|
Post by theropod on Oct 9, 2019 22:39:53 GMT 5
Now, it is realistic to assume that very large Ginsu Sharks (5m in TL and above) could kill very large Mosasaurs. However, these instances are/were mistaken for scavenging by people including some paleontologists? I do not get this mindset at all, particularly in writing. Is that realistic? I don’t think so. Very large mosaurs around 12-14 m long, with skulls in excess of 1.7 m, and weighing 6-10 t would dwarf any specimen of Cretoxyrhina. And there is no direct evidence in the form of tooth marks of such a thing that I’m aware of.
"mistaken" is not the right word. Phrasing it like this implies that you know for sure that it wasn’t scavenging, which you don’t. I certainly agree that there is a trend to label every unhealed bite mark scavenging by default, which is equally wrong as to label every one predation by default, but I don’t think this is so pervasive, especially in writing. Expressed accurately, we often have to concede that we do not know if a bite mark was the result of predation or scavenging, but as predation is often the conclusion the popular media and enthusiastic amateurs jump to, there is more of a need to specifically make it clear that something is not necessarily evidence of predation than to do so for scavenging.
Some bite marks can be more likely to be predation than others. E.g. ones that target regions typically targeted during predation, but not feeding, such as fins, especially if there would be little reason to target it while feeding.
Large sharks can kill other large animals, everyone here knows that. It is generally a default assumption in palaeobiology to not consider bite marks that aren’t healed evidence of interactions between living animals, because they aren’t. I don’t necessarily agree that all these cases are scavenging, because it is likely some where, and some wheren’t, but it is a matter of parsimony. From a bite mark without signs of healing, you often cannot conclusively say whether it was scavenging, or a bite inflicted on a living animal, so you usually cannot assume the latter.
Exactly, as I keep saying (but nobody else seems to care). This goes both ways of course. The extinction of pliosaurs and survival of cardabiodontid sharks has no more bearing on a direct confrontation between those two than the extinction of Cretoxyrhina and survival of mosasaurs.
The largest sharks in Cretaceous seas after the extinction of Cretoxyrhina were Squalicorax and Cretalamna, which were nowhere near large enough to be a real threat to mosasaurs.
Thank you, this is appreciated.
I am a little confused by the "it is possible the mosasaur survived the encounter and died later of other causes" though.
Either, the mosasaur survived the encounter, in which case there should be bone remodelling on the bite marks that Everhardt should have been able to identify, which would mean this wasn’t necessarily a predation attempt at all, at least not by the shark, especially with that placement of the bite on the snout, let alone a successful one. Or there is no remodelling on the wound, in which case, how do we know this wasn’t scavenging?
It is true that this wasn’t a small mosasaur, however the largest tylosaurs have skulls in excess of 1.8 m, closer to 6 ft in your units.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 9, 2019 23:09:34 GMT 5
Anyway, a 23 tonnes macropredator is more capable in organic destruction than a 6-10 tonnes macropredator.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 9, 2019 23:13:26 GMT 5
^Yes and I agree that these matchups are useless. Of course most matchups are, but these ones in particular. There wasn’t even any discussion on the size to assume for the male megalodon…
|
|
|
Post by Life on Oct 10, 2019 12:24:33 GMT 5
1: Well, a Mosasaur at 9m TL weighing just 1.1 tons, seems to be an underestimate to me but my contention is that the Mosasaurs were built for maneuverability on average. To be more clear, maneuverability factor compensated for lack of mass in Mosasaurs on average. 2: The Prognathodon FAMILY of Mosasaurs were an exception though (robust physiology). 3: To give you an idea, an estimated 2.5m TL Ginsu shark caught and killed an adult Pteranodon whose wings measured 7.5m from tip to tip. Illustration for reference: www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07832-w4: Dare I say that the largest known Ginsu shark were capable of killing even the largest known Mosasaurs? Not far-fetched in my books. 5: Evidence of this implied co-existence does not exist, and that thread must be moved to the appropriate section (or) locked with the disclaimer stating that this isn't a sympatric contest. Last known Kronosaurus fossils = about 99.6 million years old Earliest known Cardabiodon fossils = about 95 million years old 6: The popular impression that pliosaurs and/or mosasaurs had no peer at any point in time, is patently FALSE and misleading. Large sharks of these times are underrepresented and underappreciated in our constructs, and their impact on relevant ecosystems is also overlooked. A bundle of thanks to Dr. Michael Siverson for bringing these sharks to our attention. 7: Unknown shark specimens OMNH 68860 and KUVP 16343 respectively, say hello. Fossil remains of OMNH 68860 at a glance below:- These unknown sharks were actually contemporary with Kronosaurus. KUVP 16343 in particular was a gigantic shark, approaching the size range of the late Otodus obliquus. --- --- --- REFERENCES Newbrey, M. G., Siversson, M., Cook, T. D., Fotheringham, A. M., & Sanchez, R. L. (2013). Vertebral morphology, dentition, age, growth, and ecology of the large lamniform shark Cardabiodon ricki. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 60(4), 877-898. --- --- --- 8: KUVP 16343 laugh at the mighty Kronosaurus and punch it in the face. Kronosaurus whimpers and retreats...
Max Hawthorne cry himself to sleep.Grey elosha11 theropod 1: A potential explanation for this is that the smaller mosasaur species/juveniles may have been more gracile than larger specimens or adults 2: True, almost as robust as crocodilians. However, still not quite as much as a shark; at similar length I would expect the shark to possess about 70 percent mass advantage 3: Going by modern sharks, a 2.5 meter Cretoxyrhina would be about 100-130 kg. A 7.5 meter Pteranodon is barely 40 kilos. Not quite macropredation..... 4: Size disparity seems a bit large, no? 3.4 tons vs 8-14 tons 5: I will move it 6: I actually agree with you on that. As I said earlier, I simply find marine reptiles slightly superior in head on combat, not necessarily natural circumstances 7: Very interesting! I will have to post about that some more 8: Hahahahahaha. I get it. Good joke 1. You are alluding to ontogenetic considerations in relation to growth in Mosasaurs. These considerations are valid for sharks as well. Furthermore, you are assuming that only large sharks were taking their chances with Mosasaurs but this is not true. Rothschild et al (2005) have pointed out that sharks were taking their chances with Mosasaurs which could be twice as long or even longer; sharks (2m - 3m TL range) were taking their chances with Mosasaurs (5m - 7m TL range). My take is that the Cretaceous Period macropredatory sharks were really aggressive and ambitious on average (biological considerations; survival instincts; aggressive mindset; experiences). This is why I advice caution when judging ancient sharks on the basis of how modern era sharks behave. Do you know that Tiger sharks and Bull sharks are more curious and aggressive than great white sharks on average? 2. See above. 3. This was an example of maneuverability in relation to the Ginsu shark. 4. Blanket assertion. "Even though mosasaurs grew to great lengths, their bodies were long and slender, so they were not nearly as heavy as an elasmosaur (barrel-shaped body) of the same length, and even less so compared to a modern whale (lots of blubber to stay warm):
A 14 m Gray Whale (Eshrichtius robustus) weighs about 32,000 kg (35 tons);
A 14 m Elasmosaurus platyurus would have weighed about 10,000 kg (11 tons);
A 14 m Tylosaurus proriger would have weighed about 4000 kg (4.5 tons)
LEFT: Perhaps the real question should be not how large mosasaurs grew, but how small they were at birth and how this affected their survival far from shore near the middle of the Western Interior Sea where the Smoky Hill Chalk was deposited over Kansas!"Link: oceansofkansas.com/youngmosasaurs.html5. Settled. 6. Speculatory territory. Potential outcomes might vary in accordance with raw power and intelligence of animals involved. "What can we learn from shark injuries on mosasaurs? The survived injuries described here are from sharks between two and three metres in length. Attacks from larger sharks (if any) were probably fatal, e.g. in FHSM VP-13283, figured by Shimada (1997, fig. 4), that includes five vertebrae severed from the middle of the back of a 7-metre mosasaur. The mosasaurs that survived bite injuries are not large, ranging in length from five to seven metres. All of these survived bites are on the tail. It seems likely that attacks including bites elsewhere were normally fatal. Survival of the mosasaur suggests that it successfully defended itself. Sharks may have geared their attacks to moments when the mosasaur was more vulnerable."From Rothschild et al (2005) 7. Indeed. 8. Another:- KUVP 16343 have entered the chat Kronosaurs have left the chat --- --- --- REFERENCES Rothschild, B. M., Martin, L. D., & Schulp, A. S. (2005). Sharks eating mosasaurs, dead or alive?. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences, 84(3), 335-340.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 10, 2019 15:57:05 GMT 5
1: A potential explanation for this is that the smaller mosasaur species/juveniles may have been more gracile than larger specimens or adults 2: True, almost as robust as crocodilians. However, still not quite as much as a shark; at similar length I would expect the shark to possess about 70 percent mass advantage 3: Going by modern sharks, a 2.5 meter Cretoxyrhina would be about 100-130 kg. A 7.5 meter Pteranodon is barely 40 kilos. Not quite macropredation..... 4: Size disparity seems a bit large, no? 3.4 tons vs 8-14 tons 5: I will move it 6: I actually agree with you on that. As I said earlier, I simply find marine reptiles slightly superior in head on combat, not necessarily natural circumstances 7: Very interesting! I will have to post about that some more 8: Hahahahahaha. I get it. Good joke 1. You are alluding to ontogenetic considerations in relation to growth in Mosasaurs. These considerations are valid for sharks as well. Furthermore, you are assuming that only large sharks were taking their chances with Mosasaurs but this is not true. Rothschild et al (2005) have pointed out that sharks were taking their chances with Mosasaurs which could be twice as long or even longer; sharks (2m - 3m TL range) were taking their chances with Mosasaurs (5m - 7m TL range). My take is that the Cretaceous Period macropredatory sharks were really aggressive and ambitious on average (biological considerations; survival instincts; aggressive mindset; experiences). This is why I advice caution when judging ancient sharks on the basis of how modern era sharks behave. Do you know that Tiger sharks and Bull sharks are more curious and aggressive than great white sharks on average? 2. See above. 3. This was an example of maneuverability in relation to the Ginsu shark. 4. Blanket assertion. "Even though mosasaurs grew to great lengths, their bodies were long and slender, so they were not nearly as heavy as an elasmosaur (barrel-shaped body) of the same length, and even less so compared to a modern whale (lots of blubber to stay warm):
A 14 m Gray Whale (Eshrichtius robustus) weighs about 32,000 kg (35 tons);
A 14 m Elasmosaurus platyurus would have weighed about 10,000 kg (11 tons);
A 14 m Tylosaurus proriger would have weighed about 4000 kg (4.5 tons)
LEFT: Perhaps the real question should be not how large mosasaurs grew, but how small they were at birth and how this affected their survival far from shore near the middle of the Western Interior Sea where the Smoky Hill Chalk was deposited over Kansas!"Link: oceansofkansas.com/youngmosasaurs.html5. Speculatory territory. Potential outcomes might vary in accordance with raw power and intelligence of animals involved. "What can we learn from shark injuries on mosasaurs? The survived injuries described here are from sharks between two and three metres in length. Attacks from larger sharks (if any) were probably fatal, e.g. in FHSM VP-13283, figured by Shimada (1997, fig. 4), that includes five vertebrae severed from the middle of the back of a 7-metre mosasaur. The mosasaurs that survived bite injuries are not large, ranging in length from five to seven metres. All of these survived bites are on the tail. It seems likely that attacks including bites elsewhere were normally fatal. Survival of the mosasaur suggests that it successfully defended itself. Sharks may have geared their attacks to moments when the mosasaur was more vulnerable."From Rothschild et al (2005) 6. Another:- KUVP 16343 have entered the chat Kronosaurs have left the chat --- --- --- REFERENCES Rothschild, B. M., Martin, L. D., & Schulp, A. S. (2005). Sharks eating mosasaurs, dead or alive?. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences, 84(3), 335-340. 1: Interesting! I did not know of mosasaur ontogeny! But the mosasaurs could just have easily been ambushed out of the blue or in murky water; I know I would try to minimize my risk like that if I was a shark 2: Yes, something of the sort. Bull sharks have the most testosterone of any animal in the world 3: Let me tell you, pretty much ALL fish are good leapers. Even bottom dwellers (I should know, I have had many fish). So this doesn't seem particularly impressive to me in terms of leaping standard. 4: What's the methology there? Just about everywhere else says 8-14 tons for bigger mosasaurs using GDIs 5: Similar to what I said earlier, it's pretty easy for the shark to ambush and land a bite on the tail fluke. How do we know that was not the case here? 6: Keep them coming! This is WAY better than debating an egotistical and short tempered admin who will insult, restrict, or ban you merely for having a different opinion, all while using language such as 'cant' and 'no thanks', misspelling certain words deliberately, and capitalizing random words.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 10, 2019 20:22:56 GMT 5
1: You guys realize that chart doesn’t show ontogeny, it shows different taxa, and that it literally just rescales pretty much the same skeletal to different total lengths for all of them, without actually showcasing any allometric changes in morphology whatsoever?
2: Testosterone.
3: As the paper in question states, there is no evidence to suggest whether the case was predation or scavenging (both are possible). dinosauria is right to note that even a small shark would have likely been larger, in terms of mass, than the pterosaur, so reference to the wing span is certainly misleading, and not a particularly impressive feat of macropredation, if it was predation at all. If the point was to point out the shark’s maneuverability, then why point out the pterosaur’s wingspan? Anyway, a shark spectacularly jumping out of the water to catch a pterosaur may be fun to imagine, lending itself well to paleoartistic reconstructions, but it is not grounded in hard evidence as you guys seem to assume. Whether or not pterosaurs could swim is an ongoing discussion (though it seems certain that their extreme pneumaticity would allow them to at least float without sinking), but modern sharks have been known to attack sea birds floating on the surface, and this seems a far more likely explanation that a shark attacked a pterosaur that was already in the water than that the Pteranodon was bitten by a shark leaping and catching it in flight.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 10, 2019 21:23:40 GMT 5
1: You guys realize that chart doesn’t show ontogeny, it shows different taxa, and that it literally just rescales pretty much the same skeletal to different total lengths for all of them, without actually showcasing any allometric changes in morphology whatsoever? 2: Testosterone. 3: As the paper in question states, there is no evidence to suggest whether the case was predation or scavenging (both are possible). dinosauria is right to note that even a small shark would have likely been larger, in terms of mass, than the pterosaur, so reference to the wing span is certainly misleading, and not a particularly impressive feat of macropredation, if it was predation at all. If the point was to point out the shark’s maneuverability, then why point out the pterosaur’s wingspan? Anyway, a shark spectacularly jumping out of the water to catch a pterosaur may be fun to imagine, lending itself well to paleoartistic reconstructions, but it is not grounded in hard evidence as you guys seem to assume. Whether or not pterosaurs could swim is an ongoing discussion (though it seems certain that their extreme pneumaticity would allow them to at least float without sinking), but modern sharks have been known to attack sea birds floating on the surface, and this seems a far more likely explanation that a shark attacked a pterosaur that was already in the water than that the Pteranodon was bitten by a shark leaping and catching it in flight. 1: Oh. Yes, that does seem to be the case. But maybe what Verdugo posted in the mosasaur thread can help clear this (mosasaur bulk/weight) up 2: Fixed it 3: Makes even more sense - a Pteranodon just above or floating on the water would be very vulnerable
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 10, 2019 22:57:00 GMT 5
1: well I think this is already pretty damn clear. A weight of 1.1 t for a 9 m mosasaur, or 4 t for a 14 m mosasaur (not even clear that mosasaurs got that long) is clearly way too low.
3: Actually, from looking at this thread as well as meg vs livy, I think we seem to be having some general misunderstandings about the implications of bite marks. Let me be clear, I do find the record of Cretaceous sharks with regard to mosasaurs very impressive (that being said, it remains to be demonstrated that they preyed upon mosasaurs their own size or larger, and I think any cretaceous shark being a match for a truly giant mosasaur, like large individuals of Tylosaurus, Mosasaurus or Prognathodon, is quite unlikely).
However, for a given bite mark, we must always consider all possibilities on its origin. Morphology and placement of bite marks on the body and comparison with known attack and feeding patterns can make one or the other more likely, but rarely can one be ruled out completely. Which means, we are rarely 100% sure of interactions between two animals in the fossil record, even with pathological or trace fossil evidence.
If a bite mark shows bone remodeling, this is evidence the bitten animal survived. That means we can be certain of an interaction between two living animals, but not necessarily the nature of said encounter, for example if the bite was predatory in nature, or defensive (who was preying on whom?), or if the interaction was even predatory at all or perhaps rather territorial. An important bit of information to be gleamed though is that the fossil clearly cannot be evidence of successful predation (except arguably flesh grazing, which I would consider a special case of predation) if the bite wound shows signs of remodelling, as successful predation ordinarily shouldn’t see the prey item survive for at least weeks after being bitten.
If a bite mark shows no bone remodeling, this does not tell us anything on whether the bitten animal was still alive while bitten. However crucially, it also doesn’t automatically mean the animal was not alive when bitten. This depends a lot on the prey item and the predator, in some cases, a predator might be expected to produce bite marks on bone in a killing bite, in others it would not. Also, some parts of a prey item (e.g. an actinopterygian fin, a ceratopsian horn, a stegosaurian osteoderm) might not be attractive targets during feeding, but potentially at risk of being bitten during predation, so bite marks on such parts may more likely reflect predation (or at least, a fight) than feeding.
Conventions usually followed in the literature (i.e. exercising caution when making a hypothesis as to the origin of a bite mark, be it predation or scavenging), that I have seen members here complain about, exist for a reason.
As for mosasaurs, take for example a sizeable mosasaur skull showing shark bite marks. Of course it would help to know if said bite marks were healed or not, in the absence of that knowledge, it is not even possible to narrow it down much. But does this provide evidence a shark preyed on that mosasaur? No, of course not. If they are healed, it is equally possible that they were inflicted by a shark being actually preyed on by the mosasaur, a defensive wound. And if they are not healed, it is equally possible they were the result of scavenging behaviour. In fact, a location on the skull arguably makes predation by the shark an unlikely explanation at least for this specific bite mark, as the skull is not generally targeted by any shark during predatory attacks (unlike, for example, the tail or fins, or even ribcage in some cases). We could draw additional more indirect inferences. Often, size estimation is hardly possible from a bite mark (it is unreliable enough from a tooth), but if there is evidence that a 2 m shark bit a 9 m mosasaur, that would arguably be more indicative of scavenging or defense, rather than predation. If on the other hand a 9 m shark bit a 9 m mosasaur, that would arguably make defense a less likely option than predation, and scavenging at least less likely than it might otherwise be.
|
|
|
Post by Verdugo on Oct 11, 2019 12:50:24 GMT 5
Life Which parts exactly? Can be more specific? Did you mean that part about supposedly 8 m Ginsu extrapolated from a single broken tooth tip or the part about Pteranodon with Ginsu's bite mark? If it was the latter then i'm not sure what that has anything to with Mosasaur tbh... You also talked about some Cardabiodontidae Sharks but are they sympatric with large Mosasaur? If they are not then i'm again not sure what that has anything to with this discussion... I agree. Infinity's source pointed out that interspecies conflict is an unlikely cause of extinction. Everhart just seems to be into that speculation for some reasons. Normally, if you have unhealed Bite marks than it could be either from successful predation or scavenging. You can look at several factors such as locations of the Bites and more importantly the size of the Biters and the Bitten to help you determine which cases (predation or scavenging) is more likely. If the Bitten is a very large predator while the Biters are smaller animals then it's more reasonable to conclude that it is a case of scavenging. Extant macropredators are not known to deliberately target larger macropredators for predation purpose unless they want a death wish. Great white do not go after Orcas, Hyenas do not go after Lions, Wolves do not go after Grizzly bears. It's not stupid, it's really just common sense. From the same source that you posted (Rothschild 2016), they also concluded the unhealed Bite marks on larger Mosasaur to be a case of scavenging based on this reasoning: Also, it's not realistic to assume that 5+ m Shark would be able to kill a 12+ m Mosasaur, at least under normal circumstances. A Tylosaurus with 90 cm (3 ft) skull is not exactly a huge animal though. If you scale Hartman's Tylosaurus using 90 cm skull/mandible that you'll get a Total length about 6-6.5 m If you assume the proportion to be similar to Bunker specimen (1.8 m skull, 12 m TL) then the Tylosaur here is about 6 m If you assume the proportion to be similar to Sternberg specimen (1.2 m skull, 8.8 m TL) then the Tylosaur here would be 6.6 m If you go with the Skull Length/Total Length ratio suggested by Everhart here: If 13.8% then the 90 cm skull length will correspond to a TL of 6.5 m. If 14% then a TL of 6.4 m Not a small Mosasaur by any means but certainly no giant Again, as Theropod has already pointed out, it's not even clear if this is a case of Shark predation as the Bite location (at the tip of the snout) seems like an odd place for the Shark to target assuming it is predation. One could as well interpret this case as Shark defensive bite against an attacking Mosasaur who was probably grabbing its tail. Such interpretation is just as reasonable (if not even more so) than a Shark predation one. Or assuming the Shark was reasonably large, this could also be a case interspecies territorial conflicts where they went head on at each others. Anyway, it's really up to interpretation and there is no solid evidence to suggest that one interpretation is more likely than the others. Also, according to Everhart, the Mosasaur did not die from that encounter so it's either that the Shark died or they just parted out after the encounter
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 11, 2019 18:55:05 GMT 5
A 6-7 m Tylosaurus would probably weigh 936-1486 kg¹. If the attacker was a 5 m Cretoxyrhina, the shark would have probably weighed about much as the mosasaur (1084-1294 kg²). If it was a 6 m shark, it may well have been up to twice as massive. A 9 m Tylosaurus would probably weigh over 3 t. That’s an entirely different thing. And a 12 m Tylosaurus would probably weigh over 7 t. A Prognathodon the same length may well have been even heavier. I hope we can all agree that even a confirmed shark attack on a 1 ton mosasaur doesn’t mean the same shark could also do that to a 7 t+ mosasaur. And yes, some very large (and very fragmentary) individuals of Cretoxyrhina may have reached sizes up to around 8 m, but even then, giant mosasaurs probably got close to twice as massive. ¹ theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/47671/thread² theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/36323/thread
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 11, 2019 18:57:35 GMT 5
Oh. Whew.
Thank god Titanoboa has been upsized to 2 tons. This could have a lot of implications on future mosasaur matchups
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 11, 2019 19:06:23 GMT 5
Also, perhaps we should just edit this to " Cretoxyrhina vs Tylosaurus", which is both sympatric, and the thing actually being discussed here most of the time. Or moved, if we already have that thread. Or at least change this to a sub-adult megalodon, as a megalodon comparable (~9t) to Mosasaurus hoffmanni would likely be a around 9.6 m long, and hence probably not fully mature yet. dinosauria101
|
|
|
Post by Verdugo on Oct 12, 2019 10:16:49 GMT 5
And yes, some very large (and very fragmentary) individuals of Cretoxyrhina may have reached sizes up to around 8 m, AFAIK, the 8 m Cretoxyrhina only comes from a single broken tooth tip: Newbrey 2015 stated the tooth height to be 80 mm: But as you can clearly see, the tooth height is not 80 mm so i assume the 80 mm is probably an estimate of a complete tooth (including root) height. So the situation we got here is that the 8 m is basically an isometric extrapolation of a single specimen (FHSM VP-2187) based on a single tooth and the tooth height itself is just an estimate because it's not even a complete tooth... I mean even assuming the tooth was complete, how likely it is for a single tooth to scale with perfect isometry? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences they say... I mean it's Ok to regard such size as a possibility but that is about as far as any reasonable persons should go for it. It's unsound to ascertain it with any greater degree of confidence. Or if you just want to use the largest size estimates available regardless of whether such estimate even remotely has any substances to it than you may as well use the 17+ m Mosasaur or whatever to make it fair.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 12, 2019 15:30:21 GMT 5
And yes, that must be overall tooth height, an 80 mm tall crown would be oddly large (that would be megalodon territory). No need to convince me, I absolutely agree that an estimate from an isolated tooth is unreliable. This is at best vaguely indicative, but it is obviously far more interesting to focus on the reasonably complete and more normal-sized specimens. But good luck telling that to some of the other people here, who have recently started using even tiny fragments of teeth.
|
|