Mike Owens Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 This is one of several vertebrae I need to get identified. My thinking is shark. It looks a lot like one in Chris' post about the shark show. What say ye shark collectors? All I know for sure is -- it's Cretaceous. The white is matrix that needs to be removed. The four side shots are 90 deg turns. Then shots of both ends. Thanks, Mike -----"Your Texas Connection!"------ Fossils: Windows to the past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphactinus Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Mike - def not a shark. That one is near and dear to my heart....it's a Xiphactinus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Owens Posted December 17, 2007 Author Share Posted December 17, 2007 Mike -def not a shark. That one is near and dear to my heart....it's a Xiphactinus. Thanks! Maybe the rest will be the same. Here's #2 -----"Your Texas Connection!"------ Fossils: Windows to the past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest N.AL.hunter Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 This looks a lot like the vertebrae I found from a Xaphactinus audax (spelling?) in Alabama's cretaceous sediments. AKA the cretaceous bulldog fish or cretaceous tarpon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphactinus Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Thanks! Maybe the rest will be the same. Here's #2 Yup. X-fish too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Owens Posted December 18, 2007 Author Share Posted December 18, 2007 Here's two more (6 views each) of what might be the same -- Portheus molossus. -----"Your Texas Connection!"------ Fossils: Windows to the past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphactinus Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Here's two more (6 views each) of what might be the same -- Portheus molossus. Those are Xiphactinus as well. For what it's worth, Portheus molossus is no longer used. Xiphactinus was in the books a couple of months before Portheus. Even though there are a lot of specimens with a Portheus name tag, "Xiphactinus" is the correct Latin name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Owens Posted December 18, 2007 Author Share Posted December 18, 2007 Those are Xiphactinus as well. For what it's worth, Portheus molossus is no longer used. Xiphactinus was in the books a couple of months before Portheus. Even though there are a lot of specimens with a Portheus name tag, "Xiphactinus" is the correct Latin name. Even though Xiphactinus is correct, back in the '70's all the paleontologist I dealt with were still calling it Portheus, so that's how I learned. I'm sure by now that has changed. I usually use both. I want to thank you for your help & here's the last ones for awhile. Are these teeth & jaw section also Xiphactinus? I had papers at one time identifying most of my specimens, but can't fine them. I don't trust my memory, in some cases, anymore so this is why all the questions. -----"Your Texas Connection!"------ Fossils: Windows to the past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphactinus Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Even though Xiphactinus is correct, back in the '70's all the paleontologist I dealt with were still calling it Portheus, so that's how I learned. I'm sure by now that has changed. I usually use both. I want to thank you for your help & here's the last ones for awhile. Are these teeth & jaw section also Xiphactinus? I had papers at one time identifying most of my specimens, but can't fine them. I don't trust my memory, in some cases, anymore so this is why all the questions. The teeth are Xiphactinus. I don't think the jaw section is. X-fish teeth are more irregular in size -- bigger in the front smaller towards the back of the jaw. My best bet is Pachyrhizodus. They had regular sized, heavy teeth. Very cool finds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Even though Xiphactinus is correct, back in the '70's all the paleontologist I dealt with were still calling it Portheus, so that's how I learned. I'm sure by now that has changed. I usually use both. I want to thank you for your help & here's the last ones for awhile. Are these teeth & jaw section also Xiphactinus? I had papers at one time identifying most of my specimens, but can't fine them. I don't trust my memory, in some cases, anymore so this is why all the questions. This should be a lesson for all young collectors. Label your specimens, keep notes. Number them with a numbered entry into a log book. This problem has happened to me a few times. I think. "I'll never forget what the fossil is or where it was collected." But it does happen if you don't have good habits in making labels. Later, when you're no longer the caretaker for the fossil, without data it is merely a curio. No museum will have it without collecting data. Or, if a museum does accept it from your children or grandchildren, the fossils with no data are sent to the interpretive department or they a put into the trash. So, protect your investment of resources in your collection. Put labels on everything. ---------Harry Pristis http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Owens Posted December 18, 2007 Author Share Posted December 18, 2007 This should be a lesson for all young collectors. Label your specimens, keep notes. Number them with a numbered entry into a log book.This problem has happened to me a few times. I think. "I'll never forget what the fossil is or where it was collected." But it does happen if you don't have good habits in making labels. Later, when you're no longer the caretaker for the fossil, without data it is merely a curio. No museum will have it without collecting data. Or, if a museum does accept it from your children or grandchildren, the fossils with no data are sent to the interpretive department or they a put into the trash. So, protect your investment of resources in your collection. Put labels on everything. ---------Harry Pristis Let's hear an AMEN to that! :Thumbs-up: When you get my age you would forget your own lower posterior if it wasn't attached to you. :ahah3: -----"Your Texas Connection!"------ Fossils: Windows to the past 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