Wat hebben we nu weer gevonden in Antwerpen?!
Antw: Antw: Antw: Wat hebben we nu weer gevonden in Antwerpen?!
Hoi Pieter,somniosus schreef:Dus waarom niet ruilen met die man? Hij kan er allicht veel meer mee doen.lanselot schreef:
Die eerste moet je nooit en te nimmer ruilen. Ik zeg dit omdat ik weet dat er al een enkele zo weg is gedaan. Het is een parasymphysaire benedeni. Hier zijn er nog maar een enkele van gevonden en momenteel loopt er een studie naar. Volgens de huidige literatuur maakt deze geen onderdeel uit van de tandenset. Heel erg mooie en erg zeldzame tand!.
Arjen
Waar heb je het over??? volgens mij praten we een beetje langs elkaar heen. Ruilen om te ruilen is denk ik heel wat anders dan ruilen met een wetenschapper. Dat kan ik alleen maar toejuigen. In dat geval zou ik niet eens denken aan ruilen maar hem gewoon af staan.
Zullen we aub niet de sfeer bederven en elkaar op woorden pinnen? Er wordt hier een supertand gepresenteerd en daar gaat het om. Ik ken Karin en Hans als twee superfanatieke zoekers die er elk weekend samen op uit trekken. Ik vind het fantastisch als ze ze zo'n tand vinden.
Arjen
[Bewerkt door Lanselot op 27-10-2008 om 22:26 NL]
Antw: Antw: Antw: Antw: Wat hebben we nu weer gevonden in Antwerpen?!
Ik zou niet weten wat het probleem is?Slecht geslapen misschien?lanselot schreef:
Hoi Pieter,
Waar heb je het over??? volgens mij praten we een beetje langs elkaar heen...
Zullen we aub niet de sfeer bederven en elkaar op woorden pinnen?
Euh ik ook 8)lanselot schreef:
Ik vind het fantastisch als ze ze zo'n tand vinden.
Arjen
-
FransFrenken
- Berichten: 253
- Lid geworden op: 23 jul 2004, 22:38
- Contacteer:
Antw: Wat hebben we nu weer gevonden in Antwerpen?!
...
Kijk ook eens op mijn website :
http://people.zeelandnet.nl/sharke/
http://people.zeelandnet.nl/sharke/
Antw: Wat hebben we nu weer gevonden in Antwerpen?!
hopa, en ze blijven maar komen ! 
:D
[Bewerkt door ward op 28-10-2008 om 20:42 NL]
:D[Bewerkt door ward op 28-10-2008 om 20:42 NL]
Antw: Wat hebben we nu weer gevonden in Antwerpen?!
Not rarer than other tooth positions, and anyway ugly, aren´t they???
best regards
Stephan
www.sharktoothfan.de.tl
Antw: Wat hebben we nu weer gevonden in Antwerpen?!
Steph,
If they aren't rarer compared to other tooth positions, maybe you can explain me why Kent, Powell and Purdy didn't add it to their proposed tooth sets?
Regards,
Arjen
If they aren't rarer compared to other tooth positions, maybe you can explain me why Kent, Powell and Purdy didn't add it to their proposed tooth sets?
Regards,
Arjen
Antw: Wat hebben we nu weer gevonden in Antwerpen?!
I ment, one always says it´s rare because it´s new and scientifically speaking worthful, but this Symphy appears as often as every other tooth position. But when you find a benedeni, you don´t care about the position most of the times, except it´s a Symphy...
Anyway, it´s a new topic, and I let Lutz and all others do their job ( my tooth is promised to him as well, he just needs to get a nice Hexanchid;D )
Best regards
Stephan
www.sharktoothfan.de.tl
-
mega.enigma
- Berichten: 4
- Lid geworden op: 29 okt 2008, 00:37
Antw: Wat hebben we nu weer gevonden in Antwerpen?!
Dear Arjen and all others,
after I've noticed the exsistence of symphyseals in Megalodon a few years ago, I found this tooth position in Otodus, C. auriculatus, C. angustidens and even in Parotodus, and -- in a very short period of time, I got three Parotodus symphseals, and have the knowledge of much more!
Purdy et al. mentioned Kemp's paper from 1991, where an associated found of Parotodus (around 30 teeth)is described and figured AND within two Symphyseals, an upper and a lower!
I got one sympyhseal Parotodus from Robin, which was on the genera-page on elasmo.com at first, before it was exchange (with the pictured one in this forum), because Jim Bourdon stated that the crown would be too thin for Parotodus. I'm convinced that it is a Parotodus, because the thick root and general shape. Jim means it could possibly be a case of sexual dimorphism, but it's to be discussed further. I asked Jim why he didn't showed, or mentioned at least, symphyseals i.e. in Otodus. He stated that the tooth-sets of Otodus was found without and that these tooth position should be described scientifically for the species at first! So what we have, we have the fossil evidences of that tooth position, but no describing scientific paper, except those from SHIMADA! A reason to ignore the true nature!? Symphyseals are common in Otodus and become more and more scarcer in younger species, Megalodon at least.
The crux is, there are no symphyseals inner fossil and recent Lamnidae, and that is fundamental reason to seperate Megalodon into another genera and into another family (Otodontidae)!
How common symphyseals are in Parotodus -- I can't say right now, because I'm just still learning! But they can't be rare, undetected in most collections only, caused by the missing knowledge!?! SHIMADA described for Cretoxyrhina mantelli 3 to 4 symphyseals in the upper jaw, and 1 in the lower. I can confirm similarities and different shaped symphyseals i.e. in Megalodon!
If somebody wants to have JPGs of a few examples of different or mentioned species -- write to my e-mail!
Open your minds and don't trust 'scientists' in every cases!
kindest regards,
Lutz
after I've noticed the exsistence of symphyseals in Megalodon a few years ago, I found this tooth position in Otodus, C. auriculatus, C. angustidens and even in Parotodus, and -- in a very short period of time, I got three Parotodus symphseals, and have the knowledge of much more!
Purdy et al. mentioned Kemp's paper from 1991, where an associated found of Parotodus (around 30 teeth)is described and figured AND within two Symphyseals, an upper and a lower!
I got one sympyhseal Parotodus from Robin, which was on the genera-page on elasmo.com at first, before it was exchange (with the pictured one in this forum), because Jim Bourdon stated that the crown would be too thin for Parotodus. I'm convinced that it is a Parotodus, because the thick root and general shape. Jim means it could possibly be a case of sexual dimorphism, but it's to be discussed further. I asked Jim why he didn't showed, or mentioned at least, symphyseals i.e. in Otodus. He stated that the tooth-sets of Otodus was found without and that these tooth position should be described scientifically for the species at first! So what we have, we have the fossil evidences of that tooth position, but no describing scientific paper, except those from SHIMADA! A reason to ignore the true nature!? Symphyseals are common in Otodus and become more and more scarcer in younger species, Megalodon at least.
The crux is, there are no symphyseals inner fossil and recent Lamnidae, and that is fundamental reason to seperate Megalodon into another genera and into another family (Otodontidae)!
How common symphyseals are in Parotodus -- I can't say right now, because I'm just still learning! But they can't be rare, undetected in most collections only, caused by the missing knowledge!?! SHIMADA described for Cretoxyrhina mantelli 3 to 4 symphyseals in the upper jaw, and 1 in the lower. I can confirm similarities and different shaped symphyseals i.e. in Megalodon!
If somebody wants to have JPGs of a few examples of different or mentioned species -- write to my e-mail!
Open your minds and don't trust 'scientists' in every cases!
kindest regards,
Lutz