White River Carnivore Jaw - Possibly Parictis?

[Opabinia Blues]

On my latest expedition to the family ranch in Weld County Colorado, one of my finds was this tiny section of carnivore mandible. I’ve collected quite a bit of fragmentary (presumably) Hesperocyon material, and I’m fairly familiar with their dentition. Upon collection, I suspected this bit was something other than Hesperocyon, and after consulting the literature I suspect this may be Parictis, a very primitive Hesperocyon-sized bear.

 

According to the White River Badlands textbook by Benton et al., “…the premolars of Parictis [are] more robust and transversely widened [than in Hesperocyon]. Each of the premolars also has a distinctive cingulum (shelf) around the crown. The premolars lack anterior accessory cusps.” This premolar tooth seems to fit the description.

 

Labial side:

 

Occlusal view:

 

Lingual side:

 

What say you, fossil pals?

[C2fossils]

I have just started on White river fossils, but it looks like a good match to me. But wait for the experts to weigh in on this one. @Randyw 

Here is a Parictis Jaw reference photo

[trilobites_are_awesome]

@MarcoSr Have any opinions?

[MarcoSr]

27 minutes ago, trilobites_are_awesome said:

@MarcoSr Have any opinions?

 

Both my son Mel and I don't think it is Parictis.  Mel thinks it is Canid.

 

Marco Sr. 

[ParkerPaleo]

Appears canid to me as well.  I do not see the 'distinct cingulum's that would be expected if it was Paricitis.  

 

@jpc Usually has an opinion on these as well.

Edited December 4, 2024 by ParkerPaleo

[MarcoSr]

My son Mel had 2 associated Parictis jaws from our M&M Nebraska Ranch handy and took the below pictures for comparison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marco Sr.

Edited December 4, 2024 by MarcoSr
Added M&M Ranch

[jpc]

Opabina... your pix a a bit fuzzy.  I also do not see any sign of the cingulum.  The cingulum is highlighted in green in this photo.  (Compare to the original above and to the actual specimen,and to MarcoSr's pix).  I don't know what it is but I would not call it Paricits based on this.  

[C2fossils]

4 minutes ago, jpc said:

Opabina... your pix a a bit fuzzy.  I also do not see any sign of the cingulum.  The cingulum is highlighted in green in this photo.  (Compare to the original above and to the actual specimen,and to MarcoSr's pix).  I don't know what it is but I would not call it Paricits based on this.  

Guess I still have a lot to learn on white river Fm. fossils, It just makes me wonder what it is though....

[jpc]

19 minutes ago, C2fossils said:

Guess I still have a lot to learn on white river Fm. fossils, It just makes me wonder what it is though....

On the other hand, you provided the nice drawing which made it easy to point out the cingula (plural).  

[Opabinia Blues]

23 minutes ago, jpc said:

Opabina... your pix a a bit fuzzy.  I also do not see any sign of the cingulum.  The cingulum is highlighted in green in this photo.  (Compare to the original above and to the actual specimen,and to MarcoSr's pix).  I don't know what it is but I would not call it Paricits based on this.  

There is a bit of a cingulum on the premolar (highlighted). Might I ask what is distinctive about the Parictis cingulum? Is it wider than in canids? 
 

Sorry about the fuzziness, the only camera I have on me is my old model iPhone. I purchased a macro lens for my DSLR over the summer but it’s at my mom’s house.

 

 

[Opabinia Blues]

52 minutes ago, ParkerPaleo said:

Appears canid to me as well.  I do not see the 'distinct cingulum's that would be expected if it was Paricitis.  

 

@jpc Usually has an opinion on these as well.

May I ask what’s distinctive about the Parictis cingulum?

[Opabinia Blues]

35 minutes ago, C2fossils said:

Guess I still have a lot to learn on white river Fm. fossils, It just makes me wonder what it is though....

Don’t beat yourself up. I’ve personally collected hundreds of fossils from the White River Formation and I still feel quite unsure a lot of the time. I also am very curious about what it is.

[jpc]

As I see it, canids do not have a cingulum on the premolar, or a very minimal one.  I am going by the Benton description above..." distinctive cingulum ".  Look at marco's first photo.  You can see a distinctive little shelf at the base of each premolar which I do not see in yours.  : (

 

What's distinctive about it?... It goes all the way around the base of the tooth, as seen in the drawing above.  

[jpc]

1 minute ago, Opabinia Blues said:

Don’t beat yourself up. I’ve personally collected hundreds of fossils from the White River Formation and I still feel quite unsure a lot of the time. I also am very curious about what it is.

me too.  Additionally, I have heard say from experts in the field that there s much work yet to be done on non-caniforme, non-felid carnivores in the White River.  

 

 

Edited December 4, 2024 by jpc

[Opabinia Blues]

54 minutes ago, jpc said:

As I see it, canids do not have a cingulum on the premolar, or a very minimal one.  I am going by the Benton description above..." distinctive cingulum ".  Look at marco's first photo.  You can see a distinctive little shelf at the base of each premolar which I do not see in yours.  : (

 

What's distinctive about it?... It goes all the way around the base of the tooth, as seen in the drawing above.  

Ok. So that ridge of enamel is not a cingulum? It should go all the way around the tooth?

[jpc]

The cingulum is a thin shelf that sticks out at the base of the tooth.  I don't think I see one here.  That ridge of enamel...   I think that is just the base of the enamel.  

Edited December 4, 2024 by jpc

[Randyw]

I realize I'm late to the party (dang earning a living) but I also think it's a canid but beyond that I can't help...