Jump to content
Shellseeker

STH Confusion

Recommended Posts

siteseer
On 1/9/2019 at 6:54 PM, caldigger said:

The tooth I posted is 5cm ( 2") 

However, I have this one ( same length) which I believe to be the canine.

20190109_184922.jpg

20190109_184953.jpg

 

The skinnier one does have a crown more consistent with that of a cetacean.

 

 

Yeah, that does look like a canine of a land mammal - maybe an amphicyonid.  Maybe Harry will take a look. @Harry Pristis

 

Bob Ernst once found a jaw section of an amphicyonid, Pliocyon medius (figured in Prothero et al., 2008).  He showed it to me in the quarry.  I think he found it the day before.  It was on display at the Buena Vista Museum.

 

Jess

 

Prothero, D.R., M.R. Liter, M. R., L.G. Barnes, X. Wang, E. Mitchell, S. McLeod, D.P. Whistler, R.H. Tedford, and C.L. Ray.  2008.

Land mammals from the Middle Miocene Sharktooth Hill Bonebed, Kern County, California. In  Lucas, et al. (eds.) Neogene Mammals. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Bulletin 44, p. 299–314.

 

Jess

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caldigger

It does have a similar appearance  as the xenosmilus in this picture. That would definitely be much more exciting than would an Allodesmus tooth.

I would like to see what H.P.'s opinion is on this one.

20190111_050019.png

20190111_045949.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shellseeker
8 hours ago, siteseer said:

The tooth identified as a "seal incisor" appears to be just a small Allodesmus tooth - perhaps a juvenile.  At this point we have be careful with terms like "seal" and sea lion.  There were no seals in the Sharktooth Hill Fauna.  Early seas seem to originate from Europe spreading into the Atlantic (teeth found at Lee Creek) by the Middle Miocene and appearing in the Pacific by Early Pliocene.  Allodesmus is not technically a sea lion in that it doesn't belong to the modern group we know as sea lions.  Allodesmus is a relative of sea lions but I don't know the latest on where it fits among pinnipeds.  I should add that the pinnipeds include seals, sea lions, walruses, and extinct groups like Allodesmus.

Thanks Jess for adding insights,

I am like a kid in a NEW candy store, fascinated but not capable of identifying nougat from truffle from fudge.  Tony tried to guide me down the correct path,  but I think your comment on No Seals at STH is clarifying.

Lots of insight on Allodesmus from Bobby here: http://coastalpaleo.blogspot.com/2014/06/ including A photo of Allodesmus teeth from Mitchell (1966). I have lots of reading to do.  Thanks for the Link.

 

AllodesmusTeethBoesseCrop.JPG.6bf2b34f520004bf661dafb9c9597147.JPG

 

 

8 hours ago, siteseer said:

The tooth identified as Aulophyseter morricei may be one but it's pretty worn and there are few whale tooth forms without enamel on the crowns as you've seen from Florida sites.  There is an article on fossil sperm whales (Kimura et al., 2006) and it shows a photo of an Aulophyseter tooth.  Unfortunately, the shot is not well-lit and the photocopier I used was not the best so my copy of the figure is too blurry to help.

On this tooth, I was noting similarity in shape/form to the one below from a Peace River Tributary: The enamel is sometimes hidden under cementum or dentine.

PeaceRiverWhale.JPG.086c6723ebd0dcc4956cb247724f6e7c.JPG

or this great photo of Kogiopsis (Harry created ??)

KogiopsisHarry.JPG.1dc9d2fb3329d44d834c841b88db8d72.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shellseeker
3 hours ago, caldigger said:

It does have a similar appearance  as the xenosmilus in this picture. That would definitely be much more exciting than would an Allodesmus tooth.

I would like to see what H.P.'s opinion is on this one.

Caldigger,

If you identify XenoSmilus Hudsonae from STH,  your name will be in the scientific journals and you will get maximal interest from University of Florida:

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/florida-vertebrate-fossils/species/xenosmilus-hodsonae

I hear that Pseudaelurus Intrepidus (similar sized sabercat) was found at STH 8 mya.  Let's hope it is one of his teeth.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Pristis

 

Hmmm.  That canine does have a superficial resemblance to Xenosmilus  hodsonae -- based on the images, anyway.  In fact, the Xenosmilus hodsonae canine has fine serrations on both carinae plus a tiny cusplet at the crown base (on the side not shown in the enlargement from my image).  Beyond that, the Xenosmilus hodsonae canine crown has a pronounced teardrop cross-section with a rounded anterior margin.

 

The tooth does not strike me as any amphicyonid with which I am familiar, but that's not saying a lot.  Caniniform teeth have been re-invented in genera after genera, time after time.  Most, I suspect, are simpler in form than Xenosmilus and other specialized big cats.  I suppose the best way to narrow the guesswork is biochronological -- what lived when, at this place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caldigger

The sediments for this deposit are said to be 12 to 15 million years depending on who you talk to. 

This will be the fourth different terrestrial tooth I have found in this formation if it is indeed from a land animal. I am stoked no matter what it turns out to be.

 

BTW, sorry Jack for taking your thread on a right turn tangent. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot
1 hour ago, Shellseeker said:

STH 8 mya. 

Sharktooth hill bone bed is 12 to 14 mya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caldigger
4 minutes ago, ynot said:

Sharktooth hill bone bed is 12 to 14 mya.

Not according to Buena Vista Museum personel and Rob Ernst. I am regularly told 15mya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shellseeker
32 minutes ago, caldigger said:

The sediments for this deposit are said to be 12 to 15 million years depending on who you talk to. 

This will be the fourth different terrestrial tooth I have found in this formation if it is indeed from a land animal. I am stoked no matter what it turns out to be.

 

BTW, sorry Jack for taking your thread on a right turn tangent. :mellow:

Not a problem, GLAD to help.. With Tony and Jess assistance, most of my teeth are identified as Allodesmus.. There are a few questions left on the whale tooth and canine. There is a better chance if TFF members keep looking at this thread.

 

Plus I am really interested in your tooth... I love puzzles,  and if you can get an ID, we all get an answer on what mammal has an enamel tipped, slim , straight canine.  I always loved puzzles. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
siteseer
On 1/11/2019 at 11:05 AM, caldigger said:

Not according to Buena Vista Museum personel and Rob Ernst. I am regularly told 15mya.

 

Yes, that is basically the age according to Don Prothero, who arrived at that age in (Prothero, 2008).  Even before his study, paleontologists were saying about 15-16 million years old based on the land mammals that had been found there.

 

Jess

 

Prothero, D.R., F. Sanchez, and L.I. Denke.  2008.

 “Magnetic stratigraphy of the early to middle Miocene Olcese Sand and Round Mountain Silt, Kern County, California”

in Lucas, et al. (eds.).  Neogene Mammals.  New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Bulletin 44. p. 357–363.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
siteseer
On 1/11/2019 at 10:53 AM, caldigger said:

The sediments for this deposit are said to be 12 to 15 million years depending on who you talk to. 

This will be the fourth different terrestrial tooth I have found in this formation if it is indeed from a land animal. I am stoked no matter what it turns out to be.

 

BTW, sorry Jack for taking your thread on a right turn tangent. :mellow:

 

Hi Caldigger,

 

It can't be Xenosmilus because STH way too old for that, Xenosmilus being an Early Pleistocene animal.

 

As you well know, the Sharktooth Hill Bonebed is interesting for many reasons.  Besides the variety of sharks, marine mammals, fishes, and other groups, it is known for yielding a few of the oldest remains of cats in North America.  Both cats and probiscideans crossed into North America just before Sharktooth Hill time.  Pseudalurus is an uncommon cat but you should be able to find some illustrations in papers on mammal sites of the same age (Barstovian - Barstow Formation, sites in Nebraska, Nevada, Texas, Mexico, etc.).

 

Pseudalurus was roughly the size of a mountain lion so you can use that as a ballpark to match tooth size.

 

Jess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caldigger

That's why I stated it only had a "similar appearance". Knowing it wasn't really a possibility, only sharing a type look.

Frankly, I've got my money on Sasquach! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Pristis

 

Just for fun, here's my Xenosmilus lower canine:

 

cat_xenosmilus.JPG.39bbf34b18d5ebc1c083c32b945a35f6.JPG   

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.

×