Do these go together? Associated pieces?

[Still_human]

I can’t figure out if these are 2 associated jaw pieces. In most pictures they sure look it,  but some pictures make me second guess it, and if they aren’t, they’re definitely still the attaching pieces, even if from different animals. I was looking at it backwards for awhile, which set me back, but I figured out the thicker part is actually the front of the jaw, right before the curve, or right after it starts, if it’s been glued on at the incorrect angle, which I think could also be possible.

 

the 1st picture looks very strange because of how that smaller section suddenly drops down and gets taller, and especially strange after researching and finding out that it’s supposed to get wider there, but actually SHORTER.

the 2nd picture looks good, except it MIGHT supposed to start slightly curving inward at the point of reattachment

pics 1,3,4,6,&7 all make it look like they rent supposed to be associated together, but the other pics make it look very accurate. I don’t know what to think, so I thought I’d see what people with much better knowledge than I, think about it.

 

 

[JohnBrewer]

I don’t think they are associated. 

[Still_human]

58 minutes ago, JohnBrewer said:

I don’t think they are associated. 

Even when you look at it from the top view, like pics 2&5?

[Still_human]

1 hour ago, JohnBrewer said:

I don’t think they are associated. 

I really think you’re right though. The more I look at it, the less it seems to fit.

[Abstraktum]

+1 for not associated. 

Especially the tooth socket where the crack runs through doesn't seem to fit. Looks like its sort of cut off. 

Also the teeth sockets on the smaller part seem bigger compared to the longer part. 

 

It just doesn't look right to me.

[LordTrilobite]

Based on these photos, I would say about 60% sure that these are associated.

The connecting surfaces are rough, yes. But the reason I think these might actually belong together is that the colour matches across the pieces and the bulge on the inner side seems to have a consistent shape.

The break could have been worn by time. Or it could have been shaped and sanded down to fit.
But the colours and the shape of that bulge would be harder to fake.

[Mark Kmiecik]

I would say associated but not immediately articulated.

[Still_human]

On 10/1/2019 at 2:58 PM, Abstraktum said:

+1 for not associated. 

Especially the tooth socket where the crack runs through doesn't seem to fit. Looks like its sort of cut off. 

Also the teeth sockets on the smaller part seem bigger compared to the longer part. 

 

It just doesn't look right to me.

Yes, that split tooth socket is part of what’s been nagging me. It just looks strange. You may be right about that—from the slope inside the socket it kind of does look like its just a smaller part of the socket on the smaller piece, but a full half of the socket on the longer part. That’s a big point for thipuume “not associated” side.

On 10/1/2019 at 3:20 PM, LordTrilobite said:

Based on these photos, I would say about 60% sure that these are associated.

The connecting surfaces are rough, yes. But the reason I think these might actually belong together is that the colour matches across the pieces and the bulge on the inner side seems to have a consistent shape.

The break could have been worn by time. Or it could have been shaped and sanded down to fit.
But the colours and the shape of that bulge would be harder to fake.

That’s the main reason I was thinking it really could be associated. It just seems to match up so well on the inside surface, with the width, the whole bump in general, and the hole, even though as Abstraktum pointed out, they look like they may be from different sized holes. Then again, if the width of the pieces are natural, neither hole seems to have very much room to actually be noticeably larger. So you would still think it around a half/half chance? 

 

On 10/1/2019 at 3:48 PM, Mark Kmiecik said:

I would say associated but not immediately articulated.

That’s also something I was very much considering, because I think most of it looks like it’s just missing a small piece in between those 2, or something, it’s just that the great matching of the very irregu  lar inside surfaces seems to point to the piece being associated afterall...I’m still so torn:/ 

[LordTrilobite]

4 minutes ago, Still_human said:

That’s the main reason I was thinking it really could be associated. It just seems to match up so well on the inside surface, with the width, the whole bump in general, and the hole, even though as Abstraktum pointed out, they look like they may be from different sized holes. Then again, if the width of the pieces are natural, neither hole seems to have very much room to actually be noticeably larger. So you would still think it around a half/half chance?

I'd have to hold it in my hands to get a better estimation. I don't think much else can be said based on such photos since it's such a close call.

[Still_human]

40 minutes ago, LordTrilobite said:

I'd have to hold it in my hands to get a better estimation. I don't think much else can be said based on such photos since it's such a close call.

Yeah, Id imagine you’re right. It would probably be best to be able to see grains, and what’s natural surface or not.

[steelhead9]

I'm, totally with JohnBrewer on this one. Not associated. The color match is good, and if found near one another, very possibly from the same alligator. I do not, however, believe these 2 pieces fit together. There is a partial socket on the larger piece where the 2 meet that is not matched on the smaller piece ( among other things).

[Still_human]

On 10/30/2019 at 7:59 AM, steelhead9 said:

I'm, totally with JohnBrewer on this one. Not associated. The color match is good, and if found near one another, very possibly from the same alligator. I do not, however, believe these 2 pieces fit together. There is a partial socket on the larger piece where the 2 meet that is not matched on the smaller piece ( among other things).

It’s actually plesiosaur, but yeah, that socket is definitely a big inconsistency. Like LordTrilobite said though, it’s such a well matched inside. I would think it would probably be from that exact same spot on a slightly larger jaw.