Search the Community

Hey everyone! I just received a few teeth from the Kem Kem Beds near Taouz, Morocco. Among them one has me particularly stumped - I’ll do my best to provide as much information as possible, but let me know if more is needed! The tooth was listed as a theropod, though even the seller thought that assignment was only tentative. Its total height is 14mm. As the pictures above show, it’s moderately recurved as well as slightly curved lingually, with very distinct flutes running the whole length of the crown, 6 lingually and 9 labially, with the lingual flutes appearing stronger. It’s mediolaterally compressed, with a flat (or slightly concave?) lingual and more rounded labial profile, and a slightly lingually offset mesial carina. The distal carina reaches the base of the crown, whereas the mesial carina stops slightly short of it. The serration density on the distal carina is about 5/mm, on the mesial carina it’s about 7.5/mm (definitely noticeably smaller), getting more dense towards the base. When it comes to weird carnivores there’s of course no shortage in the Kem Kem, with a plethora of unusual teeth without a known owner. So far I haven’t come across one quite like this. I wouldn’t want to exclude the possibility of it being a theropod completely from the start. Still, my first thought went to Notosuchia: There’s an abundance of notosuchians known from the Kem Kem Group, probably as many described as undescribed. For one, there’s the small uruguaysuchid Araripesuchus rattoides (SERENO & LARSSON 2009), which can be excluded pretty easily. Aside from A. rattoides teeth being generally far smaller, the morphology doesn’t fit either: Specimens such as MNN GAD19 illustrate well that the largest teeth in Araripesuchus, its caniniforms, are recurved, but far more bulbous than what we are looking for. The other parts of its dentition are highly heterodont, with mostly small, low, rounded crowns. Additionally, none of its teeth are fluted in the fashion we see here. Next in line are the peirosaurids Hamadasuchus rebouli (BUFFETAUT 1994) and an as of yet undescribed taxon likely closer to more derived peirosaurids, Peirosauridae B [ROM 52620 and ROM 49282]. The latter is often attributed to H. rebouli, but will hopefully be revised after the description of BSPG 2005 I 83. IBRAHIM et al. 2020 lump everything into Hamadasuchus, but didn’t do their own analysis and note that reevaluations are in order. Similar to Araripesuchus, peirosaurids are highly heterodont, with conical anterior teeth and lower, more robust posterior teeth. The relatively high number of specimens helps in this regard: While recurved, the anterior teeth in Hamadasuchus are subconical and not overtly fluted. The posterior teeth, while possessing serrated carinae and showing some fluting, are far more stout and bulbous. In Peirosaurid B, the anterior teeth, most notably the caniniforms, are indeed fluted and recurved, but are very conical and do not possess serrated carinae. The posterior teeth, while possessing serrated carinae, some mediolateral compression, and being overall taller than in Hamadasuchus, are not recurved or fluted, but symmetrical and far more blunt than the pointed form we are looking for. Lastly, there are the ziphosuchians: IBRAHIM et al. 2020 use ‘Candidodontidae’ CARVALHO et al. 2004, though they note it’s unclear what exactly this family comprises of, so it might be best to treat its members simply as basal ziphosuchians. Libycosuchus brevirostris (STROMER 1914, 1915) has very little preserved in terms of teeth, and sits between other notosuchians which have very strange dentitions themselves. Looking at relatives such as Candidodon (CARVALHO & CAMPOS 1988), it would appear that these basal taxa would also have had mostly heterodont dentitions with conical anterior and low posterior teeth. Additionally, BUFFETAUT 1976 notes that the teeth appear to have been comparatively small overall, which appears right when looking at the alveoli of BSP 1912. I couldn’t find any reference to fluting or serrations in its immediate relatives, only in the far more derived members of this group, called ‘advanced notosuchians’ by POL & LEARDI 2015. There’s some evidence that animals similar to these younger South American taxa might have existed in the Kem Kem noted by IBRAHIM et al. 2020, but even then, the anterior teeth in this group show a consistently conical or teardrop-shaped cross-section, not the compressed shape we see here. IBRAHIM et al. 2020 go on to refer some material to Sebecidae SIMPSON 1937, though this is likely due to the general instability in notosuchian taxonomy. The material isn’t described in the text, but is highly doubtful to be from a true sebecid, as that family is only known from the Maastrichtian onward. Quite frankly I’m at a bit of a loss. I know trying to ID Kem Kem teeth too often ends in ‘We just don’t know’, and having looked at the options I haven’t made much headway - the tooth doesn’t really resemble anything that’s described or goes into the direction of what’s undescribed and fragmentary, at least to me. So I’d like to hear your opinions - is there something I have grossly overlooked? Is it just a very weird notosuchian or something else? Could it be a theropod after all? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Thank you very much for your help! BUFFETAUT, E. 1976: Der Land-Krokodilier Libycosuchus STROMER und die Familie Libycosuchidae (Crocodylia, Mesosuchia) aus der Kreide Afrikas BUFFETAUT, E. 1994: A New Crocodilian from the Cretaceous of Southern Morocco CARVALHO, I.d.S., & CAMPOS, D.d.A. 1988: Um mamífero triconodonte do Cretáceo Inferior do Maranhão, Brasil CARVALHO, I.S., RIBEIRO, L.C.S. & AVILLA, L.S. 2004: Uberabasuchus terrificus sp.nov., a New Crocodylomorpha from the Bauru Basin (Upper Cretaceous), Brazil IBRAHIM andabunchofothers, 2020: Geology and Paleontology of the Upper Cretaceous Kem Kem Group of Eastern Morocco POL, D. & LEARDI, J.M. 2015: Diversity Patterns of Notosuchia (Crocodyliformes, Mesoeucrocodylia) During the Cretaceous of Gondwana SERENO, P.C. & LARSSON, H.C.E. 2009: Cretaceous Crocodyliforms from the Sahara SIMPSON, G.G. 1937: New Reptiles from the Eocene of South America STROMER, E. 1914: Ergebnisse der Forschungsreisen Prof. E. Stromers in den Wüsten Ägyptens. II. Wirbeltier-Reste der Baharije-Stufe (unterstes Cenoman). 1. Einleitung und 2. Libycosuchus @Troodon

Hi folks! Received a new theropod indet. tooth today from the ever exciting Kem Kem. I was tentatively leaning towards a Carcharodontosaurid indet i.d., in line with morph type 3 in the always handy guide from @Troodon, but a few properties of the tooth have me wanting to get some extra opinions. Measurements: Crown Height: 27mm Crown Base Length: 10mm Cross Section: 7mm Mesial serrations: 5/mm (midline) Distal serrations: 3/mm (area just above damage at midline) There is a neat repair at the tip, a bit of damage to the enamel near the apex on the anterior and around midline on the posterior. There is also a shallow chip out of the enamel near the cervix (can be seen in the cross-sectional pic). The tooth is quite noticeably recurved (moreso than most teeth I've seen with a similar morph type). There is a labially displaced distal carina, in-keeping with Carch features, but chisel shaped denticles are present; something I have personally not seen on any teeth if this kind in the past. Lingual Side Labial Side Mesial Face (The mesial carina is lingually displaced and reaches approx ⅔ way down the mesial face. Denticles are very subtle and annoying to count.) Distal Face Cross Section Mesial Denticles Distal Denticles Comp w/ Carch indet. anterior tooth Denticles from the same position near the apex: Thanks in advance for any input.

How does one reliably differentiate Moroccan Pterosaur teeth from similarly elongated fish teeth? Are there any grooves, striations etc I should be looking out for under a loupe? (Image credit: AJ Plai, http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php...)

So I got these when i was like 9 at a gift shop. I think these are from morocco either from khouribga or kem kem. Does anyone know what these fossils are? Picture 1picture 2picture 3

Hello, so I saw this a while ago, and seller has sent me some extra photos. It's a very strange little tooth from Ksar es Souk, Kem Kem. The seller found the closest match being the pterosaur Ornithodesmus latidens at a museum, so assumes this comes from a pterosaur of a similar species. I haven't seen any Kem Kem teeth like this. It is 1.5cm long, has slight serrations. I am wondering if it might actually be a juvenile tooth from Hamadosuchus or one of the other serrated-toothed crocs from there. I see some of their teeth have this triangular shape--though not an exact match. Would love to see others ideas. Thanks

Recently I purchased this fossil from an online auction and I’m curious to find out it’s identification. The only information I have on it is that it originated from Phosphate mines in Morocco, that’s it. From first glance I think it’s a fish skull, possibly enchodus. Any help would be great.

This piece of spine with 4 verts was found in the fosfat beds of Morocco. It is supposed to be Plesiosaur, but the form is different I think. Might be Mosasaur, although I have never seen these trianglar shaped studs on the sides of the vertebrae. Does anyone recognize the shape? The whole piece is appx 40cm long and a good 20 cm wide.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667121001294 https://www.nicklongrich.com/blog/pluridens-and-the-insane-incredible-neverending-diversity-of-moroccan-mosasaurs @jnoun11 @pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon

I have been reading up on Moroccan mosasaurs and one point of confusion that I have run into is differentiating teeth from Prognathodon anceps and Prognathodon giganteus. There seems to be a great deal of overlap in their descriptions and occasional contradictions in the scientific literature. The first issue I’ve noticed is that there seems to be a great deal of confusion over what to even call the two species. Leiodon anceps (Owen, 1841-1845) was based on two tooth fragments and a section of jawbone. The genus was renamed Liodon by Agassiz (1846) because the name Leiodon was preoccupied by the pufferfish Leiodon Swainson, 1839. E.D. Cope (1869-1870) caused confusion by treating Liodon as synonymous with Tylosaurus. Further confusion was caused when the holotype material of Liodon was lost. This has resulted in authors suggesting that the Liodon is nomen dubium and all species under Liodon should be transferred to Prognathodon (Schulp et al. 2008). With regards to Moroccan specimens, Arambourg (1952) identifies prognathodontid teeth as ‘Mosasaurus’ cf. anceps. The smaller specimens identified by Arambourg have since been reclassified as teeth from Eremiasaurus heterodontus (Leblanc et al., 2012) and the larger teeth have been tentatively assigned to ‘Prognathodon anceps’. More recently, Bardet et al. 2015 suggested that the Moroccan ‘Prognathodon anceps’ may actually represent a unique species, separate from the poorly defined European M. (Leiodon) cf. anceps. Prognathodon giganteus Dollo, 1904 (holotype IRScNB R106 / formerly 3103) was defined based on an incomplete skull and postcranial skeleton from the upper Campanian of the Ciply area, southern Belgium. Note that early mosasaurs, Lacerta gigantea and Mosasaurus giganteus both share a similar specific epithet to Prognathodon giganteus but are actually both junior synonyms of Mosasaurus hoffmannii. For simplicity, I’m going to just refer to the two as Prognathodon anceps and Prognathodon giganteus. In a recent thread, @pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon made an informative post about the two prognathodontids. I have copied it below for context. Begin Quote …This is certainly another pair of nice teeth, even if they both belong to the most common prognathodontid species found in Morocco! I'd call them both P. giganteus from my experience, although the morphology of the top-most/first tooth conforms more with Bardet et al. (2014)'s Prognathodon nov. sp., which seems to correspond most to P. anceps as defined here. However, this is where I get confused between these two prognathodontid species, as the teeth of both species seem very similar morphologically (see below images): Prognathodon (Mosasaurus) cf. anceps sensu Arambourg, figure 8 from Machalski et al., 2003. Campanian and Maastrichtian mosasaurid reptiles from central Poland (some beautiful images of M. hoffmanni teeth in this publication too, @Praefectus) (Leiodon) cf. anceps, plate XXXVIII from Arambourg, 1952. Les vertébrés fossiles des gisements de phosphates (Maroc - Algérie - Tunisie) Prognathodon giganteus, figure 40 from Lingham-Soliar & Nolf, 1989. The mosasaur Prognathodon (Reptilia, Mosasauridae) from the Upper Cretaceous of Belgium Amarabourg (ibid., p. 280-281) describes the teeth of Mosasaurus cf. anceps as follows: Or, translated (mine): Machalski et al. (ibid., p. 404-405) summarize this by stating In comparison, Lingham-Soliar & Nolf (ibid., p. 166-167) describe the teeth of Prognathodon giganteus as follows: Overall, reading over all the slight differences in termonology used, the descriptions and images given for the teeth of both P. giganteus and P. anceps seem rather similar. However, Arambourg's definition of 'Mosasaurus' cf. anceps dates to 1952, whereas Dollo defined his P. giganteus in 1904. This would seem to suggest that P. giganteus might be the senior synonym. As Arambourg based his definition on Owen's 1841 description of Leiodon anceps, this seniority may be misleading, however, with P. anceps actually being the senior. Another reason to may be given more credence to the naming of P. anceps is that, according to Wikipedia "Prognathodon giganteus, named by Dollo in 1904, is one of species with the most brief descriptions, apparently only intended to provide a name for the skeleton of the mosasaur for exhibition in the museum hall". To my knowledge, the two prognathodontid species haven't ever been synonymized, however. Quote from this thread: End Quote Below are some additional pictures and academic quotations relevant to the topic. This is the holotype skull of Prognathodon giganteus and a hypothetical sketch from Lingham-Soliar & Nolf, 1990. Compare to some Prognathodon anceps skull reconstructions originating from Morocco. As far as descriptions of teeth go, Bardet and Pereda Suberbiola, 2002 describe Prognathodon giganteus in Jordan (NOT Morocco) as: They include the following picture: Cappetta et al. 2014 described Prognathodon teeth from the Gantour basin as the following. Note that Prognathodon anceps is referred to as Prognathodon nov. sp. in this publication. Bardet et al. 2015’s review of mosasaurid teeth differentiated Prognathodon teeth by the following. E is Prognathodon giganteus. F is Prognathodon anceps. In my opinion, these teeth look like they come from the same mosasaur, but different parts of the jaw. To summarize: Character Prognathodon anceps Prognathodon giganteus Size Anterior teeth less stocky than lateral teeth (Arambourg, 1952) Teeth robust, large cones (Bardet et al. 2015) Large and robust in appearance (Bardet and Pereda Suberbiola, 2002) The teeth appear to be more or less uniform in size along most of the jaw ramus although this assessment is an inference based on an incomplete number of preserved teeth and tooth bases of the maxillae and dentaries. (Lingham-Soliar & Nolf, 1992) Recurve Anterior teeth recurve posteriorly. Lateral teeth recurve posteriorly and slightly medially (Arambourg, 1952; Machalski et al. 2002) Somewhat posteriorly recurved tips (Lingham-Soliar & Nolf, 1992) Cross-section Anterior teeth cross-section, almost circular at the neck, becomes somewhat oval and irregular towards the apex. Lateral teeth are compressed with an elliptical symmetrical cross-section (Arambourg, 1952; Machalski et al. 2002; Bardet et al. 2015) In horizontal cross-section the tooth is subcircular and bears a close resemblance to Williston's (1897) cross-section of a tooth of P. overtoni (Lingham-Soliar & Nolf, 1992, Bardet and Pereda Suberbiola, 2002) Carinae Possess anterior and posterior carinae (Arambourg, 1952; Machalski et al., 2003) They are bicarinate with subequal buccal and lingual surfaces (Lingham-Soliar & Nolf, 1992, Bardet and Pereda Suberbiola, 2002) Labial (buccal) and lingual surfaces Labial and lingual surfaces, both of which are strongly convex (Arambourg, 1952; Machalski et al. 2002) Subequal convex labial and lingual faces (Bardet and Pereda Suberbiola, 2002) Serrations (crenulations) They bear finely crenellated cutting edges that extend the full apicobasal height, both symphyseally and commissurally (Arambourg, 1952; Machalski et al., 2003) The carinae are strongly marked and pinched from the main shaft with less visible serrations (Bardet et al., 2015) Surface features Facetting is not well developed but is more clearly seen on the lingual surface. Enamel beading is present, but poorly developed (Machalski et al., 2002) Some teeth bear indistinct facets on the lingual surface (Bardet et al., 2015) Tooth surfaces are enameled and appear to be covered in very fine vertical striae. This may on the other hand be an artifact of preservation caused by cracking of the enamel. Russell (1970, p. 374) on the other hand describes the enamel in P. giganteus as smooth but he may have based his statement on Dollo's (1904, p. 213) brief comment to that effect. Kues et al. (1985) also mention fine anastomosing striae in teeth which, however, are questionably referred to Prognathodon. (Lingham-Soliar & Nolf, 1992) Anastomosing enamel especially prevalent on the blunt apical region (Bardet and Pereda Suberbiola, 2002) Pinched/unpinched carinae Their two carinae are strongly detached (Arambourg, 1952) Tooth crowns without pinched carinae (Cappetta et al. 2014) The carinae are strongly marked and pinched from the main shaft with less visible serrations (Bardet et al 2015) ***Note the contradiction Apex Higher sharper apex (Bardet et al., 2015) Blunt apex (Cappetta et al. 2014, Bardet et al 2015) Based on all this, I think the defining differences the researchers are pointing are: (1) P. anceps teeth are more laterally compressed than P. giganteus (2) P. anceps teeth have “pinched” carinae while P. giganteus have unpinched carinae (3) P. anceps teeth have a pointed apex while P. giganteus has a blunt apex (4) P. anceps teeth are less posteriorly recurved than P. giganteus teeth I’m not quite sure what to conclude. These features seem like they may fall within heterodonty or individual, ontogenetic, and sexual variation. Whether the two species can be differentiated based on cranial and postcranial elements is yet to be seen. I have not seen any attempts to synonymize the species. In my opinion, I don't think the two species are understood well enough to differentiate the them based solely on isolated teeth. I would like to hear what others have to say on the topic.

I got this fossil shark vertebra for free. It was filled with matrix on it so i prepped it. Its from the Oulad Abdoun Basin, Morocco near Khouribga. The location has fossils from the Cretaceous-Eocene. Does anyone know the species/genus or age of this shark vert?

Hello, any thoughts on this? It is sold as pterosaur remains--jaw pieces and a vertebra, from Ouled Abdoun Basin, Morocco. From the Cretaceous--unfortunately from an old German collection, so the information is limited. 240mm x 105mm Now, I think it is misidentified and is actually a bird--possibly Dasornis because on the first pic, the jaw has a long tooth and then a few of the smaller mini "teeth" which matches a drawing I found in a paper of similar birds, which I've also attached. If it's Dasornis or a bird, then that would mean it isn't Cretaceous in age? The preservation seems odd to me though---Most bird fossils I see from Ouled Abdoun, the bones are much lighter in color. Any thoughts would be great. Thanks

Hi everyone, I have some trilobites I need help with identification on. I acquired these several years ago, so I am not entirely sure where these trilobites were found and can only suspect. The first is a trilobite that I believe is from Morocco. It is around 6 cm in length and 3 cm in width. The other two are Agnostid trilobites that I believe are from Utah. I was wondering if it was possible to limit each down to a genus. The darker one is 6 mm in length with a thorax around 3 mm wide. The lighter one is 7 mm in length with a thorax around 3.5 mm wide. Any help is appreciated. Thanks! IMG_5098.HEIC IMG_5100.HEIC IMG_5102.HEIC IMG_5104.HEIC IMG_5108.HEIC IMG_5109 2.HEIC IMG_5111.HEIC Whoops! I just realized I attached the first trilobite's images as files instead. I'll try to upload them as images instead in a reply.

Hello, I saw this for sale, wondering people's thoughts. It is from the Atlas Mountains in Morocco--seller has it listed as Jurassic. The striated side makes me hopeful this is a Pliosaur tooth rather than Plesiosaur, which all seem to be smoothe from Morocco. Atlas Mountains formation overlaps with Kem Kem I think, so could it be cretaceous as opposed to Jurassic? Thanks for the help

Hi, I always struggle to tell the difference between a Plesiosaur tooth and an Ichthyosaur tooth. This tooth comes from Goulmima in Morocco (lower Turonian) so I believe it is a Plesiosaur tooth (possibly a Pliosaur tooth), but wanted to confirm it here. The tooth is 4.2cm in length and retains the ridges on the tooth which I think is how you might tell the difference between Plesiosaur and Ichthyosaur. Thank you!

This was the first fossil I ever bought, I wasn’t even in kindergarten. I didn’t know what a trilobite was at the time but thought it looked cool. The only info I have is that it’s from Morocco. My best guess is something in the family Calymenidae.

Hello, I have been going through some fossils that I bought a while back. I came across this agatized snail from Morocco. I’ve tried to find more information on these agatized snails, but have been unable to find much. Some sellers online say that they come from Assa, Morocco, while others say they come from the Dakhla region. I’m also wondering what species this little guy belongs to, and a more precise age for these gastropods, although I’m pretty sure they are Eocene. Does anyone have any information regarding these agatized snails?

I need a few more Cretoxyrhina for the display I’m trying to finish. I really do not want to spend money so I’m trying a trade. I recently got some rare Kem Kem Lamniformes teeth and can offer up a Leptostyrax. It is the largest of those I got at 2.6 cm. There is some matrix on the root but the tooth is in pretty good shape. I would consider teeth from any location but my preference would be a location I don’t have such as New Mexico or Alabama. PM me if you’re interested

Hi. Still waiting to get out and hunt. In the meantime I threw this together. It was inspired by other displays I saw on the forum. Enjoy for now can’t wait to be in a creek!

I bought these brachiopods last week, and would really like to remove this matrix. I also have more than two Brachiopods that need cleaned, I just thought I wouldn't need to take pictures of all of them. I would appreciate any help that you can give me, thanks in advance.

I bought this from very trusted sellers. And its pourus or if thats how you spell it. A little piece of it came off. Can i glue it with cyanorylate? (The fossil is from khouribga)this is where the piece came off

Hello everyone,I've decided to open a chain of comments focusing on a popular theme: Moroccan spinosaurids. This is the first comment of a small series dedicated to analyse and document the diverse morphology of spinosaurids in the Kem Kem group. As an introduction,I'll be specifying how it will work,the rules and some guidance for those interested. First and foremost,the rules: 1)For correct identifications,I require images in various view(ventral and lateral at least) and with the highest quality possible. 2)Each comment will focuse on a specific morphotype,as such,only post images of specimens matching the description giving at the start. Any specimen from other morphotype won't be identified by me. 3)Other people are encouraged to post their specimens and help with the identification/s. Procedures: 1) A new comment will be posted each week, probably during the weekend,hour from Spain. 2) Around 4 specific comments are planed. 3) Each comment will discuss a specific morphotype (anterior cervicals,mid cervicals, posterior cervicals and cervicodorsal vertebrae). 4)At the start of each comment,I'll write a basic description of the respective morphology. 5) I'll describe in detail each vertebra contained in the four groups previously mentioned. 6) Images will be extracted/modified from the literature and complemented with additional specimens. 7) Concluding remarks: Taxonomic identification and limitations of the analysis. 8) References and acknowledgements will be posted after the main corpus of the comment is finished. For any questions, please comment below. My words might not be entirely clear.I encourage everyone to post their questions.

I bought this tooth and I am not sure if the root is genuine @Troodon

Hello everyone, I am trying to identify a dinosaur vertebra that comes from the KemKem basins in Morocco. Can you help me ?

Hello everybody: I recently got this nice specimen of Ammonita from Northern Morocco. I am not so sure about the identity, but my guess is that is Hildoceras sp. I wonder if anyone might be inclined to help me to get a proper identification. The person who got it, back in 1995, told me that the specimen is from the Jurassic, but he was not able to provide me a specific name. Perhaps Hildoceras laticosta? Thank you in advance, Best regards, Benifossil2021