FF7_Yuffie Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 Labelled as a Mosasaur skull, from Morocco. I suspect it's more partial skull or skull sections rather than the entirety (but still pretty nice) But, anyone able to take a look and give your thoughts on if it looks legit? It'd make a jolly nice centerpiece to my Kem Kem display. If this gets the go ahead as being real, I will order it and a few other bits from the same seller tonight. Quite small, so either a juvenile or a smaller species of Mosasaur? It's the small size that's making me question it. Picture 1 -- the eye socket and other hole match other Mosasaur skulls, so I'm correct that that's the upper skull section? Picture 4 -- this looks like it has teeth sockets? So a jaw. Picture 6 -- Is the longish, segmented bone a row of verts? From Mosasaur or something else in the matrix? If someone could take a look, that would be awesome. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ptychodus04 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 I'm not seeing any alveoli. It does look like mosasaur material but labeling it as a "skull" is very generous due to the fragmentary nature of the block. 5 Regards, Kris Global Paleo Services, LLC https://globalpaleoservices.com http://instagram.com/globalpaleoservices http://instagram.com/kris.howe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FF7_Yuffie Posted June 5, 2020 Author Share Posted June 5, 2020 13 minutes ago, Ptychodus04 said: I'm not seeing any alveoli. It does look like mosasaur material but labeling it as a "skull" is very generous due to the fragmentary nature of the block. Thanks. Yeah, I think skull sections is more accurate? Is the top bit, as I thought, upper skull? The two holes seem to match other pictures online of mosasaur skulls. Likewise, the section on pics 2 and 3, I could see a resemblance of a Globidens mandible I saw for sale. Of course I could be entirely wrong Or is it unrelated bone matter to a skull? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FF7_Yuffie Posted June 5, 2020 Author Share Posted June 5, 2020 I've requested a bit more info from seller---where found and exact species. Item isn't labelled as juvenile, but rather "dwarf". Which is a little vague. If anyone can spot any signs of fakery, restoration or it being a composite, becausr I dont know what to look for there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelivingdead531 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 I don’t think that’s an eye socket in the first photo, it looks more like a broken bone. In general, eye sockets tend to be smooth and this one looks jagged. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 I don't see how this conglomeration can be described as a skull in any way. Some of the pieces don't look like mosasaur bone. There are other pieces that look like fish vertebrae and bits of shell. 5 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelivingdead531 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 I agree that the verts look fishy rather than mosasaur. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FF7_Yuffie Posted June 5, 2020 Author Share Posted June 5, 2020 3 minutes ago, JohnJ said: I don't see how this conglomeration can be described as a skull in any way. Some of the pieces don't look like mosasaur bone. There are other pieces that look like fish vertebrae and bits of shell. Fish verts in pic 6? I was wondering what that bit was. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FF7_Yuffie Posted June 5, 2020 Author Share Posted June 5, 2020 3 minutes ago, thelivingdead531 said: I agree that the verts look fishy rather than mosasaur. Looks like one for my not buy list Thanks for taking a look Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 Reviewing photos in museum collections, scientific papers, and the extensive archives of TFF will go a long way in helping you recognize detailed features of fossils that interest you. Descriptions used to sell something have a greater potential for errors, and any associated images are not a reliable reference. 3 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FF7_Yuffie Posted June 5, 2020 Author Share Posted June 5, 2020 11 minutes ago, JohnJ said: Reviewing photos in museum collections, scientific papers, and the extensive archives of TFF will go a long way in helping you recognize detailed features of fossils that interest you. Descriptions used to sell something have a greater potential for errors, and any associated images are not a reliable reference. Thanks for the advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 No you can't call this a skull. More like a partial mosasaur snout with assorted reptile and fish bones. The rounded bone in the middle is definitely a premaxilla. Then there are two larger bones next to it on either side. The bone on the left of the premaxilla looks very much like the front of the left maxilla. It wouldn't surprise me if the premaxilla and maxilla are from the same individual. Then on the right side of the premaxilla there's a large bone that is likely also from the skull. But I think it's unclear as to what bone this is. No teeth or any clear diagnostic bones are visible so it's hard to tell what type of mosasaur this is. The articulated vertebrae near the bottom are definitely fish. I'm definitely not an expert on these but they look like they could possibly be Enchodus. You mentioned Kem Kem. But Kem Kem stuff is from a different age. This is from the Maastrichtian age phosphate beds. Kem Kem is Cenomanian in age. Not very complete. But quite a nice piece. And it all looks real. No reason to assume foul play here. 3 Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FF7_Yuffie Posted June 6, 2020 Author Share Posted June 6, 2020 6 hours ago, LordTrilobite said: No you can't call this a skull. More like a partial mosasaur snout with assorted reptile and fish bones. The rounded bone in the middle is definitely a premaxilla. Then there are two larger bones next to it on either side. The bone on the left of the premaxilla looks very much like the front of the left maxilla. It wouldn't surprise me if the premaxilla and maxilla are from the same individual. Then on the right side of the premaxilla there's a large bone that is likely also from the skull. But I think it's unclear as to what bone this is. No teeth or any clear diagnostic bones are visible so it's hard to tell what type of mosasaur this is. The articulated vertebrae near the bottom are definitely fish. I'm definitely not an expert on these but they look like they could possibly be Enchodus. You mentioned Kem Kem. But Kem Kem stuff is from a different age. This is from the Maastrichtian age phosphate beds. Kem Kem is Cenomanian in age. Not very complete. But quite a nice piece. And it all looks real. No reason to assume foul play here. Thanks. Knowing what some of the pieces are is now pursuading me. Even if not all skull, as a bone bed it looks nice. And now knowing what to search for, I can compare to other premax and maxilla bones. Seller emailed back, it is Halisaurus. Now i know it is mosasaur, back it goes on my buy list. Thanks very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyBoy Posted June 6, 2020 Share Posted June 6, 2020 Curious without a diagnostic element like teeth how would the seller know its Halisaurus. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted June 6, 2020 Share Posted June 6, 2020 14 minutes ago, TyBoy said: Curious without a diagnostic element like teeth how would the seller know its Halisaurus. Indeed! The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FF7_Yuffie Posted June 6, 2020 Author Share Posted June 6, 2020 27 minutes ago, TyBoy said: Curious without a diagnostic element like teeth how would the seller know its Halisaurus. 10 minutes ago, JohnJ said: Indeed! If I get it, better to just label it as Mosasaurus then rather than a specific species? And a side note of the fish verts. The seller in the recent email giving me the name did say the piece also contains other fossils that they hadn't identified, so I don't think they were initially passing the verts off as Mosasaur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted June 6, 2020 Share Posted June 6, 2020 Mosasaurus is a genus...better to label it "mosasaur unidentified" until it is expertly identified. 1 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FF7_Yuffie Posted June 6, 2020 Author Share Posted June 6, 2020 3 minutes ago, JohnJ said: Mosasaurus is a genus...better to label it "mosasaur unidentified" until it is expertly identified. Cheers, will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnoun11 Posted June 6, 2020 Share Posted June 6, 2020 hi its just a nasal and little part of the maxillary of pluridens walkeri far from a skull... 2 The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. Terry Pratchett ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FF7_Yuffie Posted June 6, 2020 Author Share Posted June 6, 2020 6 minutes ago, jnoun11 said: hi its just a nasal and little part of the maxillary of pluridens walkeri far from a skull... Thanks. Yeah, it seems the skull label is mistaken/overblown. I was suspecting more partial--I thought the piece at the top with the two holes were eyeholes and whatever the hole behind the eyehole is called--but I guess not. Any idea what the two holes would be, or is it just a damaged section of bone? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted June 6, 2020 Share Posted June 6, 2020 2 hours ago, FF7_Yuffie said: Thanks. Yeah, it seems the skull label is mistaken/overblown. I was suspecting more partial--I thought the piece at the top with the two holes were eyeholes and whatever the hole behind the eyehole is called--but I guess not. Any idea what the two holes would be, or is it just a damaged section of bone? Thanks. Those kind of holes is a pattern that sometimes appears where there are tooth sockets because if the tooth is not there then it becomes a weak spot. Part of that bone kinda looks like it could be from a maxilla. But the broken bone on the side next to it seems to be part of that bone and that doesn't fit with the idea of it being a maxilla. But yeah, those holes are likely just damage. Some prepping of the piece might reveal if there are tooth sockets beneath that. Oh and in one of the photos it does look like there might be a broken tooth next to the premaxilla. We're seeing the broken end so it's not very informative. 2 Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted June 6, 2020 Share Posted June 6, 2020 Sorry, had to laugh when I saw this. RB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FF7_Yuffie Posted June 6, 2020 Author Share Posted June 6, 2020 35 minutes ago, RJB said: Sorry, had to laugh when I saw this. RB Because of the bad mislabelling? Or becausr you think its a bad piece as a premax/maxilla fossil? Even if not a skull as labelled, I think looks quite a nice little fossil to go alongside my other mosasaur stuff--now people have helped me id it as premax and max. But then, I might just have a bad eye for them and its not worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted June 6, 2020 Share Posted June 6, 2020 3 hours ago, FF7_Yuffie said: Because of the bad mislabelling? Or becausr you think its a bad piece as a premax/maxilla fossil? Even if not a skull as labelled, I think looks quite a nice little fossil to go alongside my other mosasaur stuff--now people have helped me id it as premax and max. But then, I might just have a bad eye for them and its not worth it. Oh, it is a nice fossil. Just not a complete skull. And jnoun11 knows what he's talking about. If he says it's Pluridens walkeri then I'd go along with that. 1 Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FF7_Yuffie Posted June 7, 2020 Author Share Posted June 7, 2020 7 hours ago, LordTrilobite said: Oh, it is a nice fossil. Just not a complete skull. And jnoun11 knows what he's talking about. If he says it's Pluridens walkeri then I'd go along with that. Cheers. As soon as I hear back about postage costs to Taiwan, I'm gonna order the piece and a few other fossils that they sell. I've got a few Mosasaur teeth, so this will display nicely alongside them. Thanks for the help everyone. 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