 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / August 2007Can you identify this fossil skull?
Hello everybody, I want to ask you something about a fossil (Fossil picture is here: http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/images_atlas/leopard.jpg ). Harun Yahya says that it is a 89 million years old Leopard skull. But I know that it is not. I think it is not a leopard skull. It looks like a bear or hyaena. I want to learn if you can identify this skull. Can you figure out which animal this skull belongs to? HY doesn't give any catalog number or something like that. He only says it is 89 million years old and it is found in China. But I think both of them are wrong. > Hello everybody, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > or something like that. He only says it is 89 million years old and it > is found in China. But I think both of them are wrong. It's definitely the skull of some large cat, and it does most closely resemble a leopard of all the cats I've examined on the web (in a few minutes of searching, mind you). So I suspect the attribution to species may be right. Obviously the age is fantasy, but I don't know where the claim comes from. On 30 Temmuz, 21:04, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote: > It's definitely the skull of some large cat, and it does most closely > resemble a leopard of all the cats I've examined on the web (in a few > minutes of searching, mind you). So I suspect the attribution to species > may be right. Obviously the age is fantasy, but I don't know where the > claim comes from. Do you think that the eye socket, the teeth and shape of skull are similar to leopard's? > On 30 Temmuz, 21:04, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Do you think that the eye socket, the teeth and shape of skull are > similar to leopard's? Yes. Look at this: http://www.evolutionnyc.com/IBS/SimpleCat/Product/asp/hierarchy/020O1D/product-i d/87483.html The dental formula is unmistakably feline. > On 30 Temmuz, 21:04, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Do you think that the eye socket, the teeth and shape of skull are > similar to leopard's? There isn't a whole lot to go on with the teeth--the quality of the photo (fossil? reproduction?) doesn't give much to go on. If you google images of leopard skull, you will see considerable variation in the appearance of dentition even in existing species (as far as canine length, anyway). But the thing that troubles me about calling this a leopard (I'm no skeletal expert here) is the squareness of the muzzle and especially the extreme supero-inferior thickness of the zygomatic processes. The muzzle looks more like a dog or even a bear. As I said, I ain't no expert, and dentally there isn't enough for me to go on. Sorry, Steve  SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 >> On 30 Temmuz, 21:04, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Steve The dental formula doesn't appear to match any felines that I can find, as far as I can tell. George Aren't there 4 (2 on both sides, right and left) canines on the upper jaw? Normally it should be 2. > Aren't there 4 (2 on both sides, right and left) canines on the upper > jaw? Normally it should be 2. I'm embarassed to say I missed that. It certainly does appear to have two canines on the upper left side. Supernumerary teeth aren't rare, but I don't think I've ever seen supernumerary canine teeth in a human. I doubt it's common in cats. Seeing the other side would be instructive. This might be Piltdown man. ;-) Steve SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 >>Aren't there 4 (2 on both sides, right and left) canines on the upper >>jaw? Normally it should be 2. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I doubt it's common in cats. Seeing the other side would be instructive. > This might be Piltdown man. ;-) OK, I take it back about the cat. I wasn't looking closely enough at the teeth and wasn't considering feloid but non-felid alternatives. But you're all getting too excited. That "canine" on the premaxilla is actually an incisor. If you will examine a hyena skull (which I now imagine this to be) you will find that the most lateral incisor is rather canine-like in appearance. Here's a shot that shows this feature pretty well. http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/spotted_hyena_skull.jpg The jugal arch still looks a bit heavy, but it's hard to tell enough without the actual specimen or a good sample of actual hyena skulls. I don't suppose Harun Yahya would furnish details if asked? >>> Aren't there 4 (2 on both sides, right and left) canines on the upper >>> jaw? Normally it should be 2. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I don't suppose Harun Yahya would furnish details if asked? You're right. And sorry, we studied comparative dental anatomy not much during our first year of dental school--34 years ago. The instructor was a celebrity of sorts--Dr. Theodore Kazimiroff. The late doctor was not only a dentist, but a curator at the American Museum of Natural History. I believe he was also a founder of the Bronx County Historical Society. I remember him as an animated and entertaining lecturer. Steve SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 >>>> Aren't there 4 (2 on both sides, right and left) canines on the upper >>>> jaw? Normally it should be 2. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Steve http://rptsweb.tamu.edu/Pugsley/Kazimiroff.htm SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 > Hello everybody, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > or something like that. He only says it is 89 million years old and it > is found in China. But I think both of them are wrong. Compare that with this leopard skull: http://www.boneroom.com/casts/images_bc/cat_leopard.jpg Or this bear skull: http://www.photodonation.org/images/gallery/JacksonBottom/BlackBearSkull0011mjt.jpg Or this hyaena skull: http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/striped-hyena-skull-lg.jpg Or this tiger skull: http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/tq-315-lg.jpg I'm no expert by any means on these fauna, but it most closely resembles the hyaena to me (based on the dentition). Could you give us some information on its dimensions? If it is truly 89 million years, I seriously doubt that it is any of these. Considering the preservation, and the rather modern appearance of the specimen, I have doubts about its age. George > Hello everybody, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But I know that it is not. I think it is not a leopard skull. It looks > like a bear or hyaena. Or possibly a wolf? Online images of skulls of the Pleistocene "dire wolf" _Canis dirus_ seem a pretty close match, e.g.: http://www.boneclones.com/images/bc-020a_web-lg.jpg http://www.boneclones.com/images/bc-020t_web-lg.jpg http://www.evolutionnyc.com/id-843/ImgUpload/N_484629_961085.jpg Closer examination of the teeth would help nail it down. I agree it's clearly not a cat. The angle of the photos optically shortens the snout a bit which makes it look a bit catlike, but there are too many cheek teeth. > I want to learn if you can identify this skull. Can you figure out > which animal this skull belongs to? HY doesn't give any catalog number > or something like that. He only says it is 89 million years old and it > is found in China. But I think both of them are wrong. There's probably no reason at all to expect "HY" to be even slightly honest or accurate about anything he claims. cheers Thanks everybody for your answers and comments. > Or possibly a wolf? > Online images of skulls of the Pleistocene "dire wolf" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Closer examination of the teeth would help nail it down. But the back of the skull doesn't look similar. Am I wrong? >> Or possibly a wolf? >> Online images of skulls of the Pleistocene "dire wolf" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > But the back of the skull doesn't look similar. Am I wrong? You may be right, but it's pretty hard to tell. Might the HY image's skull have had its sagittal crests damaged? If the high thin ridges on the rear of the wolf skulls were simply broken off, the skulls might look very similar to the HY one. Or, the HY skull could have come from a related wolflike species with less-well-developed ridges or crests. Of course, it could still be from something very different than a dog or wolf, but I still think it's a closer match than a cat, or any other species suggested so far. Still, the main point is that it's not a "leopard", and quite likely also isn't 89 million years old or Chinese. cheers |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.