Al Dente Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 (edited) I hate to burst everyone's bubble on this...(especially mine), but I'm afraid it is just a Pachy jaw. I sent photos to both Mike Everhart, and Kenshu Shimada (along with the link Boneman provided), and both agreed that is definately not a spine. Here is the original drawing of P. minimus lower jaw. It matches Boneman's jaw nicely. I don't see the resemblance to your fossil. edit: I just reread your last comment and noticed that you didn't say that Everhart and Shimada identified your fossil as P. minimus. Did they offer an identification? Drawing of original specimen Boneman's specimen Your fossil Edited May 22, 2013 by Al Dente Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramo Posted May 22, 2013 Author Share Posted May 22, 2013 They both did ID it as a small fish jaw, most likely Pachy minimus. Ramo For one species to mourn the death of another is a new thing under the sun. -Aldo Leopold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 It bears more resemblance to this specimen. Either way...good find, Ramo. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boneman007 Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 (edited) I am still 100% sure that is a ratfish spine, based on the publications. Im not sure why Mike made a bad ID on this one. Kenshu is a shark guy, so I understand a quick ID of pachy. Added Note: Be aware, I will almost NEVER argue an ID from Mike. This one surprises me. Edited May 22, 2013 by Boneman007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KansasFossilHunter Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 I don't see Pachyrhizodus minimus there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KansasFossilHunter Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramo Posted May 22, 2013 Author Share Posted May 22, 2013 (edited) I believe that the "teeth" on the ratfish spine are in two rows, with every other tooth alternating from one side to the next. I know it's hard to tell in the above line drawing. My find has all the teeth neatly in one row. The bone appears just like like fossilized fish bone, and with my find, the bone becomes thinner at the back (like a fish jaw would). I would imagine a spine would get thicker at the base, and not thinner. The only exception I can think of is a stingray spine that is thinner at the base, but it serves a different function than a fish fin spine. Further, the above line drawing shows the cross section to be kind of oval. This fossil is completely flat on the exposed side. I'm 99.999% sure it is not what is in the drawing. Ramo Edited May 22, 2013 by Ramo For one species to mourn the death of another is a new thing under the sun. -Aldo Leopold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boneman007 Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Then I'd say your right, and we have a mystery. I wonder if it could be a new species of rat fish? Also, there are some really rare fish out there that I am not familiar with. I cant wait to find out what it turns out to be. It is really an exciting find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramo Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 I dropped this "item" off at the Sternberg Museum a while back, and I received an e-mail just today from Dr. Laura Wilson stating that it appears to be a ratfish spine. She said that there is only one other know specimen from the chalk of Kansas. I'm excited to find something so rare, and now am faced with the decision to donate now or later. This goes to show how even experts can have trouble getting an ID with only photos. Ramo I only wish Boneman007 was still around so I could tell him he was right!! For one species to mourn the death of another is a new thing under the sun. -Aldo Leopold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphactinus Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Thanks for the update. Cool find! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KansasFossilHunter Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Awesome! I love to hear updates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-remanié Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 very cool Ramo! they are definitely rare. one day i hope to find more than 1 or 2 inches of a specimen! ---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen--- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Siphuncle Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 great find, and your perseverence in sleuthing paid off! brent would have enjoyed having his opinion confirmed. thanks for the update. Grüße, Daniel A. Wöhr aus Südtexas "To the motivated go the spoils." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Ramo The other thing to think about in the future is that chimaeroids were more diverse in the Cretaceous so we should expect more variation in the spines. They may have been more diverse then we know now (and even more varied than we recognize today) because they have inhabited/frequented deeper parts of the ocean than we can visit on a regular basis. I liked that Boneman007 stuck with his ID even after Shimada and Everhart weighed in. He knew his chimaeroids and they didn't. I'm not slamming them. No one can be expected to know everything about a fauna especially when something weird and rare pops up. Non-remanie showed an oddball spine a few years ago. I don't think a consensus was ever reached on that. Jess I dropped this "item" off at the Sternberg Museum a while back, and I received an e-mail just today from Dr. Laura Wilson stating that it appears to be a ratfish spine. She said that there is only one other know specimen from the chalk of Kansas. I'm excited to find something so rare, and now am faced with the decision to donate now or later. This goes to show how even experts can have trouble getting an ID with only photos. Ramo I only wish Boneman007 was still around so I could tell him he was right!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now