Search the Community

I found these three teeth on a certain auction site (all 5/8" long) listed as raptor teeth (probably just based on size), but clearly the first two are not. They must be either Nanotyrannus or T. rex. The cross section of the first is very rectangular like Nanotyrannus, but also very robust/"fat". I'm leaning toward Nano on this one. The second seems more oval shaped so I'm leaning a little toward T. rex on this one. I'm not really sure on either though. As for the third one, my gut says Nanotyrannus. The anterior and posterior serrations are definitely too similar for Acheroraptor (I have one, very different), but could it possibly be Dakotaraptor? Any help here is appreciated. I'm really not very interested in Nanotyrannus teeth right now but I am very interested in small mislabeled T. rex or Dakotaraptor teeth. tooth #1: tooth #2: tooth #3:

Hey everyone. I purchased this fossil recently and wanted to get your opinions on it. It is from the Hell Creek formation of Montana. The seller says that is either a surangular or angular bone from a theropod jaw. After looking at pictures it does look very similar to the angular bone of a Nanotyrannus, looks about the right size too. What do you dinosaur experts think? Thanks! -Mike

Good afternoon all, I wanted to get some opinions on determining if a tooth I am thinking about purchasing is either a T-Rex, or a Nanotyrannus tooth. I will post some pictures of the tooth, and supply what information I know about it. • The tooth is 1" long, with a round cross section. • Robust serrations. • Found in the Hell Creek Formation, Powder River County, Montana. Due to the round cross section and serrations, I have been leaning towards classifying it as a T-Rex tooth. I'm very interested to hear member thoughts.

Not sure if this was the correct part of the forum to post. If not, my apologies. Buyer Beware! Perfect example of an unethical seller on a mainstream auction site. Selling this mammalian carnivore lower canine as a Nanotyrannus tooth. I wrote seller a few days ago explaining that it is not and to please correct listing. Seller has not responded and continues selling under misrepresentation of fossil. There are slready several bids on it. Sent a second email to seller today saying: "Shows how dishonest you are when you've been shown what this tooth really is and yet you continue to post it without the correction."

Hi Everyone, I'm trying to determine if this tooth does indeed come from a Tyrannosaurus Rex. It's a small tooth which makes a positive ID a little tough, but I'm leaning towards this being a Rex tooth. Can anyone confirm as to whether this is a genuine Rex tooth, or something else such as a Nanotyrannus tooth, or Tyrannosaurid indet? When I asked for photos of the base of the tooth the seller mentioned that he had read @Troodon's post about T-Rex VS Nano teeth too . The base does seem more rounded versus rectangular. Information: Size: 1.1 inches long Formation: Hell Creek Location: Garfield County, Montana (Private Land)

This topic is more up-to-date on North American Tyrannosaurids I find it interesting when I see Tyrannosaurid material for sale, from the Judith River of Montana, that so little is understood of what actually is being offered. Most sellers call their specimen either Daspletosaurus or Albertosaurus and a few, when it comes to teeth, properly identify them as Tyrannosaurid indet. Very few will label anything Gorgosaurus unless it's really small. Yet none of these Tyrannosaurids have been described from this fauna and Albertosaurus may not even be represented. So what is currently known with the major Tyrannosaurids that are sold. I've tried to look around and gather what information is available and put it together in its simplest form so it's understood, if there are missteps let me know. Sorry, it's from my narrow collector perspective Let me prefix this by saying this is an area that is constantly evolving based with new discoveries and research. Papers just a few years old can already be obsolete and views are changing. The other issue is that since so little material has been discovered in some strata that there may not be consensus among paleontologist but thats not new and we also know that their ego's run high. Not here to debate anything. Tyrannosaurids Described by age/strata: (Those you see sold) Late Maastrichtian deposits 69 - 66 mya (Lance/HellCreek/Scollard Formations et al. ) Tyrannosaurus rex Nanotyrannus lancensis Very Late Campanian / Mid Maastrichtian deposits 73 -67 mya (Horseshoe Canyon Formation) Albertosaurus sarcophagus Late Campanian deposits 75.1 - 74.4 mya (Two Medicine Formation) Daspletosaurus horneri (just described) (this is described just at the very end of the TM FM not all, age of deposit where collected is very important) Mid Campanian deposits 76.6 - 75.1mya (Two Medicine Formation) Gorgosaurus sp. does exist not nammed Mid Campanian deposits 76.7 - 75.2 mya (Belly River Group) Daspletosaurus torosus Mid Campanian deposits 76.7 - 75.1 mya (Dinosaur Park Formation) Gorgosaurus libratus What is important to note is that no Tyrannosaurid's have been described from the Judith River Formation (80-75 mya) of Montana. Since the stratigraphy is similiar to that of eastern Alberta it's fair to assume the Tyrannosaurids like Daspletosaurus and Gorgosaurus would be present but not Albertosaurus which is younger in age. A note from an article I read stated that Albertosaurus and Daspletosaurus are stratigraphically separate, with the former from the late Campanian to Maastrichtian Horseshoe Canyon Formation, and the latter coming from the middle Campanian Belly River Group. Additional discoveries and research will determine if this holds up. So as a collector you need to take a look at what you have labeled and some may need to be updated and keep this in mind with your next acquisition. Remember when trying to acquire tyrannosaurid material don't get hung up on the name, focus on the bone or tooth since it will be with you forever while names can change. Chart clearly showing the distribution by age (the Two Medicine Taxon is now D. horneri) Tyrant Dinosaur Evolution Tracks the Rise and Fall of Late Cretaceous Oceans Mark A. Loewen1*, Randall B. Irmis1, Joseph J. W. Sertich2, Philip J. Currie3, Scott D. Sampson1 PDF: journal.pone.0079420.PDF Carr's Blog (Chart) http://tyrannosauroideacentral.blogspot.com/2017/04/introducing-daspletosaurus-horneri-two.html?m=0 This is an FYI: Appalachiosaurus montgomeriensis no longer considered a Tyrannosaurid but a basal Tyrannosauroid if that's really important or relevant to collectors. (PDF from above)

I recently bought this tooth from a sort of reputable seller that largely only deals in Hell Creek materials. I've been told that she sometimes do however get her Identification of materials wrong. This tooth here is labelled by her as Nanotyrannus but I had @Andy look at this and he said that I should seek better advice from the experts as he doesn't think it is a Nanotyrannus seeing that the tooth is a little too thick for Nano and a little too thin for T-rex. Attached are a few photos and I've also attached a microscopic zoomed in on the serrations. Serration count is 3 per mm.

Another tooth I acquired from the Hell Creek formation. This one comes from a less well known seller and he identified this as Trex. I don't see the robustness of this tooth and I don't think it is Trex. What could it be then? I have no idea.

Is this a nanotyrannus tooth or a dakotaraptor tooth ? size of the tooth is one inch and from hell creek formation.

This is a fossil from the Cretaceous time period, it was found in the Hell creek formation. The specimen is a little under an inch long (tried to get a good picture of the serrations). I've done some research on the differences between the species I listed in the title and I've come short of being able to properly identify it (I'm only really a rookie fossil collector).

Is Nanotyrannus proven to be a separate species than T Rex or is it really just a jeuvenile Rex? Some people believe that it's a separate species. Others believe the latter. I don't know which one is correct. Let me know your thoughts!