Please help identify this Lake Texoma - Duck Creek fossil

[Jenks Teacher]

I have found many ammonites and other marine fossils in Lake Texoma, some even under Lake Texoma. However, there is a few I cannot identify and no amount of internet searching had helped. So, maybe someone here can look at these photos and help me out...or maybe point me in the right direction. If you look carefully, you can see where my brother dropped it and the a piece broke off (looks like a hip/ball joint) and I had to glue it back on. You can see evidence of bone marrow in various places on the fossil as well. The pictures may not do it justice, its a fairly hefty fossil. As I stated, I've pulled dozens of ammonites of various types from this area, some as large as a car tire. I have a few other large fossils (not pictured) from this area that are also a mystery. Thanks for any help you can provide!

[Mikrogeophagus]

I'm bad with identifying bones, but I do agree this is bone material and the appearance certainly seems it could be a Cretaceous reptilian. Turtles, ichthyosaurs, and plesiosaurs were around in that time period (Albian). Very interesting fossil! 

[Jenks Teacher]

1 minute ago, Mikrogeophagus said:

I'm bad with identifying bones, but I do agree this is bone material and the appearance certainly seems it could be a Cretaceous reptilian. Turtles, ichthyosaurs, and plesiosaurs were around in that time period (Albian). Very interesting fossil! 

 

Thanks for your reply. I will start researching the skeletons of your suggestions! 

[GPayton]

It looks like a plesiosaur bone to me - maybe a scapula or humerus? I've never seen a fossilized bone come out of Lake Texoma before and definitely not one that size so this is a pretty rare find! 

[Jenks Teacher]

1 hour ago, GPayton said:

It looks like a plesiosaur bone to me - maybe a scapula or humerus? I've never seen a fossilized bone come out of Lake Texoma before and definitely not one that size so this is a pretty rare find! 

Thanks for your input! It’s been difficult to identify for sure. As far as Texoma goes, you have to get away from the dam areas…they’ve been picked over. There are some spots that you need a boat to reach that are virtually untouched by fossil hunters. 30 foot cliffs that expose layer after layer of fossils. I found this one and some other unidentified large fossils near water level. I know of a spot where you can wade in 3 feet of water and literally trip over ammonites the size of tires. You wouldn’t know it without anchoring a boat and swimming into the shallows. 

[Jared C]

This is a rare, interesting find. I definitely encourage you to return to the site and see if you can find more bone. The Albian record of marine reptiles in North America is very poor,  so finds from this age are likely to be scientifically significant and unique. Please update us if you find more!

[Jenks Teacher]

9 hours ago, Jared C said:

This is a rare, interesting find. I definitely encourage you to return to the site and see if you can find more bone. The Albian record of marine reptiles in North America is very poor,  so finds from this age are likely to be scientifically significant and unique. Please update us if you find more!

 

I am hoping on returning this summer. When I found it, I was with family on a boat and only casually looking. If I had been alone I would have spent much more time looking. I will definitely post pictures if I find more!

[Jenks Teacher]

I have looked at every bone and skeleton I can find for Plesiosaur, Ichthyosaur, Brachauchenius, Tylosaurus, Platypterygius, Mosasaurus, Archelon and many more. 

 

It must be a marine fossil due to where it was found. But, the 'ball' joint suggests humerus or scapula or even one of the pelvic bones...but I can't find an example that has something similar. 

 

I guess I may have to reach out to a university. 

[Jared C]

32 minutes ago, Jenks Teacher said:

I have looked at every bone and skeleton I can find for Plesiosaur, Ichthyosaur, Brachauchenius, Tylosaurus, Platypterygius, Mosasaurus, Archelon and many more. 

 

It must be a marine fossil due to where it was found. But, the 'ball' joint suggests humerus or scapula or even one of the pelvic bones...but I can't find an example that has something similar. 

 

I guess I may have to reach out to a university. 

SMU is a good place to start. They have an excellent paleontology program and the Perot museum is another good option. 

 

please let us know what they have to say about it, I’m excited by this find too 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

14 hours ago, Jared C said:

The Albian record of marine reptiles in North America is very poor

 

1 hour ago, Jenks Teacher said:

I have looked at every bone and skeleton I can find for Plesiosaur, Ichthyosaur, Brachauchenius, Tylosaurus, Platypterygius, Mosasaurus, Archelon and many more.

 

16 hours ago, GPayton said:

It looks like a plesiosaur bone to me - maybe a scapula or humerus? I've never seen a fossilized bone come out of Lake Texoma before and definitely not one that size so this is a pretty rare find! 

 

Interesting find, this! Based on bone density and context, I agree, this is likely to be part of a marine reptile. And while I'm not that versed with turtles, I can definitely say this is neither ichthyosaur nor mosasaur (the latter being excluded based on geological context anyway, if the sediments at the location are indeed Albian in age). My suspicion, therefore, is that this is plesiosaurian.

 

It's not a propodial bone, though, as the re-glued projection doesn't fit within that morphological scope. Also, most of the specimen looks rather flat and plate-shaped, which suggests a girdle element - whether pelvic or pectoral. Compare with the scapulae figured below:

 

 

Pectoral girdle, focusing on the scapula, of Peloneustes philarchus from the Oxford Clay of Peterborough in the UK. Senckenberg Museum in Frankfurt.

 

 

 Liopleurodon ferox pectoral girdle, focusing on the scapula, from the Oxford Clay of Peterborough in the UK. Paläontologische Sammlung Tübingen.

 

These are, of course, Middle Jurassic specimens, and would morphologically differ somewhat from late Early Cretaceous specimens. However, generally, I believe the morphology matches. Hard to say with certainty what overall grouping it could've come from, though. Seeing as to how robust the fossil is, though, my money would be on pliosaur, possibly a large polycotylid, rather than an elasmosaur. Compare morphologies below:

 

Elasmosaurid pectoral girdle

 

 

Trinacromerum sp. polycotylid pectoral girdle

[Jenks Teacher]

1 hour ago, Jared C said:

SMU is a good place to start. They have an excellent paleontology program and the Perot museum is another good option. 

 

please let us know what they have to say about it, I’m excited by this find too 

 

Thanks for the advice, I emailed professors at four major universities in the area including one at SMU. I'll update if I get any guidance!

[Jenks Teacher]

51 minutes ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

 

 

 

Interesting find, this! Based on bone density and context, I agree, this is likely to be part of a marine reptile. And while I'm not that versed with turtles, I can definitely say this is neither ichthyosaur nor mosasaur (the latter being excluded based on geological context anyway, if the sediments at the location are indeed Albian in age). My suspicion, therefore, is that this is plesiosaurian.

 

It's not a propodial bone, though, as the re-glued projection doesn't fit within that morphological scope. Also, most of the specimen looks rather flat and plate-shaped, which suggests a girdle element - whether pelvic or pectoral. Compare with the scapulae figured below:

 

 

Pectoral girdle, focusing on the scapula, of Peloneustes philarchus from the Oxford Clay of Peterborough in the UK. Senckenberg Museum in Frankfurt.

 

 

 Liopleurodon ferox pectoral girdle, focusing on the scapula, from the Oxford Clay of Peterborough in the UK. Paläontologische Sammlung Tübingen.

 

These are, of course, Middle Jurassic specimens, and would morphologically differ somewhat from late Early Cretaceous specimens. However, generally, I believe the morphology matches. Hard to say with certainty what overall grouping it could've come from, though. Seeing as to how robust the fossil is, though, my money would be on pliosaur, possibly a large polycotylid, rather than an elasmosaur. Compare morphologies below:

 

Elasmosaurid pectoral girdle

 

 

Trinacromerum sp. polycotylid pectoral girdle

 

Wow, fantastic. I think you may have solved it. I can certainly see the resemblance now that you have pointed it out. Perhaps I focused to heavily on the 'projection' being a ball joint rather. I didn't consider it might have originally extended further.  will narrow down my search based off of your insights and see what I can find. Thank you, very much.