“Picasso” update

We’ve made a lot of progress the last few weeks on “Picasso”, the Carmel Church baleen whale we’ve been working on since last year. We’ve finally begun rebuilding the skull in our sandbox, and it’s starting to look more like a whale (above).

“Picasso” was in rough shape when we found it in 2005. While the skeleton was in good shape, the skull was in the weathered zone and had taken a lot of damage before we even found it. A freak snowstorm and plummeting temperatures in the middle of the excavation didn’t help. Finally, the skull was severely crushed, even by Carmel Church standards. With all these things lined up against it, I knew “Picasso” was going to be a challenge to prepare, and things have gone slowly.

What we have so far is the back end of the skull, with most of the floor of the braincase. The roof of the braincase (the supraoccipital) is present, but I’m still putting it back together. To help you get oriented, here’s the skull of “Sinistra”, our Diorocetus, with “Picasso” below in the same orientation for comparison (these images are to approximately the same scale :

“Picasso” is a somewhat larger whale than “Sinistra”, in addition to some differences in the shape of the squamosals (they are different species). Don’t let the morphology of “Sinistra” fool you on size; the back of its skull is somewhat deformed, and the zygomatic processes are more divergent, making it appear larger than it is.

For those of you interested in the technical details of baleen whale relationships, here’s a feature to ponder. The arrow in the image below is pointing to the posterior process of the periotic, which is so large that it’s just visible on the side of the skull even in dorsal view.

This entry was posted in "Picasso", Carmel Church Quarry, Chesapeake Group and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to “Picasso” update

  1. boesse says:

    Diorocetus is a bit out of my scope of research (a damn good thing, because there are simply a ton of undescribed cetotheres s. l. or ones that need revision/redescription) – but now this specimen has really piqued my interest. I’m not going to say anything further, except to point out the very anteriorly oriented zygomatic processes, high lambdoidal crests… those aren’t fossae on the dorsal posteriormost squamosal, are those?

    Very eeenteresting…

  2. Alton Dooley says:

    I thought you might be interested in this one…

    Those are shallow fossae on the squamosal, but they’re not particularly more pronounced than in Diorocetus, I think.

  3. Doug says:

    almost looks like some king of vertebra when viewed from the top. Anymore to the skull or is that yet to be determined?

  4. Alton Dooley says:

    We should have almost the whole skull, but it’s so badly crushed I don’t know how much I can reconstruct

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s