to use your term) than 15 so that doesn't make sense with your proposes id's. To be clear, I still think there's a *chance* 15 is Paranomotodon I just think you are really stretching what you think you see. ---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen--- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jersey Devil Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, non-remanié said: Root porosity? Even if that could be used to differentiate Archaeolamna and Paranomotodon (it can't) it surely couldn't be used on these specific teeth that have been so heavily altered by a number of diagenetic processes. I think you are just reading way too deeply into what's actually observable, especially with these not very clear pictures. Also, 12 actually looks to be "thinner on the carinae" (to use your term) than 15 so that doesn't make sense with your proposes id's. To be clear, I still think there's a *chance* 15 is Paranomotodon I just think you are really stretching what you think you see. I definitely think some - but not all - Paranomotodon roots are more porous than Archaeolamna roots. I think that is why a lot of the Paranomotodons that are found as float either have a missing root or heavy root damage. The first lateral tooth is pretty robust for its size and the second doesn't seem to be as robust for an anterior. The second tooth looks pretty thin at the tip in pics 2&3 of that tooth. I sometimes can't explain how I identify something. Edited July 8, 2018 by josephstrizhak “You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one.” ― Mikhail Tal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-remanié Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 22 hours ago, josephstrizhak said: I definitely think some - but not all - Paranomotodon roots are more porous than Archaeolamna roots. I think that is why a lot of the Paranomotodons that are found as float either have a missing root or heavy root damage. The first lateral tooth is pretty robust for its size and the second doesn't seem to be as robust for an anterior. The second tooth looks pretty thin at the tip in pics 2&3 of that tooth. I sometimes can't explain how I identify something. Joseph, So you are assuming that its "root porosity" that is causing what you have observed ( missing and eroded roots in Paranomotodon). Then you are saying you can't see the pores in the small amount of root that remains on #12, therefore its not Paranomotodon. That's flawed logic. And even if the porosity thing is true, I can tell that the root is heavily permineralized and there's no way you'd see any "root porosity" in any tooth preserved in that manner. And I completely understand that sometimes you can't explain an id especially some worn nj fossil. Humans are built to recognize patterns but that doesn't mean we can always explain why. ---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen--- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jersey Devil Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 22 hours ago, non-remanié said: Joseph, So you are assuming that its "root porosity" that is causing what you have observed ( missing and eroded roots in Paranomotodon). Then you are saying you can't see the pores in the small amount of root that remains on #12, therefore its not Paranomotodon. That's flawed logic. And even if the porosity thing is true, I can tell that the root is heavily permineralized and there's no way you'd see any "root porosity" in any tooth preserved in that manner. And I completely understand that sometimes you can't explain an id especially some worn nj fossil. Humans are built to recognize patterns but that doesn't mean we can always explain why. I agree with that and know some of it is flawed logic. Sometimes when I ID something and try to explain why I identified it that way, I use a different feature of the fossil as a "scapegoat" (not really blamed for anything though, haha) to claim that it is what led me to that ID when it actually was something else. It is also probably not worth attempting to identify a common worn tooth anyway. Maybe that first tooth could even be a worn upper lateral C. samhammeri, although that ID goes against my natural sense. Joseph “You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one.” ― Mikhail Tal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 7 minutes ago, josephstrizhak said: It is also probably not worth attempting to identify a common worn tooth anyway. It does the requester a disservice when We make uneducated guesses, even an educated guess that has no real basis can confuse. Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jersey Devil Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 hour ago, ynot said: It does the requester a disservice when We make uneducated guesses, even an educated guess that has no real basis can confuse. Maybe the IDs on the last two teeth are confusing, but I think I have helped much more than harmed. However, I do know that I have taken it a bit too deeply without much evidence on those last two. “You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one.” ― Mikhail Tal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 20 minutes ago, josephstrizhak said: Maybe the IDs on the last two teeth are confusing, but I think I have helped much more than harmed. However, I do know that I have taken it a bit too deeply without much evidence on those last two. No offence meant. You do seem to have a well founded knowledge. I am just saying that some pieces are beyond a certain point of identification and it can be no more than a guess as to what it is. Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jersey Devil Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 14 hours ago, ynot said: No offence meant. You do seem to have a well founded knowledge. I am just saying that some pieces are beyond a certain point of identification and it can be no more than a guess as to what it is. Hi Tony, Yeah, they are definitely too worn for a specific ID. I'm sorry for taking you too seriously. Joseph “You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one.” ― Mikhail Tal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.JPG.d64a00de120fb553baacff5149461632.JPG)
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