Search the Community

Updated 5/4/22 (in red) Updated 3/8/23 to add Carch photos of holotype Although a lot of this has already been posted on a number of topics, I thought consolidation might prove useful with some additional information. If you're planning to purchase theropod teeth from Morocco's Kem Kem Beds or already have some in your collection check this out. Moroccan theropods are poorly understood and not a lot has been published. Very few articulated skeletons have been found and most are partial and without a skull. There is also lots of mis-information, mostly unintentional, from some dealers but especially with online auction sites. Unfortunately these are the most misidentified commercially sold dinosaur fossil around. Please post your interest here on the forum before you buy. These strata are recognized as the Kem Kem Group, which is composed in the south of the lower Gara Sbaa and upper Douira formations, in the North the Deckar 2 and 3 Formations and in the central region as Akrabou and Ifezouane Formations. Quite a bit of material is has been made available to collectors from El Begaa which is the closest village to the locality Aferdou N’Chaft. Based on Nizar Ibrahim et al. / ZooKeys 928: 1–216 (2020) publication we can say this material is from the Gara Sbaa Formation in the Kem Kem Group There is also material becoming available from area 13 Iferda N'Ahouar which also appears to be the Gara Sbaa Formation. The distribution of the different groups of fossils can been see in the pie chart below. Dinosaurs make up a small percentage of what is collected. So first lets identify what is known to the best of my knowledge. Theropods that have been described across North Africa (focus on large bodied theropods). Ibrahim et al. not in agreement Theropods that have been described in Kem Kem: >Spinosaurus aegyptiacus * (Spinosauridae) *Some paleontologist believe this species is unique to Egypt and Kem Kem material should be identified as Spinosaurid indet. Lots of questions exist over Ibrahim (2014) diagnosis which validated this species. The question of multiple Spinosaurids is still an open issue. >Sigilmassasaurus brevicollis (Spinosauridae) Validity is questioned by Ibrahim et al. >Carcharodontosaurus saharicus (Carcharodontosauridae) >Sauroniops pachytholus (Carcharodontosauridae) Validity is questioned by Ibrahim et al. >Deltadromeus agilis (Neovenatoridae) Theropods that have not been described from the Kem Kem but isolated teeth may exist and have been reflected in scientific papers: >Dromaeosaurid sp.? Hendrickx suggested these are actually Noasaurid indet. >Abelisaurid indet. Theropod teeth that are sold commercially but no scientific evidence yet to link them to the Kem Kem: >Abelisaurus sp. (Not described from North Africa) >Rugops sp. (Only described from Niger) >Bahariasaurus sp. (Only described from Egypt) >Elaphrosaurus sp. (From Jurassic of Tanzania) So what is being sold and what are the issues? Spinosauridae Teeth are well understood by both collector and dealers, see photo. Issues are typically associated with restoration and compositing a larger tooth from multiple teeth. Teeth with matrix attached to them are suspect for restoration so be careful. At least two species of Spinosaurids exits and it's currently impossible to determine if they are Spinosaurus or Sigilmassasaurus or an Undescribed taxon. Conflicting taxonomic hypotheses have been proposed. Ibrahim at al (2014) suggest that all specimens found belong to Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. Evers et al (2015) regard Spinosaurus maroccanus and Sigiilmassaurus brevicollis as belonging to the same taxon S. brevicollis which is also supported by Hendrickx et al (2016). Ever at al (2015) also described additional specimens from a second unnamed Spinosaurid. Bottom line we do not have enough specimens to eliminate ontogenetic or sexual dimorphism differences and accurately describe Spinosaurids in the Kem Kem. So these teeth are best identified as: Spinosaurid indet. Vertical ridges can be present on both lingual and labial side, or absent on both or just one side.. Serrated : Spinosaurid teeth exist with a "beaded" carina. few examples of finely beaded teeth are popping up. Not sure we can currently say much about them if they are an evolutionary carryover on some teeth, an abberation in some jaws or a Baryonychinae type species. Carcharodontosauridae Not a lot is published on these teeth the and the best we have is from the holotype. Maxilla contained a few teeth No teeth were found on the partial dentary Teeth, those that are compressed and blade like, first photo. Wrinkles by the distal carina are diagnostic to this species. Mesial teeth are fat, slender and look very different (D shaped) (next three photos). Two species currently are described Carcharodontosaurus saharicus and Sauroniops pachytholus and its impossible to differentiate teeth between these taxons. Similiar to the Spinosaurid debate one exists with these two species and if Sauroniops is valid. Similiar to Spinosaurids the big issue is having enough specimens to make a proper determination in what exists. For these reasons best identified as : Carcharodontosaurid indet. On Lateral teeth marginal and transverse undulations can be present. Mesial carina reaches the base in most lateral teeth. Distal serration density typically greater than mesial on lateral teeth, opposite on mesial teeth. Lateral tooth Anterior Tooth Carcharodontosaurid indet Pre-Maxillary Tooth From the collection of @Omnomosaurus and identified by Christophe Hendrickx Serration Count: • Mesial: 12/5mm 8/5mm (closer to apex) • Distal: 9/5mm (just above midline) 7/5mm (closer to apex) CH: 34mm approx, CBL: 15mm, CBW: 9.5mm, CBR: .63 Key Features: Mesial carina ends mid-crown and is centrally placed. No marginal undulations present No transverse undulations present No longitudinal ridges present Weak short interdental sulci on one side of distal denticles at mid-cow Strongly displaced distal carina Braided enamel texture Photos by Omnomosaurus Theropod indet. There are also intermediate size teeth (1 1/2") that are being sold as Deltadromeus or another theropod. I believe these could be Deltadromeus teeth but until we see scientific evidence this morphology of tooth should be identified as Theropod indet. No skull was found with the holotype or in any other discoveries so we do not know what they look like. Carcharodontosaurid serrations Theropod indet. Dromaeosauridae: Teeth being sold as Dromaeosaurus are most likely misidentified, so here is what to look for. There are a few morphologies floating around but nothing as been formally described. Teeth are typically small around 1/2" (1.2cm) to over 1" (2.5cm) One morphology of these teeth are suggested by Hendrickx to be from a Noasaurid dinosaur. Although you see many sellers using the word Raptor next to what they are offering it's unknown if there is a true raptor in the Kem Kem. Abelisaurids are not raptors This figure identifies a study of isolated teeth by Richter (2015) and identifies two morphologies (A to D) and (E to G) as Dromaeosaurid. Mesial and distal carinae show a distinct density difference in serrations. The tip of the tooth extends past the base. On morph E/F a faint but visible constriction between crown and root is visible. The later form suggested by some paleontologists is most similiar to troodontids. Morph variant 3 that I have in my collection but not seen in any papers Mesial and distal carinae range show a distinct difference. A distinct twist to the mesial carina. It's unknown what this tooth belongs to. Abelisaurid indet. With new discoveries we can put a real species name to these teeth but currently they are indeterminate. These are easily identifiable but can easily be misidentified with certain morphologies of Dromaeosaurid teeth. The teeth are very compressed, the cross-section is oval at the base, the mesial side is strongly curved and the distal side is almost straight to the base of the tooth, see red lines in the photo. These teeth could be similar to Rugops since it's an Abelisaurid but we have no scientific information to suggest that they are and should be identified as Abelisaurid indet. Specimen UCPC 10 is extremely similar to Nigers Rugops but its missing several characteristics that definitively say its Rugops sp. Quite a few paleontologists have said its the same species. Premaxillary Bottom Line: There are NO theropod teeth in the Kem Kem Beds that you can currently definitively assign to a Genus, no less a Species, all should be identified to a family level.. If your interested here are some of the variations in morphologies of teeth from the Kem Kem

Never surprised at what may pop up in the Kem Kem, another twist, we really do know so little. All those collectors that think they have big teeth from Deltadromeus may have to change their thinking. Nothing here is set in stone, we still need a skull to fully describe this dinosaur. Christophe Hendrickx posted this: "According to this abstract, Deltadromeus would no longer be a noasaurid ceratosaur or a neovenaptorid allosauroid but a basal ornithomimosaur! This taxon moves so much along the theropod tree. It really needs a detailed description!" This is an abstract from a talk by Max Kellermann best image I can find

Unbelievable pterosaur diversity in this part of North Africa. This paper describes a unique small, long-beaked pterosaur from the Kem Kem Group of Morocco. Does not appear to be named. Paywalled https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667120303293

New paper on Kem Kem pterosaurs. Open Access. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12542-022-00642-6

Interesting paper. Paul Sereno et al. challenge the hypothesis that Spinosaurus was fully aquatic presented in Ibrahim et al. 2020b paper. They also have a different skeletal reconstruction to support their position. https://elifesciences.org/articles/80092 Spinosaurus and Suchomimus Differences between the two skeletal reconstructions

A new peirosarid crocodyliform is described from the Kem Kem Group. Antaeusuchus taouzensis This review, indicates the existence of at least three approximately contemporaneous peirosaurid lineages within the Kem Kem Group, alongside other notosuchians, and support the peirosaurid affinities of the ‘trematochampsid’ Miadanasuchus oblita from the Maastrichtian of Madagascar. Identification of crocodyliform teeth from this region has been complicated with this publication. The paper does do a comparison with Hamadasuchus rebouli . https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.211254 Jaw comparisons with Hamadasuchus rebouli Comparison of peirosaurid mandibles from the Kem Kem Group in lateral view: (a) NHMUK PV 36829 (Antaeusuchus taouzensis n. gen. n. sp. holotype); (b) NHMUK PV R36874 (Antaeusuchus taouzensis paratype); (c) MDEC001 (Hamadasuchus rebouli holotype); (d) ROM 49282; (e) BSPG 2005 I 83. (a1–e1) show close-up images of the teeth of each respective taxon. Image (b) is reversed. Scale bars represent 50 mm.

This paper by Roy Smith et al. looks at small and immature pterosaurs finds in the Kem Kem Group and their implications. The abstract states the a sampling bias exists and makes the following comment: "Histological analysis suggests that very small/small morphs are immature individuals rather than species in which adults were small-bodied." Unfortunately the paper is paywalled but this must raise to question how many of the smaller pterosaurs species that are named in the KK were early ontogenetic stages of larger pterosaurs. Not surprised considering that there are 10 named and one indeterminate pterosaurs in the KK. The authors include Ibrahim and Martill so it adds creditability to its publication Paper Paywalled https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667121003098

Hello everyone,I've decided to open a chain of comments focusing on a popular theme: Moroccan spinosaurids. This is the first comment of a small series dedicated to analyse and document the diverse morphology of spinosaurids in the Kem Kem group. As an introduction,I'll be specifying how it will work,the rules and some guidance for those interested. First and foremost,the rules: 1)For correct identifications,I require images in various view(ventral and lateral at least) and with the highest quality possible. 2)Each comment will focuse on a specific morphotype,as such,only post images of specimens matching the description giving at the start. Any specimen from other morphotype won't be identified by me. 3)Other people are encouraged to post their specimens and help with the identification/s. Procedures: 1) A new comment will be posted each week, probably during the weekend,hour from Spain. 2) Around 4 specific comments are planed. 3) Each comment will discuss a specific morphotype (anterior cervicals,mid cervicals, posterior cervicals and cervicodorsal vertebrae). 4)At the start of each comment,I'll write a basic description of the respective morphology. 5) I'll describe in detail each vertebra contained in the four groups previously mentioned. 6) Images will be extracted/modified from the literature and complemented with additional specimens. 7) Concluding remarks: Taxonomic identification and limitations of the analysis. 8) References and acknowledgements will be posted after the main corpus of the comment is finished. For any questions, please comment below. My words might not be entirely clear.I encourage everyone to post their questions.

Dr. Hone and Holtz take an objective look at Spinosaurus has an aquatic predator. Gotta love it, another view, excellent read. From Abstract: "Here we assess the arguments about the functional morphology of this animal and the available data on its ecology and possible habits in the light of these new finds. We conclude that based on the available data, the degree of adaptations for aquatic life are questionable, other interpretations for the tail fin and other features are supported (e.g., socio-sexual signalling), and the pursuit predation hypothesis for Spinosaurus as a “highly specialized aquatic predator” is not supported. In contrast, a ‘wading’ model for an animal that predominantly fished from shorelines or within shallow waters is not contradicted by any line of evidence and is well supported. Spinosaurus almost certainly fed primarily from the water and may have swum, but there is no evidence that it was a specialised aquatic pursuit predator." https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2021/3219-the-ecology-of-spinosaurus

The 2020 monograph on the Geology and paleontology of the Upper Cretaceous Kem Kem Group of eastern Morocco is described by Nizar Ibrahim, Paul Sereno et al. https://zookeys.pensoft.net/article/47517/ The dinosaurian faunal listings are the opinions of the authors and may not be shared by other paleontologist

An unusual mid-cervical vertebra belonging to a large spinosaurid from the Cenomanian Kem Kem Group of Morocco is described in this new paper. Here is one more example that continues to fuel the debate that there are multiple Spinosaurids in the Kem Kem Group https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/vamp/index.php/VAMP/article/view/29370 Conclusions from paper: The specimen ROM 65537 represents a new spinosaurid mid-cervical morphotype from the Kem Kem Group of Morocco, with a unique combination of characters not previously documented in a single element. The occurrence of a new spinosaurid mid-cervical morphotype in the Kem Kem Group may be unexpected if one accepts the referral of all spinosaurid material from this unit to a single species, Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, for which representative specimens of all expected post-atlas cervical vertebrae have been previously identified (Ibrahim et al. 2020a; Smyth et al. 2020). The morphology of ROM 65537 could be interpreted as representing a greater degree of intraspecific variation in the cervicals of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus than previously recognized, or alternatively, may provide new evidence for the occurrence of two spinosaurid taxa in the Kem Kem Group. The discovery of more material will hopefully allow for future testing of the axial position and taxonomic identity of this unusual specimen.

Along with the debate on how many Spinosaurids are there in the Kem Kem we have a similar one on Carcharodontosaurids. Attached find paleontologist Andrea Cau blog on this subject. He analyzes the arguments brought by Ibrahim et al. (2020) and offers his rebuttal: http://theropoda.blogspot.com/2020/10/sauroniops-non-e-carcharodontosaurus.html His Conclusions "1) The front of Sauroniops is not 60% of that of Carcharodontosaurus , but of comparable size (and proportionately more stocky and broad, and both extend over 19 cm above the skull). 2) The position of the prefrontal facet of Sauroniops is not homologous to that of Carcharodontosaurus (anteromedial in the first, posterolateral in the second). 3) Sauroniops does not present diagnostic characters of Carcharodontosaurus at the level of the temporal fossa and the interorbital septum. 4) Carcharodontosaurus does not show the diagnostic character of the expanded dome at the level of the preorbital area, nor the deep separation of the nasal branches, diagnostic of Sauroniops . Therefore, there is no reason to consider the two taxa as synonyms ( contra Ibrahim et al. 2020)." Hopefully we will see something similar on Sigilmassasaurus from the authors with papers on this genus.