Tooth from Bakersfield ID Needed

[Fossil-Hound]

@Boesse I’m slightly confused because in your previous post that I cited you seem to reference S. (Z.) errabundus as a possible candidate but it’s fine. I’ll just have to label the tooth as Z. underscribedous. That sounds fitting.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Fossil-Hound
nomenclature

[Boesse]

You've misinterpreted it then - I did not intend to do anything other than sow seeds of doubt about the accuracy of dolphin tooth identification =)

[Fossil-Hound]

1 hour ago, Boesse said:

You've misinterpreted it then - I did not intend to do anything other than sow seeds of doubt about the accuracy of dolphin tooth identification =)

@Boesse your post in 2009 contradicts what you just said but hey I understand that a lot can happen in 10 years. Why did you change your mindset? Any new discoveries? Your quote directly from the post:

 

Additionally, your 'Prosqualodon' teeth likely belong to "Squalodon" errabundus. "S. errabundus" is known from the Middle-early Late Miocene of California, and is a very large Platanistid. 

 

FYI @ynot

 

Not to kick a dead horse deader but I'm just curious. What I have could very well be something like an Aulophyster morricei and yes I do understand that whale teeth do grind and wear down overtime so it's difficult to find a complete crown.

 

Aulophyster morricei: http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=63838

 

 

I'm content with identifying what I have as an "Undescribed cetacean" but I just want to understand what the whole debacle on Prosqualodon, Squalodon and Miocene sperm whales is because I see a lot of teeth coming out of STH that look very similar to each other. After rummaging through all your articles I get a sense that some consensus needs to be made on some of these different species and possibly incorrectly labelled species especially at Buena Vista Museum. There's a lot of gray areas. Just my two cents.

[Boesse]

Ah, yes - I said that before the skull of Zarhinocetus was published, and I was wrong then. At the time I had no idea what the rest of the animal looked like, and most folks thought it was a large platanistid - based entirely on the periotics. It seemed reasonable at the time. Shortly thereafter the new genus was named, and in 2012 I saw the skull; in 2016 the skull was published, with alveoli only a few mm wide. So yes, a lot did in fact happen in ten years =)