Content uploaded by Dean R. Lomax
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dean R. Lomax on Nov 11, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Dean R. Lomax
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dean R. Lomax on Nov 11, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Paludicola 14(1):32-42 November 2022
© by the Rochester Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology
32
THE ULTIMATE ‘IFFYOSAUR’ – AN UNUSUAL ICHTHYOSAUR COMPOSITE
CONTAINING BRITISH AND GERMAN MATERIAL OF DIFFERENT GEOLOGICAL STAGES
Dean R. Lomax1, Sven Sachs2 and Ashley Hall3
1Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester,
M13 9PL, UK; dean.lomax@manchester.ac.uk
2Naturkunde-Museum Bielefeld, Abteilung Geowissenschaften, Adenauerplatz 2, 33602 Bielefeld, Germany;
sachs.pal@gmail.com
3Museum of the Rockies, 600 W. Kagy Boulevard. Bozeman, Montana, USA; ashley.hall15@montana.edu
ABSTRACT
Composite fossils can distort our evaluation of the morphology and variation of a species if unrecognised or misidentified. Many Early
Jurassic ichthyosaurs collected during the 19th century have been identified as composites, but the problem is not restricted to historic
specimens. More recently collected material, including some specimens for sale on the fossil market, are also composites or have been
modified. One such specimen (RNHM F5672), said to be from the Lower Lias of Dorset, England, appears to be an almost complete skeleton,
but comprises at least three individuals along with a carefully reconstructed and carved skull, and an apparent replica coracoid and forefin.
The forefin, if a cast of a genuine specimen, shows a unique set of characters not previously observed in any ichthyosaur. Additionally, various
caudal and dorsal vertebrae of indeterminate ichthyosaurs were pieced together to give the appearance of a complete, articulated vertebral
column. One authentic block, containing the hindfins, the pelvic girdle and some ribs, can be assigned to Ichthyosaurus conybeari, based on
characters of the hindfins. It comes from the Lower Jurassic (Sinemurian) of the Charmouth-Lyme Regis area, Dorset. The entire ‘skeleton’
is set into a large block of matrix which is from the Lower Jurassic (Toarcian) Posidonia Shale of Holzmaden, Germany. Therefore, this fossil
represents a composite of material from multiple specimens belonging to perhaps two different genera, collected from two different countries
and from two different geological stages.
INTRODUCTION
Ichthyosaurs were the first large extinct reptiles
to be described in a modern paleontological study
(Home, 1814), based on the discovery of a large
ichthyosaur skull and partial skeleton found and
collected by Mary and Joseph Anning in Lyme Regis,
Dorset (Torrens, 1995). The subsequent description of
the first ichthyosaur genus to be formally recognised,
Ichthyosaurus (De la Beche and Conybeare, 1821),
ignited a major interest in paleontology during the
early-mid 19th century. However, ichthyosaurs were
not necessarily always collected for their scientific
significance, but instead for their display potential,
and were often mounted in large wooden frames held
together by plaster or cement. A forefin, hindfin, tail,
or even a skull was sometimes appended to a skeleton
to create a more complete specimen for display. This
practice resulted in numerous ichthyosaur composites
(McGowan, 1990; Buttler and Howe, 2002; Massare
and Lomax, 2016b). Most historic composites were
not necessarily done for deceptive purposes, but
simply for a more display-worthy piece of ‘art’
(Massare and Lomax, 2016b), unlike today where,
unfortunately, the commercial fossil market is
populated with countless frauds and forgeries (Mateus
et al., 2008).
Lower Jurassic deposits in the UK, notably from
the coastal exposures in the Charmouth-Lyme Regis
area, Dorset, and from the quarries in Street and
surrounding areas in Somerset, have yielded
thousands of ichthyosaurs, ranging from isolated
bones to complete skeletons. Many nearly complete or
complete historic specimens have been found to be
composites (McGowan, 1990; Massare and Lomax,
2014, 2016b) or show some form of modification
(e.g., reconstruction of the rostrum, Massare and
Lomax, 2016; Maxwell and Cortés, 2020). Such
examples are sometimes found during conservation,
when old plaster filler has begun to crack and break
apart (e.g., Buttler and Howe, 2002). Similarly,
thousands of ichthyosaurs have been collected from
the Posidonia Shale quarries of Holzmaden and
surrounding areas in Germany, where many have been
found to be composites or have modifications (e.g.,
see discussion in Maisch, 1998; Maisch, 2008; M.
Maisch, pers. comm., DRL 2021). One well-known
example even deceived the then partially blind F. v.
Huene who described a small individual as a juvenile
ichthyosaur (Huene, 1966), which was later shown to
be an entirely carved forgery (Wild, 1976; Maisch,
1998).
Recently, there has been an increase in research
on ichthyosaurs, with new discoveries made in the
field and through the re-examination of historic
specimens held in museum collections. However, with
so many composite or modified ichthyosaur
specimens, this generates a problem (Maisch, 1998).
A good composite, “enhanced”, or fake specimen can
confuse even an experienced researcher, leading to
misidentifications and wrong information in the
published literature.
In January 2017, the senior author (DRL) visited
the collections of the State Museum of Natural History
LOMAX ET AL.—THE ULTIMATE ‘IFFYOSAUR’COMPOSITE 33
in Stuttgart and examined a replica ichthyosaur forefin
and hindfin (SMNS 56841). The associated label
stated that the original belonged to a specimen of
Ichthyosaurus, specifically Ichthyosaurus cf.
tenuirostris (now Leptonectes tenuirostris, assigned
by McGowan, 1996) from the Lower Lias of Dorset,
England, held in the collection of the Reutlingen
Natural History Museum. The RNHM donated the
replicas to the SMNS in 1990. The forefin is unusual
(see below), and so examining the original was of
interest.
Initially, a photograph of the specimen (RNHM
F5672) was kindly sent to DRL by Dr. Günter
Wahlefeld, a curator at the RNHM. However, upon
observation, the skull and parts of the axial skeleton
looked suspicious, and it was impossible to determine
the details of some of the more potentially significant
features, such as the forefin. Therefore, in March
2017, DRL and SS visited the RNHM to examine the
specimen.
In this study, we describe this unusual composite
ichthyosaur (RNHM F5672). It was sold in 1984 to the
Reutlingen Natural History Museum (RNHM),
Germany, as a genuine, complete ichthyosaur (Figure
1). The specimen is important because the
composite/fake portions have been carefully pieced
together so that it would be mistaken for a genuine
specimen. Our work illustrates how a close
examination of a specimen can find evidence of a
composite or modified specimen and illustrates that at
least portions of such fossils can be scientifically
important.
Institutional abbreviations—CAMSM: Sedgwick
Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK;
OUMNH: Oxford University Museum of Natural
History, Oxford, UK; RNHM: Naturkundemuseum
Reutlingen, Reutlingen, Germany; SMNS: Staatliches
Museum für Naturkunde, Stuttgart, Germany.
MATRIX AND AGE
There is a distinct difference in color between the
matrix containing the hindfins and pelvis and the
matrix surrounding the entire specimen. The color of
the former is a much lighter, bluish-grey whereas the
latter is much darker, almost black. The obvious
difference in contrast is best observed at the distal end
of the hindfins. This difference, coupled with the
identification of the hindfin as Ichthyosaurus
conybeari (see below), a rare species known almost
exclusively from the Lower Jurassic (upper
Hettangian to lower Pliensbachian) of Charmouth-
Lyme Regis, Dorset (Massare and Lomax, 2016a),
confirms the pelvis-hindfin block derives from this
location where fossils are typically found in a greyish
blue mudstone matrix, similar to that seen here. Most
importantly, an ammonite is embedded in the matrix
(Figure 2A) adjacent to the pelvis. Based on
morphology and preservation, it is likely an
Asteroceras ammonite form that is known from the
Upper Sinemurian Obtusum Chronozone, Stellare
Subchronozone (beds 84a-89 of Lang and Spath,
1926) of the Black Ven Marl Member, Charmouth
Mudstone Formation at Charmouth, Dorset (P.G.
Davis and M. Edmunds, pers. comm., DRL, 2021).
The matrix surrounding the rest of the skeleton
is from the Posidonia Shale (Posidonienschiefer) and
is thus Toarcian in age. This is based on the
identification of an ammonite imbedded in the
surrounding darker matrix, immediately posterior to
the hindfin block (Figure 2B), as well as our first-hand
knowledge of ichthyosaur specimens from the
Posidonia Shale. The preservation of the ammonite,
along with the surrounding sediment, are typical of
Holzmaden specimens (M. Maisch, pers. comm.,
DRL, 2021). More specifically, this is a small,
immature hildoceratid ammonite, perhaps an
Hildaites-like form or Harpoceras serpentinum,
which confirms this matrix block is from somewhere
in the Middle Posidonia Shale (M. Maisch, pers.
comm., DRL, 2021).
A third ammonite is positioned immediately
posterior to the skull, but appears to be set into, or at
least surrounded by, plaster rather than matrix (Figure
2C). The morphology does not match any of the more
typical specimens found at Holzmaden (M. Maisch,
pers. comm. DRL, 2021) and again based on
morphology and preservation, it is similar to
Caenisites from Charmouth, which would place it in
the Lower Sinemurian Turneri Chronozone (beds 73 –
81 of Lang et al., 1923 and Lang and Spath, 1926) of
the Shales with Beef and Black Ven Marl Members,
Charmouth Mudstone Formation, Dorset (P.G. Davis,
pers. comm. DRL, 2021). In any event, as this
ammonite is not in its original matrix, it does not offer
any reliable stratigraphic information about the
studied specimen. It also contradicts the stratigraphic
details of the ammonite found in situ on the hindfin-
pelvis block.
DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISON
RNHM F5672 comprises a real hindfin and
pelvic material collected from the Charmouth-Lyme
Regis area, Dorset (specifically Sinemurian in age),
real caudal and dorsal vertebrae from an indeterminate
location (including some caudal vertebrae which have
been placed as dorsal vertebrae), an apparent replica
forefin and coracoid from an unknown specimen (and
age), and a forged skull with some real teeth and set in
a rock matrix (Figure 1). Together, this material gives
the appearance of a ‘complete skeleton’, which is set
entirely into a matrix block of Posidonia Shale
(Toarcian age) from Holzmaden (or surrounding
area), Germany. To clarify the description, the
specimen is discussed in sub-sections below.
Skull (Forgery)—The skull is entirely fake and
carved from plaster (Figure 3A). However, detail in
the carving of some elements appears realistic and
34 PALUDICOLA, VOL. 14, NO. 1, 2022
FIGURE 1: RNHM F5672, a composite ichthyosaur skeleton set into a large block of Posidonia Shale matrix from the Holzmaden area, Germany.
(A) Unaltered photo, (B) illustration of the individual sections labelled as segments (S1-S6). The skull (blue) is a forgery, but includes some poorly
preserved real teeth. The vertebral column is largely genuine and composed of various sections from different individuals. Color coding of the
vertebral column (from left to right) bright green (S1): caudals belonging to one individual; no color (S2); four associated centra that are connected
with ribs and appear embedded in matrix, but might belong to the previous set of vertebrae; orange (S3): mix of dorsal and caudal vertebrae with
a supposed transition from dorsals to caudals, probably from two individuals; red (S4): block showing the transition from dorsals to caudals from
one individual; yellow (S5): set of caudal vertebrae; dark green (S6): string of distal caudals probably belonging to one individual. The forefin and
pectoral girdle (dark grey) are made of plaster. The encircled block contains the authentic hindfins, pelvic elements and some ribs belonging to
Ichthyosaurus conybeari from the Upper Sinemurian (Lower Jurassic) of Lyme Regis-Charmouth, England. Scale bar = 10 cm.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
shows that time and effort was put into constructing
the skull fairly accurately. Portions of the skull have
multiple scalpel lines extending across it, which may
have been intentional to provide ‘detail’ in the surface
of the ‘bones’, but which do not match what is
expected for an authentic specimen. The shape and
structure of the skull suggest it was probably based on
an original ichthyosaur skull, as the large eye and long
snout are somewhat reminiscent of the Lower Jurassic
genus Leptonectes (McGowan, 1989; 1996), known
primarily from Dorset and Somerset, England, and
which would match the initial identification written on
the label of the SMNS replica.
The orbital region is particularly well done.
Some of the ‘bones’ appear discernible, including the
lacrimal, prefrontal, jugal with an almost 90-degree
bend in the dorsal ramus, and postfrontal that occupies
almost all of the dorsal margin of the orbit. The
sclerotic plates are also shaped appropriately. The
‘bones’ in the post-orbital region of the skull,
however, are not as well defined. There are two
openings that are surrounded by ‘bone’, one of which
apparently indicates the upper temporal fenestra, but
the other is a mystery and clearly a mistake. A circular
‘blob’ of plaster is probably meant to indicate the
basioccipital condyle, but there is no detail or
structure. Portions of the skull and mandible show
cracks that expose the internal structure of the plaster,
although care has been taken to follow the anatomy of
the lower jaw, which includes a distinct groove
(representing the surangular foramen). Notably, there
is a clear difference in ‘bone’ color approximately 10
cm posterior from the tip of the snout, which might
suggest that different paint had been used.
Alternatively, it is possible that the creator was
(unknowingly?) emulating other modified specimens
LOMAX ET AL.—THE ULTIMATE ‘IFFYOSAUR’COMPOSITE 35
FIGURE 2: Ammonites associated with RNHM F5672. (A) A juvenile Asteroceras from the Upper Sinemurian Charmouth Mudstone Formation,
Charmouth, Dorset. (B) An immature hildoceratid ammonite whose preservation and morphology are consistent with typical Holzmaden
ammonites. (C) A probable Caenisites from the Lower Sinemurian Charmouth Mudstone Formation, Charmouth, Dorset. See text for more specific
details on stratigraphy. Note, A and B are in situ whereas C is surrounded by plaster, into which it appears to be set. Scale bars = 1 cm.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
in which the anterior portion of the snout had been
added, thus showing a darker or different colored
section. This type of modification is often found in
restored specimens (e.g., Hauffiopteryx, Maxwell and
Cortés, 2020, fig 9D; Ichthyosaurus, Massare and
Lomax, 2016a, fig 2). Almost all of the teeth, except
for a few poorly preserved original teeth under the
‘maxilla’, are made of plaster. The detail appears
somewhat anatomically accurate, which might
indicate that some are copies of real teeth positioned
at different angles.
Forefin and Coracoid (Possible Cast)—The
forefin and coracoid (Figures 3B-C) are made of
plaster and might be replicas of real specimens. The
forefin morphology is unusual and would probably
represent something new if found to be from an actual
specimen. Admittedly, the possibility remains that the
forefin may have been modified, carved, cast, or
simply pieced together from other bones prior to it
being replicated and added to this specimen, thus
making the forefin morphology even more unreliable
(Figure 3B). Another possibility is that the fin was
entirely fabricated based on comparisons with the
morphology of the authentic hindfins, which it closely
resembles (i.e., the creator simply sculpted a larger
version of the hindfin to use as a forefin).
Nevertheless, a brief description is included below.
The forefin is presented as a left in dorsal view,
but there is no prominent dorsal process in the
humerus. The proximal end is not robust, the shaft is
very narrow, and the distal end is much wider than the
proximal end. This shape, especially in being much
more slender and with a smaller proximal region, is
somewhat femur-like, which could suggest this is a
femur set in the place of a humerus (the reverse has
been observed in a composite specimen of
Ichthyosaurus from the Lower Jurassic of Lyme
Regis, Dorset, DRL pers. obs. OUMNH J.13800) or
an entire hindfin set in place of a forefin; however, the
latter is unlikely due to the morphology of the other
elements in the forefin.
The forefin has three primary digits (II, III, and
IV) and three elements are present in the distal carpal
(third) row. Similar morphology is seen in other
Lower Jurassic taxa, such as Temnodontosaurus,
Excalibosaurus and Protoichthyosaurus (Motani,
1999; McGowan and Motani, 2003; Lomax et al.,
2017). However, in the former two taxa, the number
of elements in the third row indicate the fixed number
of primary digits in the forefin. In the studied
specimen, however, there is a very small anterior
bifurcation from distal carpal 2 in the metacarpal
(fourth) row, thus bringing the total digit count to four.
The only ichthyosaur having three elements in the
third row with a bifurcation of distal carpal 2 is
Protoichthyosaurus (Appleby, 1979; Lomax et al.
2017). In Protoichthyosaurus, however, the first
element of the bifurcation is always proximodistally
long, hexagonal and is always positioned between
distal carpal 2 and distal carpal 3 where it almost
separates them. This is not the same condition as in
the studied specimen. There is also a distal bifurcation
in the forefin of Protoichthyosaurus, leading to a total
of five digits (including the two bifurcated digits),
whereas there appears to be no distal bifurcation in the
studied specimen. A posterior accessory digit is also
located at the level of the distal carpal row. A posterior
accessory digit is always present in
Protoichthyosaurus and occasionally in specimens of
Ichthyosaurus (Lomax et al., 2017). Similarly,
specimens of Stenopterygius occasionally have a
posterior accessory digit, which may provide further
evidence for modification or ‘fancification’ of the
forefin beyond a standard morphology.
The radius, radiale, and distal carpal 2 are all
notched. A notched radius occurs in several taxa such
as Leptonectes tenuirostris and Stenopterygius spp.
(Motani, 1999; McGowan and Motani, 2003;
Maxwell, 2012). Notching of other elements in the
forefin occurs in other Lower Jurassic genera too, such
as Temnodontosaurus, Ichthyosaurus, and
Stenopterygius (Motani, 1999; Massare and Lomax,
36 PALUDICOLA, VOL. 14, NO. 1, 2022
FIGURE 3: RNHM F5672, close-ups of the faked or modelled elements. (A). Skull. (B) Forefin, note the notched ‘radius’. As discussed in the
text, the forefin might be a cast of an original specimen but it seems unlikely. (C) Coracoid. Scale bars = 5 cm.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2018; Maxwell, 2012). One element of the bifurcated
digit at the third phalangeal row may be a natural
notch or could be damaged. It should also be noted
that the morphology of the forefin, with three elements
in the third row and the presence of an anterior
bifurcation, is a morphology observed in the hindfin
of some species of Ichthyosaurus, but the bifurcation
is never reduced to a small digit as in this specimen
(Massare and Lomax, 2019). The unusual forefin
structure might suggest something new, or that the
entire forefin has been reconstructed. The latter seems
most likely.
The coracoid (Figure 3C) has both a well-
defined anterior and posterior notch which is similar
to Ichthyosaurus and Protoichthyosaurus (Massare
and Lomax, 2018; Lomax et al. 2017). However, the
LOMAX ET AL.—THE ULTIMATE ‘IFFYOSAUR’COMPOSITE 37
posterior notch is much smaller and more enclosed
than the anterior, a morphology somewhat similar to
the coracoid of CAMSM J35183, an example of
Ichthyosaurus (DRL pers. obs.).
Vertebral Column (Real, but Composite)—
The vertebral column is mainly composed of caudal
vertebrae of an unknown number of individuals and
taxa (Figure 4). Given the lack of data for the
specimen, and the lack of any obvious defining
characteristics of the vertebrae, we are unsure about
their provenance or specific identification. However,
considering that the matrix block the skeleton has
been purposely set into comes from the Holzmaden
area (Posidonia Shale), and given that Stenopterygius
is common at Holzmaden and the color of the
vertebrae matches other bones from Holzmaden, it
appears likely that they are from multiple individuals
of Stenopterygius from this location. However, we
cannot entirely exclude the possibility that they might
derive from another ichthyosaur and locality. None of
the vertebrae are part of the underlying matrix block;
all seem to be set into the block of matrix.
We included a color coding in Figure 1 to
illustrate the mix of vertebrae found on the specimen.
The isolated centrum posterior to the skull probably
does not belong to the rest of the vertebrae highlighted
in green (Figure 1, S1), and it is sitting in plaster. The
first string of vertebrae immediately posterior to the
skull (Figure 1, S1, indicated in green) are caudals
belonging to one individual (Figure 4A). At least four
associated centra follow this string (Figure 1, S2, not
color coded) might belong with the previous
vertebrae, but some are associated with ribs and
appear partly embedded in matrix or plaster, so they
might be another set of centra from another individual.
The next set of vertebrae (Figure 1, S3, indicated in
orange) is a jumbled mix of dorsal and caudal
vertebrae that show an apparent transition from
double-headed ribs to single-headed ribs (i.e. from
dorsals to caudals), perhaps composed of elements
from two individuals, considering the mix of caudals
and dorsals and the change in size. However, the
following set of vertebrae (Figure 1, S4, indicated in
red) are yet another block showing the transition from
dorsals to caudals, this time possibly from a single
individual (Figure 4B). The next set of vertebrae
(Figure 1, S5, colored in yellow) form part of the
proximal portion of the tail, once again representing a
set of caudal vertebrae. The remaining distal caudals
(Figure 1, S6, indicated in dark green, Figure 4C),
could belong to the same specimen as the preceding
caudals (in yellow), although this cannot be confirmed
with certainty.
Hindfins and Pelvis (Real)—The hindfins and
pelvis (Figure 5) are authentic and appear mostly
complete. Whether they belong together might be
questionable, based solely on the composite nature of
the rest of the specimen. However, the proximity and
contact of the pelvic bones with the hindfins suggest
that they are from the same individual. The left hindfin
(left on specimen) is in dorsal view and is the more
complete of the two.
The femur is long and narrow with a slightly
expanded proximal end and widely expanded distal
end which is noticeably much wider than the
proximal. There are three primary digits (II, III, and
IV) and a proximal and distal bifurcation which results
in a total of five digits, a morphology that is unique to
Ichthyosaurus (Massare and Lomax, 2019). The left
hindfin has four elements in the third row, resulting
from the anterior digital bifurcation, but the right fin
(right on specimen) has three elements in the third row
and a bifurcation in the fourth row. This bifurcation,
however, probably occurred in the third row because
a circular space for a phalanx is present in the matrix
and suggests the element has since been lost. Four
elements in the third row is a morphology found in all
species of Ichthyosaurus (but see discussion of hindfin
morphotypes in Massare and Lomax, 2019). A
posterior accessory digit is also present on both
hindfins at the level of the fourth row.
The tibia and tarsal 2 are notched. In
Ichthyosaurus, a notched tibia is only found in one
species, Ichthyosaurus conybeari, where it is
considered a unique character (Massare and Lomax,
2016a, 2018, 2019). The metatarsal is unnotched, but
the next two distal elements appear to be notched on
both fins, although this could be due to damage or
overpreparation. In addition, the fibula is both
proximodistally and anteroposteriorly larger than the
tibia, which is also unique to I. conybeari (Massare
and Lomax, 2016a, 2019). Based on the morphology
discussed here, we assign the hindfins to I. conybeari.
Articulated pubes, ischia and part of one ilium
are preserved. As in all species of Ichthyosaurus, the
pubis and ischium are not fused (Massare and Lomax,
2018). The pubis is marginally shorter than the
ischium and the proximal end and shaft are narrow,
but the distal end is flared and somewhat ‘fan’ shaped.
The ischium is long and narrow with a slightly robust
proximal and distal end. The morphology of both
elements is typical of Ichthyosaurus (Massare and
Lomax, 2018).
However, if the pelvis definitely belongs with
the hindfins, then this may have wider implications.
Massare and Lomax (2016a) revised the species I.
conybeari with the description of new material. This
included the first identification of a pelvis in I.
conybeari, in which the ischium is much shorter than
the pubis, a condition that is not present in the studied
specimen. This suggests that the unusual morphology
reported by Massare and Lomax (2016a) could be
related to sexual dimorphism, ontogeny, pathology, or
simply that the pelvis of the specimen studied herein
has been added to the hindfins. The latter seems
unlikely due to the similar preservation and the
proximity of the pelvis to the hindfins. However, a
crack in the matrix extends along the posterior edge of
the left femur, fibula, and calcaneum. A similar crack
occurs along the anterior edge of the right hindfin.
38 PALUDICOLA, VOL. 14, NO. 1, 2022
FIGURE 4: RNHM F5672, close-ups of the axial skeleton. (A) Set of caudal vertebrae placed immediately after the skull. (B) Mixed vertebrae,
from left to right, showing the transition from dorsals (with diapophysis and parapophysis for rib attachment) to caudals (showing single headed
rib facet) and then from caudals to dorsals in reverse. (C) Distal-most caudals. All vertebrae are genuine and possibly from ichthyosaur specimens
from Holzmaden (Germany). See text for more details. Scale bars = 5 cm.
LOMAX ET AL.—THE ULTIMATE ‘IFFYOSAUR’COMPOSITE 39
FIGURE 5: RNHM F5672, hindfin and pelvic elements of Ichthyosaurus conybeari from the Lower Jurassic (Sinemurian) of Lyme Regis-
Charmouth, Dorset, England. Abbreviations: fe –femur, fi –fibula, il –ilium, is –ischium, ti –tibia, pu –pubis. Scale bar = 5 cm.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This could suggest the hindfins have been reset into
the matrix.
DISCUSSION
Making composite fossils is not a new practice,
as fossil collectors, sellers, and museums have
produced composites for centuries (Corbacho and
Sendino, 2012). The distinction between a composite
and a fake lies in transparency of context. Where a
museum may explicitly state that a mounted specimen
is a combination of elements from several individuals
of the same species, it would never unknowingly
display a composite with the intention of passing it off
as a genuine fossil.
For those who seek only profit, it is to the benefit
of the seller to provide potential buyers with
specimens that appear complete. As fossils are rare
and finite resources, the more complete a specimen
appears, the more a potential buyer is willing to pay
for it. Over the past several decades, there has been an
apparent increase in the commercialization of fossils,
perhaps driven in part by the high-dollar auctions of
specimens of Tyrannosaurus rex (‘SUE’, which sold
for $8.36 million in 1997; and more recently ‘Stan’,
which sold for $31.8 million in 2020; Vogel, 2020), or
by the ease of listing fossils for sale on the internet. Of
course, the sale of fossils is nothing new (Corbacho
and Sendino, 2012). If best practices are followed and
scientifically significant fossils are legally excavated
and sold to an institution so that they can be studied in
perpetuity, then science benefits. Unfortunately, there
will always be unscrupulous individuals that create,
misrepresent, and sell fakes and ‘enhanced’ specimens
40 PALUDICOLA, VOL. 14, NO. 1, 2022
to make a bigger profit. For example, a seemingly
‘complete’ ichthyosaur like that described herein will
always sell for more money than a single authentic fin
(Maisch, 1998).
Fossil forgery can sometimes be extremely
difficult to distinguish, even to the trained eye.
Credible institutions and researchers have unwittingly
purchased forgeries or included them in their data sets
(Rowe et al., 2001). Perhaps the most infamous fossil
fake in recent years is “Archaeoraptor liaoningensis”,
a supposed “missing link” that purportedly revealed
new insight into the evolutionary history between
dinosaurs and modern birds. The “Archaeoraptor”
forgery was created by layering pieces of fine-grained
shale with authentic elements from at least two
different species. Additionally, the two specimens
were each also new species, but were combined in
favor of higher commercial value. Both were nearly
lost to science as a result (Rowe et al., 2001).
Although “Archaeoraptor” caused confusion and
controversy at the time, today it provides a prime
example of the importance of verifying the
authenticity of potentially significant fossils.
To uncover any further details of the studied
specimen (RNHM F5672), DRL tracked down and
reached out to the original seller, who will remain
anonymous. The seller confirmed that the fossil had
been reconstructed but stated that “…we have
annihilated the Reutlingen papers ca. 2 years ago”
(pers. comm., DRL, 2018). Unfortunately, this means
important details about the reconstruction process and
exactly when and where the various skeletal elements
were found are now lost.
As illustrated by Massare and Lomax (2016b),
not all ichthyosaur composites should be discounted
as “bad” or scientifically unusable. With a careful
assessment using appropriate methods, valid
information can be obtained from the authentic
portions of composite specimens. Even though
RNHM F5672 is a composite that was largely faked,
the rare Ichthyosaurus conybeari block (comprising
the hindfins, pelvis and some ribs) provides useful
information.
Now that the components of RNHM F5672 are
understood, it can serve as a valuable teaching
specimen. Thus far, it has contributed to our
knowledge of fossil fakery techniques. If placed on
exhibit in a museum, such a specimen could help
educate the public about the ethical issues of fossil
forgery and commercial collecting, as well as the
techniques used to better detect fakes. We hope that
with proper analysis and documentation of fossil
specimens, museum professionals and visiting
researchers will not be deceived by fakes or disguised
composites, and that this ‘Frankenstein’ ichthyosaur
will help educate the public about the world of fossil
fakes and forgeries.
CONCLUSIONS
The specimen described herein (RNHM F5672)
is unique for several reasons. It is, to our knowledge,
the first ichthyosaur composite comprised of material
from two different countries: Charmouth-Lyme Regis,
Dorset, England, and Holzmaden, Germany. It is also
the first documented composite ichthyosaur to be
made up of specimens from two different geological
stages: the Dorset specimen is from the Sinemurian
whereas the German material is Toarcian. The skull is
entirely carved from plaster, although parts might be
based upon real specimens. Likewise, the forefin and
coracoid are possibly replicas of an original specimen.
The only scientifically significant portion of the
skeleton is the block containing the hindfins and
pelvic bones, which comes from the Charmouth-Lyme
Regis area in Dorset, England and can be readily
assigned to Ichthyosaurus. Within the genus
Ichthyosaurus, the presence of a notched tibia, along
with a fibula that is both proximodistally and
anteroposteriorly longer than the tibia, are characters
found only in Ichthyosaurus conybeari, a rare species
known from just six confirmed specimens (Massare
and Lomax, 2016a, 2019), although three others might
belong to this species (see discussion in Massare and
Lomax, 2019).
The ability to identify fake from real fossils in a
single specimen is an important but sometimes
difficult task. It is important to research the history of
the specimen (if it exists) before describing unique
morphological features or new geological
information. In order for researchers to minimize
future difficulties over publishing on ‘Frankenstein’
specimens, we recommend a healthy dose of
scepticism and research into the history of a specimen
prior to study. Overlooking the details and
completeness of a specimen can lead to issues of
credibility of researchers, institutions, and even of
paleontology in general. Besides experience, new and
improved non-destructive technologies, such as
chemical analyses, X-ray or CT-scanning, and the
analysis of fossils under UV light (e.g., Eklund et al.,
2018), enable researchers to distinguish skeletal
elements and the surrounding matrix as added,
sculpted, or carved more easily than ever before.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to Günter Wahlefeld (RNHM)
who kindly provided access to the specimen and took
the photographs in figure 2. Katrin Sachs assisted
during the examination of RNHM F5672. DRL thanks
Michael Maisch, Judy Massare, Richard Forrest, and
Erin Maxwell (SMNS) for helpful discussions and for
providing information about composite or altered
ichthyosaur specimens. DRL wishes to extend further
LOMAX ET AL.—THE ULTIMATE ‘IFFYOSAUR’COMPOSITE 41
thanks to Erin Maxwell (SMNS), Eliza Howlett
(OUMNH) and Matt Riley (CAMSM) for access to
their collections. We thank Consuelo Sendino, an
anonymous reviewer, and the editor for their helpful
comments which improved this manuscript. Thanks
also to Paul Davis and Murray Edmunds for their
identifications and comments on the Dorset
ammonites and to Michael Maisch for his
dentification and comments on the Holzmaden
ammonite.
LITERATURE CITED
Appleby, R. M. 1979. The affinities of Liassic and
later ichthyosaurs. Palaeontology 22:921–946.
Buttler, C. J. and S. R. Howe. 2002. Ichthyosaur to
iffyosaur: from fact to fiction. The Geological
Curator 7:305-308.
Corbacho, J. and Sendino, C. 2012. Fossil fakes and
their recognition. Deposits Magazine 30:35-40.
De La Beche, H. T. and Conybeare, W. D. 1821.
Notice of the discovery of a new fossil animal,
forming a link between the Ichthyosaurus and
crocodile, together with general remarks on the
osteology of the Ichthyosaurus. Transactions of
the Geological Society of London 5:559–594.
Eklund, M. J., Aase, A. K. and Bell. C. J. 2018.
Progressive Photonics: Methods and applications
of sequential imaging using visible and non-
visible spectra to enhance data-yield and facilitate
forensic interpretation of fossils. Journal of
Paleontological Techniques 20:1-36.
Home, E. 1814. Some account of the fossil remains of
an animal more nearly allied to fishes than any
other classes of animals. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London
101:571–577.
Huene, F. von. 1966. Ein sehr junger und
ungewöhnlicher Ichthyosaurier aus dem oberen
Lias von Holzmaden. Neues Jahrbuch für
Geologie und Paläontologie 124:53–55.
Lang, W. D. and Spath, L. F. 1926. The Black Marl of
Black Ven and Stonebarrow, in the Lias of the
Dorset coast. Quarterly Journal of the Geological
Society of London 82:144–165.
Lang, W. D., Spath, L. F. and Richardson, W. A. 1923.
Shales-with-‘Beef’, a sequence in the Lower Lias
of the Dorset Coast. Quarterly Journal of the
Geological Society of London 79:47–66.
Lomax, D. R., Massare, J. A. and Mistry, R. T. 2017.
The taxonomic utility of forefin morphology in
Lower Jurassic ichthyosaurs: Protoichthyosaurus
and Ichthyosaurus. Journal of Vertebrate
Paleontology 37:e1361433.
Maisch, M. 1998. Kurze Übersicht der Ichthyosaurier
des Posidonienschiefers mit Bemerkungen zur
Taxionomie der Stenopterygiidae und
Temnodontosauridae. Neues Jahrbuch für
Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen
209:401–431.
Maisch, M. 2008. Revision der Gattung
Stenopterygius Jaekel, 1904 emend. von Huene,
1922 (Reptilia: Ichthyosauria) aus dem unteren
Jura Westeuropas. Palaeodiversity 1:227–271.
Massare, J. A. and Lomax, D. R. 2014. Recognising
composite specimens of Jurassic ichthyosaurs in
historical collections. The Geological Curator
10:9–15.
Massare, J. A. and Lomax. D. R. 2016a. A new
specimen of Ichthyosaurus conybeari (Reptilia,
Ichthyosauria) from Watchet, Somerset, England,
and a reexamination of the species. Journal of
Vertebrate Paleontology 36, DOI:
10.1080/02724634.2016.1163264.
Massare, J. A. and Lomax. D. R. 2016b. Composite
skeletons of Ichthyosaurus in historic collections.
Paludicola, 10:207–250.
Massare, J. A. and Lomax. D. R. 2018. A taxonomic
reassessment of Ichthyosaurus communis and I.
intermedius and a revised diagnosis for the genus.
Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, 16:263–
277.
Massare, J. A. and Lomax, D. R. 2019. Hindfins of
Ichthyosaurus: effects of large sample size on
‘distinct’ morphological characters. Geological
Magazine 156:725–744.
Mateus, O., Overbeeke, M. and F. Rita. 2008.
Dinosaur frauds, hoaxes and "Frankensteins":
How to distinguish fake and genuine vertebrate
fossils. Journal of Paleontological Techniques
2:1–5.
Maxwell, E. E. 2012. New metrics to differentiate
species of Stenopterygius (Reptilia:
Ichthyosauria) from the Lower Jurassic of
Southwestern Germany. Journal of Paleontology
86:105–115.
Maxwell, E. E. and Cortés, D. 2020. A revision of the
Early Jurassic ichthyosaur Hauffiopteryx
(Reptilia: Ichthyosauria), and description of a
new species from southwestern Germany.
Palaeontologia Electronica, 23:a31.
McGowan, 1989. Leptopterygius tenuirostris and
other long-snouted ichthyosaurs from the English
Lower Lias. Palaeontology 32:409–427.
McGowan, C. 1990. Problematic ichthyosaurs from
southwest England: A question of authenticity.
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 10:72–79.
McGowan, C. 1996. The taxonomic status of
Leptopterygius HUENE, 1922 (Reptilia:
Ichthyosauria). Canadian Journal of Earth
Sciences 33:439-443.
McGowan, C. and Motani, R. 2003. Handbook of
Paleoherpetology, Ichthyopterygia. Verlag Dr.
Friedrich Pfeil, Munich 175 pp.
Motani, R. 1999. On the evolution and homologies of
ichthyopterygian forefins. Journal of Vertebrate
Paleontology 19:28–41.
42 PALUDICOLA, VOL. 14, NO. 1, 2022
Rowe, T., Ketcham, R. A., Denison, C., Colbert, M.,
Xu, X. and Currie, P. J. 2001. The Archaeoraptor
forgery. Nature 410 6828:539–540.
Torrens, H. S. 1995. Mary Anning (1799–1847) of
Lyme; ‘the greatest fossilist the world ever
knew’. British Journal for the History of Science
28:257–84.
Vogel, G. 2020. Stan the T. rex sells for record $32
million at auction. Science Magazine. Available
at https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/
stan-t-rex-sells-record-32-million-auction,
accessed February 21, 2021.
Wild, R. L. Von. 1976. Eine Ichthyosaurier-
Fälschung. [A forged ichthyosaur.] – Neues
Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie 6:382–
384.
