Tooth Re-Visit

[Foshunter]

I posted this tooth several years ago, one person thought it might be camel but haven't found anything on the web to varify. We have added so many folks over the years that might shed some new light on it. Like most of my finds it is from the North Sulphur River in East Texas where I have found Pleistocene materal before that has washed in from creeks and from the river banks caving in on top the the Cretaceous layer below. I hope someone can forward an ID, to nice of a tooth to be without a family. Thanks----Tom

[JohnJ]

It still looks like some type of giant camel. A beautiful find, Tom.

[Uncle Siphuncle]

Camelops is a good candidate. I believe it was bigger than the next likely suspect, Hemiauchenia. But I'll defer to the big boys on this.......

[JohnJ]

More info.

[RichW9090]

Yes, it is camel, and most likely Camelops. What are the measurements of the occlusal surface?

[Fruitbat]

Definitely concur...Camelops. I've only seen one other of those come from the North Sulphur. VERY nice!

-Joe

[Foshunter]

Yes, it is camel, and most likely Camelops. What are the measurements of the occlusal surface?

Rich,

Don't have the proper way to measure the tooth,but think this will work.

Thanks for taking the time on this tooth----Tom

[Foshunter]

Rich, Do you think this could be an M2orM3 from Titanotylopus, didn't realize there were so many different camel species, but my search netted a lot of text but minimul pictures----Tom

[RichW9090]

I'm checking that out - I have a database of tooth measurements for the giant camels at the museum.

[Foshunter]

Thanks Rich---Tom

[Fruitbat]

Since this is a North Sulphur River specimen...it is likely Rancholabrean in age and, if my memory doesn't fail me, the only large camel that was present in North America during that time period was Camelops. Titanotylopus was a Blancan/Irvingtonian camel and I don't think there are any sediments of that age in the Sulphur River area. Additionally, your specimen appears to be quite hypsodont while Titanotylopus teeth are noted for being fairly brachyodont. Gigantocamelus, another of the large North American camels, did have hypsodont teeth but it is a Blancan genus and that pretty much takes it out of consideration. I think the sheer size of the tooth also rules out any of the typical Pleistocene llamas.

-Joe

Edited August 25, 2013 by Fruitbat

[RichW9090]

Joe, you're correct as far as what we know. But neither time nor geography should be relied on for an identification - otherwise there would never be range extensions found. Chances are you are correct, but unless there are definite characters peculiar to Camelops, it can only be labeled as cf. Camelops. Several of our members have found Pleistocene mammals from Texas which are first records for the state, and, in one case, probably a first record for North American Ranchlabrean.

Rich

Edited August 25, 2013 by RichW9090

[Fruitbat]

Agreed, Rich...but, based on published work in the North Sulphur River and my own experience in that area...pretty much all of the Pleistocene taxa found there are Rancholabrean. It would have to be a very significant chronological extension to permit either Gigantocamelus or Titanotylopus to be considered and the tooth, as far as I can tell from the pictures, is too hypsodont to be Titanotylopus. Camelus ranges through the entire time period but based on a quick look through the literature...no fossilized remains of Camelus have been found in North America. That really doesn't leave anything else. Personally...I would label this specimen as Camelops sp. and leave it at that.

-Joe

[RichW9090]

Joe, I did a quick Google on the North Sulphur River, and didn't find much - the only published report I came up with was for the Ben Franklin fauna, which at the time of the report lacked Camelops. Do you know of more recent published accounts?

Thanks

Rich

[Fruitbat]

Rich...

There hasn't been a lot published in formal scientific journals regarding the Sulphur River specifically. The paper you're referring to (Slaughter, B.H. and B.R. Hoover, 1963) that describes the Ben Franklin Local Fauna and a few others (Davis, L.C. and K.M. Ball, 1991) that discusses Pleistocene mammals from the South Sulphur River and (Uyenyo, T., 1963) on the Pleistocene fishes of the Clear Creek and Ben Franklin Local Faunas are the only ones in my personal library. None of them mentions any camelid but the Slaughter and Hoover paper does mention radiocarbon dating of the Ben Franklin Local Fauna as 'Late Wisconsin' which would make their 'Sulphur River Formation' far too young to contain either Titanotylopus or Gigantocamelus. The only other camelid tooth that I have seen from the North Sulphur River was collected back in the 1980s by the late Ken Smith and I don't know what happened to that specimen after his untimely death.

-Joe