micropterus101 Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Found this at about 650 foot in elevation while looking for Aturia and crabs. I dont have a clue what type it could be. Rare for Washington I am sure. Any clue what type it could be. possibly around 35 million years old according to data about the formation. kof,jason fossil crabs website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Hey Micropterus. Glad to see your still alive. I have know clue as to what species that is, but im sure someone on this forum will know. Lots of guys here are into teeth. Did you find any crabs or arturia on this trip? RB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Sharks Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 What is the size of the tooth, and it looks like 1 cusp on the left and 2 on the right, is that correct??? There's no limit to what you can accomplish when you're supposed to be doing something else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Looks like there might be more in the matrix. Could it be Squalodontidae? "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Sharks Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Looks like there might be more in the matrix.Could it be Squalodontidae? That's what popped into my head first as well There's no limit to what you can accomplish when you're supposed to be doing something else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-remanié Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Found this at about 650 foot in elevation while looking for Aturia and crabs. I dont have a clue what type it could be. Rare for Washington I am sure. Any clue what type it could be. possibly around 35 million years old according to data about the formation. kof,jason Looks like it could be Archaeocete whale, possibly a basilosaurid or dorudontid. If its 35 mya then it probably is a little too old to be Squalodont. If it is whale, it could be a very unique find! -steve 1 ---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen--- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micropterus101 Posted June 1, 2008 Author Share Posted June 1, 2008 Did some picking this morning and exposed all that is there without taking a chance on a big oops. The matrix isnt that tough but the whole piece is fragile it took some time to get it out in one piece from the site as the siltstone does not ever fracture where you want it to. I guess trying to expose the root would help but I could end up popping the enamel up off the tooth it the process. Thanks for the info so far, I am starting to lean towards whale as this area is a little older then the Squalodontidae. I took some pieces of matix home to go through from the area around the tooth hoping to possibly find more. fingers crossed. p.s the square to left is 1 inch kof, Jason fossil crabs website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-remanié Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Are you sure about the age of the section of Lincoln Creek formation you were working? I have found reference to some early Oligocene (Rupelian) strata that have produced fossil marine mammals in the formation, but that would be 34-28 mya. ---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen--- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 I am starting to lean towards whale as this area is a little older then the Squalodontidae.kof, Jason I've read that the thinking now is that the squalodontids may have differentiated in the Eocene. In any case, that might just be an important fossil! "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Its probably not from an archaeocete if its from the Lincoln Creek Formation. It could also be from a toothed mysticete, like Aetiocetus. There are tons of weird, Oligocene toothed mysticetes and odontocetes with squalodon-like molars; many very nice skulls are in the Smithsonian, as part of the Douglas Emlong Collection. Unfortunately, very few researchers study Oligocene cetaceans, so the Oregonian and Washingtonian Oligocene cetacean material in the Emlong Collection has yet to really be studied in detail. However, almost the entire collection of fossil pinnipeds from the Emlong Collection (Late Oligocene-Pleistocene) have been published. Nice find! While I do research fossil cetaceans, Oligocene ones are out of my area of expertise, and I am not really able to make an ID as to the family. It could be Aetiocetidae, Janjucetidae, Simocetidae, Squalodontidae, Squalodelphinidae, Waipatiidae, and about a half dozen other families characterized by similar triangular, multicusped molars. But, it is definitely cetacean! I'll do a little digging in my publications and let you know if I come up with anything more precise than 'Neoceti'. NICE tooth by the way! You should be proud to be one of the few discoverers of an oligocene cetacean fossil. Trust me - there AREN'T that many of them, at all (worldwide). Bobby EDIT: The tooth appears a tad on the 'simple' side for an Archaeocete. My guess (based on morphology) is that the specimen is early Oligocene. However, if it does turn out to be archaeocete, then this would be a pretty darn important specimen. Lastly, as far as the radiation of the Squalodontidae, that probably didn't happen (along with all other Platanistoidea) until the early-mid Oligocene. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micropterus101 Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 Thanks Bobby, I have documented the tooth with pictures before extraction of the layer and gps coordinates. Last year I did find a small piece of bone at the site and left it, it was to embedded still. Since then somebody dug the heck out of the area paying no attention to the thin layer I have been working slowly, they destroyed some nice Portunids looking for concretions which dont contain much from that site. Good news though the road is getting inaccesable to anything other then a good 4x4 and appears to have been untouched since my last visit three months ago . Someday maybe I wil get lucky and find the creature thats missing this tooth! Kof, Jason fossil crabs website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Hey Jason, Just out of curiousity - where in WA do you live? I'll be driving through on sunday on my way to visit some Plio-Pleistocene localities on the coast on my way back to SF. Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worthy 55 Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Is this a (You saw it here first type of thing) great find and let us know what you find out on this. Worthy It's my bone!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-remanié Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 I won't disagree with Boesse in that it could be from a toothed mysticete. It seems this is more consistent with the records of the Lincoln Creek fm. which I could find. And I haven't seen enough to draw any comparison regarding early Oligocene whales. But here are a couple pics of teeth from Dorudon atrox, a ~40mya archaeocete. Archaeocete records seem to extend to very close to the end of the Eocene around 33.7mya. Interestingly, the oldest known odontocete is an unnamed taxon from mid-latitude marine strata of the Eocene/Oligocene boundary in Washington state, so if you are collecting the same boundary strata, I don't think archaeocete can be completely ruled out. 1 ---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen--- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kauffy Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 thats an awesome tooth! great find indeed "Turn the fear of the unknown into the excitment of possibility!"We dont stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 I talked with Mark Uhen recently, and he says the tooth is remarkably archaeocete like, but also much too small to be from a previously known type of archaeocete. However, at that point in time, odontocetes and archaeocetes probably had more or less identical teeth; the basalmost mysticetes and the youngest archaeocetes have more or less identical teeth. Also, there is a purported archaeocete record from the eocene-oligocene of vancouver island, but apparently its based just on a vertebra. So it should basically be discounted and re-identified as just 'cetacea'. Thus, as of yet, there are no archaeocete records from western NA. Bobby 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 could it be a seal tooth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Naw, the earliest known pinnipeds are from the late Oligocene (and the earliest undiscovered pinnipeds probably aren't much older). In any event, their teeth are very similar to those of modern bears. Its definitely a basal cetacean tooth, no doubt about it - just, either a small late archaeocete, early odontocete, or really small early mysticete. The real kicker would be a partial skull or earbone. Its hard to do much at all with cetacean teeth, but fortunately this one is still early enough to have some useful morphology. Bobby 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meredith Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Good morning all, I realize I am late to this topic, have you gotten that tooth IDed yet? It's a great find! I have a bit of experience with both Squalodonts and toothed mysticetes... I believe that the aetiocetids from your area have undifferentiated, single rooted molars. Morwanocetines from Japan have similar molars, and we just found one here in southern California. However, this tooth to me looks like a squalodont. The size of the cusps and the flare says Squalodont to me. Whale teeth are important though. I would suggest sending a picture to Lawrence Barnes at the Natural History museum of Los Angeles for a final identification. He's very familiar with both groups and the Lincoln Creek fauna. Cheers, Meredith 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Naw, the earliest known pinnipeds are from the late Oligocene (and the earliest undiscovered pinnipeds probably aren't much older). In any event, their teeth are very similar to those of modern bears.Its definitely a basal cetacean tooth, no doubt about it - just, either a small late archaeocete, early odontocete, or really small early mysticete. The real kicker would be a partial skull or earbone. Its hard to do much at all with cetacean teeth, but fortunately this one is still early enough to have some useful morphology. Bobby yea your right, now looking back I have no idea what I was thinking!!!!! Shows what a few months of learning does, im going with Squalodon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommabetts Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Great find, thanks for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawooten Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I am on the east coast but it sure looks just like the Squalodontidae I found. The best days are spent collecting fossils 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