Le mastodonte d'Ataka, espèce inconnue de cétacé?

Bonjour,

Suite à l'article:
Le mastodonte d'Ataka

Je souhaite discuter du mastodonte d'Ataka découvert en Egypte en Janvier 1950.

Ma question est la suivante:

Pensez vous qu'il s'agit d'une espèce inconnue ou d'un cétacé ayant eu un accident?

I've done in the past a deeper research in this case. The identification is possible for everyone with some knowledge in biology and whales but some of the unfortunate first "expert" assessment seem to count for some people more than the listed characteristics. Unfortunately this is based on an inadequate level of knowledge. But let's beginn with the zoological identification:

The “tusks” can easily be identified as lower arches of a baleen whale. The lower jaw of baleen whales (Mysticeti) consists of two long, rounded arches and where the toothless bones come together (in the symphysical-region) they are not linked. Injured through a collision with a ship (one account of such an unfortunate incident only few days before is listed) these lower arches “break” and create the impression of protruding tusks. The "cilia like appendages" can easily be explained as nothing more than the flesh of the head or the throat.

By the way on a picture of the carcass with a good resolution can be detected that there are two blowholes instead of one as mentioned in some articles.

Contrary to the view of the carcass to have no eyes there are “very small eyes on the remains of what were apparently fins” mentioned in a press release. But please see for yourself who you can find the eyes in Bryde’s whale (and other cetacean species) and you find that in the picture the eyes are simply obscured by the “cilia like appendages”.

A specific feature of the upper side of the carcass enables to identify the species. On the head you will see three elongated ridges leading from the mouth up to the blowholes. The median ridge is wide and even at lower resolutions relatively clear viewable, while the two side ridges are only visible at close range or at higher resolution. Through these specific feature one can safely identify the carcass as a Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera brydei).

And now for the claim that experts of that time couldn't identify the carcass. That's false. In fact the identity remained also for the Egyptian scientists not long a mystery. Beginning with 14 January 1950 you will find in the press-archives that the Egyptian experts were in agreement and the corpse could be identified: it was nothing more than a young whale with a prominent “broken” jawbone from a fatal wound he suffered! You also will find this whale listed in Laist, D. W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet und. M. Podesta. (2001). Collisions between ships and whales. Marine Mammal Science, 17(1): 35-75. Table I. Records of collisions between motorized ships and whales prior to 1951: Bryde’s whale. killed. tanker. Red Sea, Egypt. Anonymous 1950.

Case closed.

Monster Heaven a écrit:Un baleineau à la mâchoire cassée? cela me semble peu probable, sur la photo, on dirait qu'il a comme des défenses d'éléphant.

Justement ces deux soit disant défense serait la mâchoire qui se serait séparée en deux parties et je dois dire que cette idée est autant acceptable à mon avis que la nouvelle espèce.

Je ne pense absolument pas à une nouvelle espèce de cétacé pour ma part et l'hypothèse du cétacé mutilé par une mine ou un récif me convient très bien.

Traduction de la réponse de Marozi :

Naturellement nous ne savons pas ce qui a vraiment causé les blessures ... Mais comme je l'ai écrit dans mon article sur ce cas la jeune baleine a été bien sûr frappée par le bateau-citerne norvégien et ses hélices quelques jours avant de s'échouer. C'est accepté dans la littérature scientifique.

Marozi a écrit:But as I've wrote in my article regarding this case the young whale was certainly hit by the norwegian tanker and his propellers few days before it washed ashore.

I agree with you, the jaw was broken by a shock, and two pseudo defenses appeared

Je pense comme toi, la mâchoire a été cassé par un choc, et deux défenses sont apparues