Introduction

A controversial investigation into a purported new species of mosasaur has raised alarming questions about the authenticity of its fossil remains. Initially described in a study published in 2021, the species, named *Xenodens calminechari*, may be based on forged fossils, according to recent findings by a team of researchers from the University of Alberta.

Background of the Discovery

The conflict centers on a partial jaw bone and four distinctive teeth discovered in a phosphate mine located in Khouribga, Morocco. According to the original team, these teeth exhibited a unique morphology, characterized by small, short, bladelike structures that supposedly set them apart from all known squamates and tetrapods. However, a new study published in December 2024 in *The Anatomical Record* casts doubt on the validity of these claims.

Discrepancies Found

Research lead author Henry Sharpe, along with his colleagues, is calling for detailed computed tomography (CT) scans of the fossil to determine its authenticity. The team found several discrepancies in the jaw's structure and tooth arrangement which suggest that the fossil may not be what it seems. Notably, they observed that two teeth were packed into a single socket—an anomaly that contradicts the known biological traits of mosasaurs, which typically have distinct tooth sockets for each tooth.

Concerns Over the Fossil's Origin

Mosasaurs, an extinct group of marine reptiles that reigned during the late Cretaceous period (approximately 145 million to 66 million years ago), were known for their diverse range of sizes and adaptations. The jawbone of *X. calminechari* was initially heralded for its novel tooth structure, but the findings reported by Sharpe have initiated a closer examination of these claims, particularly in light of how mosasaurs naturally replaced their teeth throughout their lives.

Additional Mechanical Anomalies

Moreover, the structure of the teeth themselves raises further suspicion. Researchers pointed out the presence of 'medial overlap,' where additional bone-like material encroaches upon the tooth structures—another feature inconsistent with the normal development seen in mosasaur fossils.

Doubtful Excavation Practices

Interestingly, the fossil has a dubious origin; it was not excavated by trained paleontologists but rather retrieved from a phosphate mine notorious for harboring forged fossils. The implications of this situation extend beyond the mere classification of this species, hinting at broader concerns regarding fossil authenticity within commercial fossil markets.

Ethical Concerns in Scientific Research

Attempts to contact Nick Longrich, the lead author of the original study, for clarification on the fossil's provenance have encountered roadblocks. Sharpe noted that Longrich's response raised red flags, indicating that vital information regarding the holotype, or type specimen, might not be transparently shared, breaching ethical norms in scientific research.

Community Support and Call for Action

Paleontologist Paulina Jiménez-Huidobro from the University of Bonn lent her support to the findings of the latest study by emphasizing the unusual nature of the fossil's dentition and advocating for CT scans to uncover internal structures and material distinctions.

Conclusion

As the debate rages on, the discovery of *Xenodens calminechari* challenges the foundations of paleontological research and urges scholars to navigate carefully through the murky waters of fossil authenticity. The looming question remains: is this ancient sea monster the real deal, or has it been merely a product of forgery? The scientific community awaits definitive evidence that will reveal the truth behind this captivating mystique.