Auspex Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Five items here. The first item pictured on this entry, the segmented one, reminds me of a tuber. "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...
astron Posted October 30, 2011 Author Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) Hello, Chas and all. Thanks, Chas, for your help. I have just to update for the puffer fish presented on posts 545 and 546 of my collection and participatig to the FOTM contest, that after Dr. Francesco Santini of the University of California I have been answered on it and by one of the more distinctive on puffer fish scientists Dr. James Tyler of the Smisthonian Institution and I present it as it is: ''Dear Mr. Damian - thank you for the additional photographs, which I will look at in detail next week after I return to my office at the Smithsonian. To answer your question, isolated diodontid and tetraodontid jaws are relatively common in the fossil record from the Eocene to more recent periods, but jaws of these two families of fishes associated with other skeletal parts, like the skull and vertebral column, and even the covering of large spiny scales, are rare in the record. I have published several papers on fossil tetraodontids and diodontids and if you send me your mailing address I will air-mail copies of these papers to you (I do not think that I have pdf's of these papers to send to you electronically). I will tell you more about this when I return to Washington from my field work in Florida next week - Best wishes - Jim Tyler'' A hearty thanks to Dr. Tyler. I feel lucky for being in contact with a so great scientist. I'll have a detailed answer next week after he returns to Washington from his field work in Florida and I'll update. Edited November 1, 2011 by astron Astrinos P. Damianakis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Exciting news Astrinos... Congratulations and thanks for the great follow-up report! :eat popcorn: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astron Posted October 30, 2011 Author Share Posted October 30, 2011 Thanks a lot, Scott Thanks to you :Bananasaur: Astrinos P. Damianakis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 How very exciting!! And yes, thanks for the update as I was thinking of your fish not long ago, wondering if there would be news.. Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astron Posted October 30, 2011 Author Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) Thank you very much, Roz, for the interest It's truth that I had posted a message to Dr. Tyler many days ago, but not directly (since his email adress I had didn't work) but through the Smisthonian Insitution and he was given my message with a great delay two days ago. The amazing is that Dr. Tyler answered immediately even being in a field work in Florida :o Edited October 31, 2011 by astron Astrinos P. Damianakis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paco Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 If you had attached images of your fantastic fossil puffer then I don't think it is taht amazing. Any pufferfish expert would love to have a look at your spec and maybe describe it in a paper... Get ready for possible "stardom" my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Congratulations again, Astrinos. I hope your find extends our knowledge in paleontology. Hello, Chas and all. Thanks, Chas, for your help. I have just to update for the puffer fish presented on posts 545 and 546 of my collection and participatig to the FOTM contest, that after Dr. Francesco Santini of the University of California I have been answered on it and by one of the more distinctive on puffer fish scientists Dr. James Tyler of the Smisthonian Institution and I present it as it is: ''Dear Mr. Damian - thank you for the additional photographs, which I will look at in detail next week after I return to my office at the Smithsonian. To answer your question, isolated diodontid and tetraodontid jaws are relatively common in the fossil record from the Eocene to more recent periods, but jaws of these two families of fishes associated with other skeletal parts, like the skull and vertebral column, and even the covering of large spiny scales, are rare in the record. I have published several papers on fossil tetraodontids and diodontids and if you send me your mailing address I will air-mail copies of these papers to you (I do not think that I have pdf's of these papers to send to you electronically). I will tell you more about this when I return to Washington from my field work in Florida next week - Best wishes - Jim Tyler'' A hearty thanks to Dr. Tyler. I feel lucky for being in contact with a so great scientist. I'll have a detailed answer next week after he returns to Washington from his field work in Florida and I'll update. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astron Posted November 2, 2011 Author Share Posted November 2, 2011 If you had attached images of your fantastic fossil puffer then I don't think it is taht amazing. Any pufferfish expert would love to have a look at your spec and maybe describe it in a paper... Get ready for possible "stardom" my friend. Thank you so much, my friend, for your kind comments Yes, I have sent to Dr. Tyler 5 pics of this fossil: The two already presented here and additonally the attached three close ups. Astrinos P. Damianakis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astron Posted November 2, 2011 Author Share Posted November 2, 2011 Congratulations again, Astrinos. I hope your find extends our knowledge in paleontology. Thank you very much, John. The continuation is to show Astrinos P. Damianakis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astron Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Hello all. Dr. Tyler has returned today to his office in Washington and he has sent me his first aspect about the above fossil fish: ''Dear Mr. Damian – I am now returned to my office at the Smithsonian and attached to this response you will find copies of the three papers for which I happen to have pdf files that will be useful to you, but I do not have electronic files for many of the other papers that might be of interest to you. However, the most important paper relative to your fossil from the Miocene of Crete is the paper about Pshekhadiodon, in which the genera of extant and fossil diodontids are discussed. I am presuming that your specimen is a diodontid because as I examine the enlarged versions of the three photos that you sent to me I come to the conclusion that the jaws of your specimen do not have a suture in the midline and thus are one continuous piece, and that the large dermal spines are three-routed and fixed (whereas in the related Tetraodontidae the jaws have a midline suture dividing each jaw into two pieces, and the dermal spines are much smaller and do not have multi-routed bases and are erectile. As you will see in the Pshekhadiodon paper, there are only two genera of diodontids known in which the dermal spines are three-routed, the extant to Miocene Chilomycterus and the Eocene of Monte Bolca Heptadiodon. The large dermal spines in Chilomycterus are larger (13-17%) than in Heptadiodon (5%). I cannot determine the standard length (SL) of your specimen based on the three photos that were included in your most recent message to me (so I cannot determine the proportional length of the spines relative to the entire body length), but if you send me an overall photo of your specimen showing the entire body I can then make a determination of the size of the dermal spines relative to the body length (you may have sent a photo of this to the Smithsonian originally but I do not have a copy of it). In any case, your specimen is more similar to Chilomycterus than to Heptadiodon. Chilomycterus is known almost exclusively on the basis of extant species, but there is one fossil species known, and it is from the Miocene of Licata, Sicily, and was described long ago by Sauvage in 1870 as Diodon acanthodes, and subsequently transferred by Arambourg into the genus Chilomycterus; Arambourg also reported additional specimens of Chilomycterus acanthodes from the Miocene of Oran in Algeria. I have personally examined all of these specimens of Chilomycterus acanthodes, which are in the Paris museum, and I think that your specimen from Greece is probably closely related to C. acanthodes. But whether your specimen is exactly the same species or a different species of Chilomycterus I would not be able to say without my examining your specimen and taking careful measurements and illustrations for comparison with my data on the Sauvage and Arambourg specimens of C. acanthodes. Thus, at this stage of our discussion, I can say that I think your specimen from the Miocene of Crete represents a species of fossil Chilomycterus at least closely related to C. acanthodes, known from the Miocene of Italy ( Sicily ) and Algeria ( Oran ). Please let me know your opinion on this matter, and also please tell me the greatest length of your specimen in mm. and whether any of the dorsal, anal and caudal fins are preserved and whether any bones of the head are preserved in addition to the upper and lower jaws that are indicated in your photos. I look forward to your response – Jim Tyler'' Have to express my thanks and my gratitude to the great scientist and to prepare my answer... I'll keep TFF updated Edited November 4, 2011 by astron Astrinos P. Damianakis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I loved reading all that.. Very cool! Thanks for the update too! Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 :eat popcorn: Thrilling fossil fish-tale... :Bananasaur: Congrats Astrinos :Bananasaur: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 This is all very exciting! What a terrific response from Dr. Tyler! "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...
astron Posted November 8, 2011 Author Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) Hello all. Roz, Scott and Chas, thank you so much for the nice comments Maybe the unusual lenght of this story turns boring but since I have promiced to update, I have to do it... So, I have sent my answer to Dr.Tyler a while before: '' Dear Sir, At first I am very excited on your fascinating answer and I have no words to express my thanks for it. My apologies for the great delay in my answer. I had to go for two days for work to my village, where no internet available, to study your answer and pdfs with the appropriate attention and to prepare my answers to your questions, wich are the following: 1. The hole fossil is shown on the attached photo 1. 2. The lengh of the fossil is 181 mm (photo 2), but as the tail of the fish is missing I can't calculate the exact length of the hole fish. 3. Due to the missing tail there aren't any caudal fins available. I have marked on the photo 3 ten spots of possible (in my opinion) fins on the body of the fish. 4. There aren't any head bones additionally to the shown on the photo 4 and on the two photos attached to my previous message and 5. After having studied carefully the suplied Pshekhadiodon pdf my opinion as an amateur if asked is that it's about a new Chilomycterus species. It's self meant that your advanced scientific experience will guide to a perfect conclusion, if the provided elements are enough. If any more photos of the fossil or any other information on it are necessary, please let me know. Many thanks again for your great offer and for the time you have spent on this thread. Looking forward to your answer. Best wishes, Astrinos'' Attached are the 4 new pics of the fossil I have sent Dr.Tyler. Waiting for any news Edited November 8, 2011 by astron Astrinos P. Damianakis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astron Posted November 8, 2011 Author Share Posted November 8, 2011 I don't believe in my eyes... A few minutes later Dr. Tyler sent me the next updating message: ''Dear Mr. Damian - thank you for your informative response, which I have received on my home computer, and when I get to my office again later this week I will open the photos that you have included in your message and I will send you my further opinions - until a few days from now, I send you my best wishes - Jim Tyler'' I can't still believe it :startle: Astrinos P. Damianakis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Exciting news. Bravo! The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 He must love your fish to respond so quickly! Good, we will learn more in a few days.. Love your timely updates!! Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astron Posted November 9, 2011 Author Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) John and Roz, thanks a lot for your kind comments This is the first (and probably the last) time in my life that I have a so long discussion on a fossil I have found with one of the top scientists of the National Museum of Natural History of the USA and worldwide in general, as Dr. James Tyler is. A simple look at his background is fairly convincing That's why I am excited with this ... serial wich is going to reach an end shortly Edited November 9, 2011 by astron Astrinos P. Damianakis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Hi, Astron, what a great adventure! I was not able to come on TFF since last friday morning, and the first subject which I read today is yours. It is exciting an story, and to speak so with a great scientist is always an honor. I had the opportunity to speak with scientists specialized in sea urchins or selachians of Europe and the USA, and it is always a nice moment. I am sure that your fish is very interesting and that, maybe, it was never described, or that there are very few specimens there. It is a big find and a great adventure. Bravo. I am really happy for you. Coco ---------------------- OUTIL POUR MESURER VOS FOSSILES : ici Pareidolia : here Ma bibliothèque PDF 1 (Poissons et sélaciens récents & fossiles) : ici Ma bibliothèque PDF 2 (Animaux vivants - sans poissons ni sélaciens) : ici Mâchoires sélaciennes récentes : ici Hétérodontiques et sélaciens : ici Oeufs sélaciens récents : ici Otolithes de poissons récents ! ici Un Greg... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astron Posted November 9, 2011 Author Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) Hi Coco, Thank you so much for the kind comments It's truth that we amateurs fossil lovers have imprinted in our minds the very few times we have the chance to come in contact with the paleontologists and the nice feelings these contacts provide. The TFF's contribution on this thread is significant since it's on our help with finding out who the appropriate scientists could be and on the other hand it gives the members worldwide the possibility to share our experiences. This is one of the reasons this place is great Edited November 9, 2011 by astron Astrinos P. Damianakis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astron Posted November 11, 2011 Author Share Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) Hello all. I received yesterday the final Dr. Tyler's conclusions on my fossil pufferfish: ''Dear Mr. Damian – thank you, again, for your efforts in sending me the additional four photographs of your specimen. I agree with you that it is not possible to determine the exact standard length (SL, which is the body length without the caudal fin; that is, from the tip of the jaw to the end of the hypural plate supporting the base of the caudal fin; this is the normal length figure used in paleoichthyology) or total length (length with the caudal fin) of your specimen, but because you can measure 181 mm for the body as preserved, let us estimate that the standard length was about 190 mm. When I look closely at the large three-rooted dermal spines over the body, and I measure the greatest length between the longest roots, I determine that the greatest distance is between 14 and 19 mm on many different large spiny scales; thus, dividing those two measurements by the estimated standard length, I think that this distance ranges between about 7.4 and 10.0 %SL in your specimen. Of the two genera of Diodontidae with three-rooted fixed dermal spines, the extant species of Chilomycterus have a distance of between 13-17 %SL whereas the Eocene of Monte Bolca Heptadiodon has a distance of 7%SL. Thus, the 7-10%SL distance between the longest roots of the dermal spines in your specimen is intermediate between extant Chilomycterus and Eocene Heptadiodon. However, in the only fossil species of Chilomycterus, C. acanthodes Sauvage 1870, the dermal spines are massive like in extant Chilomycterus but somewhat less large than in the living species. The bodies of the type specimen and other specimens of C. acanthodes that I have examined in the Paris museum, and for which I have much recorded data in my files, are incomplete posteriorly (as in your specimen) but I have just compared my photographs of the holotype of C. acanthodes with those of your specimen and the dermal spines are of very similar proportional size, with, for example, the greatest distance between the roots of the largest dermal spines being about equal to the greatest width of the major tooth-bearing part of the jaws. And in general, the size of the spiny scales in your specimen and in the specimens of C. acanthodes are very similar. My conclusion is that the spiny scales in the Miocene fossil C. acanthodes are somewhat smaller than in the extant species of Chilomycterus, and that your specimen also has smaller spiny scales than extant species of Chilomycterus. I consider your specimen to be at least very closely related to C. acanthodes, and in fact I would consider it as Chilomycterus cf. acanthodes for purposes of identification. The “cf.”, for comparison with, simply indicates that your specimen is close to C. acanthodes, and it should be further compared with the type and other specimens of acanthodes when more specimens from your locality become available and a better comparison can be made between your specimens and those of acanthodes from Sicily and Algeria . So my opinion (and, indeed, it is only my opinion and I could be incorrect), your specimen probably represents Chilomycterus acanthodes, but it may prove eventually t be a distinct species closely related to C. acanthodes. I think you are correct in finding so many disarticulated fin rays scattered around the body, with the two long ones protruding from the edge of the body marked as “17” being very distinctive. I look forward to your conclusions about your specimen and whether you can agree with me. I wish I could examine your specimen in person, but that is unlikely. A very fine young paleoichthyologist who if far closer to you geographically than am I is Prof. Giorgio Carnevale at the University of Torino in northern Italy . I have worked with him on fossil tetraodontids and he is very knowledgeable about fossil tetraodontiforms. If you could arrange for him to examine your specimen, he might have a different interpretation than mine. Best wishes – Jim Tyler'' And my final message to Dr. Tyler: ''Dear Sir, I am once more glad with your fascinating answer! My opinion, if asked, is that I agree with your conclusions. And I wish I could sent you this specimen for an in person examination and when it's possible I'll get you notified. I feel lucky and honored for being in a so long contact with a great scientist as the history indicates and with a great man aswell as this cooperation is clearly showing. A hearty thanks for offering one of my best experiences. I wish you the best. Best regards Astrinos'' So, Dr. Tyler's conclusion is it's about a chilomycterus acanthodes or a chilomycterus cf acanthodes, and for a farther exact id is necessary an in person examination of the specimen. In the first case there have been found one specimen in Licata, Italy and a few more in Oran, Algeria and all of these specimens are kept in the Paris museum while in the second case it's about an undescribed chilomycrerus speies. At any rate it's about a fossil of a high rarity and I am proud for having found it and for having it in my collection. Edited November 11, 2011 by astron Astrinos P. Damianakis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 It is a very rare find and just maybe the story will continue at some point.. I wish he lived closer to you.. That's something that the few others are in a museum! We have our own museum right here... I am delighted for you my friend.. Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Dactyll Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Astron... Well done and excellent find with the pufferfish... Keep up the good work... Cheers Steve... And Welcome if your a New Member... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 We are fortunate to have had this chapter played out on The Fossil Forum; thank you, Astrinos, and congratulations! "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...
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