Search the Community

We have had this piece of coral for several months. Have discussed it with several museums, only one was able to identify it as a deep water bamboo Coral skeleton. Very little appears to be known about them, and we are hoping to get some information as to its value.

Hi all! Here is a reconstruction of Berthasaura leopoldinae I created! I've always been super excited by new discoveries.

Hi everyone, this is a fish I found a few years ago in Santa Barbara. If anyone could help with ID, or provide any resources on fossils in the area it would be greatly appreciated. The fossil is in very soft shale, measures just over 3 inches head to tail, had lots of bivalve and gastropod fossils nearby. I can provide additional pics/info if necessary. Thanks!

Hello, may I know if this Psittacosaurus skeleton is real？ The seller said it has no repair at all. Thank you!

Hi, thoughts on this? A 60cm Jeholosaurus. Does it look legit? Cheer

I laughed at this when i saw it and i thought i would show people. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/guericke-einhorn-magdeburg-unicorn

I found this in Holden Mo and there is more of it but don't know what it is

Dear all, I've just stumbled upon this forum and am grateful to all of you for all the information and support you're giving. I would like to start a collection of fossils but have basically no knowledge on the matter. A few days ago I saw an auction on a common website with "expert confirmation and estimated price" and it was expiring a few hours later. I saw an opportunity and jumped on it. And by looking at the claw - I think I got scammed. So far I haven't payed for anything, but I'm being pressured to do so. Could someone tell me if all 3 are fake? The skeleton and the claw are from one seller, the skull is from another. The pictures of the claw obviously show 2 different ones, but they should be "the one" I won. Please advise

My daughter found this in a dry creek bed near our house. I was using muriatic acid to clean it up and noticed it was fizzing and pulled it out and saw the formation. There’s a black and red tar on the back that didn’t come off in the acid and it’s 3.5” x 3.25”. We have found a lot of arrowheads, native American artifacts and what we believe are fossils (teeth, bones, coral) but this one stood out the most. Does anyone know if this could possibly be a fossil? And if so, what kind?

I recently found on the site cults3d a very beautiful and almost complete skeleton of Microraptor gui to print with a 3D resin printer. Here is the link: https://cults3d.com/fr/mod%C3%A8le-3d/art/microraptor-gui-skeleton The only problem was the skull was missing. The creator of this specimen, Florent Germain, had not had time to finalize his skull. He'll put it later, when finished, he said. I was able to print this model and I decided to make the skull myself Lucky me, I was able to use a dental scanner (not too suitable for this kind of models) and to generate a 3d printable file . The STL file of the skull is available for free. I am not a pro of 3D modeling software so be indulgent with the result. This file can be modified or improved for the person who can. Here the link : https://cults3d.com/fr/modèle-3d/divers/microraptor-gui-dinosaur-skull-open-source I haven't tried to print it on a printer, but it should work. Enjoy ! Some photos of the skull and skeleton, I'll update this topic when everything will be finished.

Hello together, I am proud to present another one of @lormouths beautiful skeletons I have the pleasure to assemble. At first I intended to build it in the nice quadrupedal position from "Dragons of the air" 1901, but it seems that the shoulder girdle doesnt allow it, especially the right arm that is held closely to the torso. Of course it could be depending on cartilage, but atl east looking at Laurents detailed replica bones, it looks wrong to put it in that pose. I missed the opportunity to take a foto of the neatly packed set of bones I found in my christmas parcel. Thanks again Laurent!

Hello I'm interested in a Psittacosaurus skeleton I found online. I know these almost always consist of bones from different animals, I don't really mind that. The main thing I want to know if there's any visible restorations or stuff that looks off? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

So after Tyrannosaurus Rex WIP thread, i have made some renders. ZBrush screen In Houdini with Karma Please tell meif something is a ittle off, i will recreate it. My sculpting process:

Hello, here my last skeleton : Dimorphodon Macronyx full size, based on the specimen NHMUK PV OR 41212 discovered by Richard Owen. Enjoy!

Bit of a long shot this one, but here goes… My daughter has recently been given a small collection by a colleague of her mother who heard she was interested in fossils. The previous owner had clearly done a bit of collecting around Lyme Regis and also bought a few pieces. There’s a few Moroccan pieces (low grade trilo, some Mosasaur tooth crowns), an insect in amber and some Madagascan stuff. By far the most interesting piece though is this fish; it has no label and I have no idea where in the world it could have come from. Can anyone shed any light on possible provenance or even identify the species? Many thanks for looking

Hi, after almost 2 years I have reworked my Archaeopteryx skeleton model also shown on this board: http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/110891-archaeopteryx-skeleton-model/ On the first version, I wasn't happy with the stability and the external metal support. Also, the dynamic pose made it large and difficult to find space for. So I decided to give the new version a more relaxed, upright posture and to run an iron rod through the spine instead of below it. I also reworked some details and found that the skull was scaled a bit too large compared to most specimens. Thanks to Scott Hartman the rib orientation was modified a bit, too. Here are a few pictures: The new version of the skeleton is much easier to print and to assemble. The files are now available for personal use at https://cults3d.com/de/modell-3d/verschiedene/full-size-archaeopteryx-skeleton though I recommend this only for printing on resin printers with a resolution of at least 50µm for the fine details. Best regards, Thorsten

Hi all. As per request on my last post about the dinosaur eggs. Here is my fossil skeleton inside its matrix from Jiangxi, China. Bought it cheap, no clue what it is or what it could be. I can clearly see a skull, and what appears to be a claw or a hand. Nothing to see on the other side, I assume the rest of the skeleton is inside the matrix. Any help wil be appreciated, but I have let alot of knowledgable people look at it and no one was able to give me anything clear.

I see a vertical pupil raptor eye and embryo in the egg shaped, smooth rock. I was looking for geodes, I found this tiny geode, broke it open at home, and the other half broke into pieces - 3 or 4 crumbly. I did this 17 years ago. Now, I have joined a lapidary group, ALMS Alabama, and been to a meeting, and I have had this on my shelf for 17 years. I was thinking it is an ugly geode nodule? But then, yesterday I thought, it looks like an egg, it's insides are multicolored like a fossilized egg? I then go my magnifying glass and I can see an eye, and 3 part skull with divisions lines, and the raptor evil eye. I can see a jawbone and mandible seperation, skull sutures seperation, eye, and back bone has these protrusions, humps that have 3 dots on them, like a stegasaurus? But very small, see image. Dime coin is in image. It has a dimple perfect on the outside end of the egg and smooth uniform surface. Also, appears to be a snout and mouth and body, tail, and possibly wing bones, similar to a velociraptor? Can you tell me if it is a dinosaur embryo, fossilized? My book does not show, and these are very rare, China holds the record for smallest embryo. Some dinosaur eggs fossils are as small as 0.7 inches. Tis is bigger than that. Thanks. I have more images. Stop the GIF by tapping on it? It also has the ear hole of hole behind the jawbone mandible.

Here some photos of my new model : Anurognathus ammoni This tiny pterosaur sometimes called "frog face" was about 35 cm wingspan . I was highly inspired from Qilong artwork for the skull. :p Enjoy !

Hello all, looking to get some opinions. 5-6 years ago I came across a ton of fragmented bones while scouting out a new collecting site. One of the first things that really caught my eye was this, lets call it a "claw". Like I said this was among a ton of shattered bone so it kind of stood out right away. I followed the bone fragments more up a very steep hill that turns into a cliff. This led me probably 50-75 feet from the initial sighting of bone to a place that was dangerously steep, but I could see more bone weathering out of the hill. It was in very bad shape and turned out to be a few vertebra. On my way up I also several pieces of what turned out to be a vertebral process. I collected what I could but a lot of it had turned to dust. I could tell there was more but there was almost no feasible way to safely dig. I began to look at what I was able to collect and I started seeing some interesting things. Some of the pieces of vertebra were very porous with large pores and I had found the "claw" at the base of the site. Could it be? Life got in the way, and I was not able to get back out until this year. To my surprise there is still bones weathering out. I found another vertebra in bad shape, and a shattered rib that I was able to reasonably piece together. This came out with minimal excavation and I saw there was more bone exposed at the same level around 6 feet away. It appeared to be another rib or flat bone, but it was in an even more difficult spot. Could these be Tyrannosaurus bones? I will include many more photos soon. Dawson county, MT.

Dear members: I wish I could say that I found this myself but I actually purchased it from an estate sale. There was no identification paperwork that came along with it but my own research online leads me to believe that it may be a Keichousaurus. I’ve examined the matrix carefully with magnification and I see enough continuation of strata from the surface down the sides and I even scraped away some matrix next to ribs to determine that this was not a fake or reproduction. So any help in confirming the identification would be appreciated. It seems to me that this is a pretty nice specimen and probably from China but I do wonder if it’s fairly common or if it is an example of a special specimen. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated and I hope the photographs are adequate.

I'm not sure if I've come to the right place but I found this during a walk today and I am unsure of what it could be. Can anyone help? Thank you.

My first post on the forum was to see if anybody could show me an adult specimen of “Nanotyrannus.” I was more forceful in that approach because, from what I’ve seen on Twitter, “Nano” fans like to argue with paleontologists on the validity of the genus, even though these scientists have been studying dinosaurs for years and have degrees and Ph.Ds in different scientific fields. The evidence points them in a different conclusion compared to the public, and the fact that they are being so heavily resisted against with regards to this topic is baffling. I decided to play the “Nano” fans at their own game, and wrote a question in a cocky manner to see if anybody could give me something of value regarding an adult “Nanotyrannus” specimen. I expected a hostile reaction akin to what you find on Twitter, but the feedback was mostly positive. I was told a couple of things regarding how I worded my post, which was to be expected, among other things, but there was a comment that sent me to a post written by a person with the username "Troodon." Titled "The Case for Nanotyrannus," which I think was inspired by Larson's paper of the same name, goes over some traits that seem to be unique to "Nanotyrannus." With all due respect to Troodon, the points that they made have been debunked by multiple paleontologists who have studied "Nanotyrannus" fossils for years. Troodon also wrote a comment in response to my question, and they fell for my cocky persona and decided not to respond to the critiques that I had regarding not having an adult “Nano.” So now, I will try a different approach. I am going to list the biggest reasons why “Nano” does not exist, and see where this gets me next. These critiques, I believe, truly hinder any conclusive argument to support “Nano’s” identity, and some of these arguments come from other professional paleontologist who argue against “Nano’s” validity. Therefore, I am curious to see what the responses would be this time. My points: 1. No adult “Nano” specimen, only juveniles. It's truly baffling to me that only juvenile Nano species have been found, and yet it's okay to make it a separate genus. Yes, there are other dinosaurs known by juvenile, or subadult, specimens, but they are considered valid genera because of the circumstances thats surround them. Let's use Alioramus. Alioramus is known from two, maybe three if you count Qiazhousaurus, specimens that are not fully grown. So naturally, Alioramus could be a juvenile of another larger tyrannosauroid that coexisted with Alioramus and Qiazhousaurus: Tarbosaurus. However, we DO have a growth series for Tarbosaurus, with very young and mature individuals. Therefore, Alioramus (and/or Qiazhousaurus) is a valid genus. Same goes for Bagaraatan. The same cannot be said for "Nanotyrannus." We only have juvenile specimens of "Nano." Maybe this wouldn't be so bad if it coexist with T. rex, but here's the problem: we do not have a growth series for T. rex. I'll talk more about this later. Woodward et al., (2020), and Carr (1999), have proven that "Nanotyrannus" has no fully-grown individuals, contra Bakker et al., (1988) and Larson (2013). Since we do not have any fully grown "Nano" specimens, and we only have fully grown T. rex specimens, then the most logical conclusion is that "Nano" is a juvenile T. rex. If an adult Nano is ever discovered, then the case would be closed. However, that never seems to be the case when a supposed "Nano" skeleton is discovered. 2. All juvenile T. rex specimens are labeled as “Nano.” How the heck can a small tyrannosauroid that coexisted with a larger tyrannosauroid be considered a valid genus when we have no juvenile specimens of the latter? When no conclusive juvie rex has been named, and all young tyrannosaurids that coexisted with T. rex are named “Nano,” then the most logical conclusion to go with is that all “Nano” specimens are juvenile T. rex specimens. 3. “Baby Bob”. And this is where I'm sure people will tell me about "Baby Bob." There are two problems with "Baby Bob": it's fragmentary, and it's in private hands. A privately owned specimen cannot be studied by multiple scientists who can verify its authenticity. It needs to be in a museum so that other scientists can have access to it. Second, the specimen is fragmentary. The right side of the dentary may be almost complete, but it's in private hands so we cannot tell. However, based on comparisons with other "Nano"/juvie rex specimens, you can bet that "Baby Bob" had a higher tooth counts than the adults. Or, individual variation explains why "Baby Bob" had a smaller tooth count than a typical juvenile rex. Aside from the dentary, the rest of "Baby Bob" only consists of a pubis, a femur, and a tibia. The rest of the skeleton seems to be missing. However, this cannot be verified because "Baby Bob" is a private specimen. If it wasn't, we would know how complete the specimen is. Therefore, using "Baby Bob" to validate "Nano" is detrimental. 4. No complete adult T. rex hands. Another point that is usually brought up is "Bloody Mary's" ("Dueling Dinosaurs" juvenile T. rex specimen) large hands. However, we do not have a single complete T. rex hand. "Wyrex's" hands are incomplete, and "Sue's" hands were not found with the rest of the skeleton. A manual ungual (hand claw) was found AFTER the skeleton was already dug up (Brochu, 2003, p. 103) (Dr. Thomas Holtz on Twitter). It's inconclusive if this is a T. rex hand claw, or something else. Therefore, "Bloody Mary's" hand is the first complete T. rex hand to be discovered, and it's not an autopomorphic trait of "Nanotyrannus." But wait, what about UCRC-PV 1's arm? Pic from Larson's Instagram. UCRC's hand is smaller than "Bloody Mary's," which would make it a younger individual than "Bloody Mary." Unfortunately, UCRC has not been described in a paper, nor has an histological analysis been done on the skeleton, so it being a "subadult" is a subjective claim. Therefore, using UCRC to prove "Nano's" validity is worthless until a scientist(s) studies the skeleton, and gives a description of the specimen in a peer-reviewed paper. Dr. Holtz provided a drawing of the complete arm bones of "Wyrex" on Twitter. The hand is INCOMPLETE: Pic link here. Therefore, "Bloody Mary's" hand is evidence for what a complete T. rex hand would have looked like towards the animal's mature age. "Wyrex's" COMPLETE hand would have looked identical if the hand was complete. UCRC's hand would have grown to look like "Bloody Mary's" if it matured to the same age. It's also worth noting that all other ”complete” T. rex hands have been copied from Albertosaurus or Daspletosaurus. “Sue’s” hand is incomplete, but it was reconstructed using Albertosaurus' hand (Brochu, 2003, p. 100), and so is “Wyrex’s” (Larson and Carpenter, 2008, p. 46). 5. Carr (2020). Dr. Carr's 2020 paper is one of the best papers on T. rex that I have seen. It describes the physical changes that T. rex went through during ontogeny. CMNH 7541, the "Nano" holotype, "Jane," and "Petey," all fell within the T. rex growth chart, which makes ALL "Nano" specimens juvenile T. rex specimens. This paper even made the CMNH museum recatalogue CMNH 7541 as a juvenile T. rex. The case is closed now. There is officially NO HOLOTYPE SPECIMEN for "Nano." "Nanotyrannus" is a dead genus name. If you want to prove that "Nanotyrannus" is a valid genus, then you'd have to disprove Carr's 2020 paper, and that is near impossible now. Multiple paleontologists who study tyrannosauroids have backed up Carr's paper, so the authority figures have spoken. The burden of proof now lies on the "Nano" fans. You need an adult "Nanotyrannus" specimen. 6. “Nano” is not an albertosaurine. Larson tries to lump “Nano” into the albertosaurine (Larson, 2013). However, all albertosaurine died out before “Nano” evolved (73-68 Ma) (Eberth, 2020). Yun (2015) stated that all apparent albertosaurine traits that "Nano" has are seen in other juvenile tyrannosaurs. This renders this hypothesis mute. All of "Nano's" traits can be explained away due to ontogeny. 7. T. rex lost teeth as it matured. Why is it so hard to imagine T. rex losing teeth as it matured? People compare T. rex to Tarbosaurus when it comes to tooth count, and they use Tsuihiji et al., (2011) for this, but T. rex is more derived than Tarbosaurus, and more derived dinosaurs experienced greater morphological changes as they matured. Other examples are Pachycephalosaurus and Triceratops, two other dinosaurs that coexisted with T. rex. It seems that the dinosaurs of North America 66 Ma experienced amazing transformations when they grew up. Check out Horner's 2011 Ted Talk on the matter. I don't agree with everything that guy says and does, but I have to admit that he's right about "Nano" being a juvenile T. rex. Besides, "Nano" only has two more teeth than the adult T. rex specimen “Samson.” What's the problem with losing two teeth as T. rex matured? And yes, I do know about BHI 6439. What’s to have stopped BHI 6439 from losing teeth as it matured? We also don’t know the age of that animal. I've seen pics of this dentary being compared with "Jane." However, it could be older than “Jane.” Tooth loss could have occurred for that specimen, which is why it has fewer teeth than "Jane" does. Second, BHI 6439 is a private specimen so it doesn’t count. It can’t be verified by other scientists for scrutiny. Carr (1999), (2005), and (2020) has proven that T. rex lost teeth during its growth, so this is an established fact now. Dr. Holtz, and Brusatte, support Carr on this as well. 8. “Nanotyrannus’” brain. The skull of CMNH 7541 was damaged (Carr’s blog, Summary, number 2), which seems have given the appearance of it having a different shape than T. rex’s. Somehow, if the brain case wasn’t damaged, then the brain would have changed shaped as “Nano” matured into a grown T. rex (Kawabe et al., 2015). 9. Pneumatopore on quadrujugal is present in Daspletosaurus horneri. Larson (2013) said that this is an automorphic trait, but once again, Carr proved this to be wrong. Carr et al., (2017) found a pneumatopore on Daspletosaurus horneri's quadrujugal. This is not a trait unique to "Nanotyrannus." 10. “Jane’s” teeth fit perfectly with a juvenile T. rex’s bite marks on a vertebra. It has been said that "Nano's" teeth are too thin to belong to T. rex, but Peterson (2019) showed that "Jane's" teeth matched perfectly with the tooth marks of a juvenile T. rex's. It seems that "Nano's" teeth are stronger than what people claim, and this supports "Nano" as a juvenile T. rex. 11. It’s been hinted that “Nano” was a juvenile T. rex before Carr (1999). Carpenter (1992) hinted that "Nanotyrannus" was a juvenile T. rex before Carr did in 1999. Carr (1999) only helped to solidify Nano as a juvenile T. rex, and his 2020 paper helped to end the debate. Conclusion: When the majority of scientists state that something does not exist, then that is the best conclusion supported by the evidence. These experts set the standards as to how to conduct science properly. If we do not listen to them, then science, like paleontology, ha no standards and anybody can do as they please. That leads to chaos, which is what this whole “Nano” situation is. Nobody is listening to the experts online, but the scientists are doing a great job so far in spreading the truth based on the latest research. CMNH 7541 has been relabeled as a juvenile T. rex in the CMNH museum, so we are on the right track to correcting the mistakes of the past. There are only THREE ways that could bring “Nano” back: 1. An ADULT “Nano” specimen. No teeth, no claws, no bits and pieces of bone. We need an adult specimen that is NOT IN PRIVATE HANDS BUT IN A MUSEUM, has an EFS that shows it has stopped growing and has reached adulthood, and is heavily studied by scientific experts (mainly by the “Nano” deniers, like Carr, Holtz, Brusatte, etc.). Then, it needs to be published in a scientific paper than is peer-reviewed, and open to the public to be verified, or denied, by other scientists. “Nano” will never be verified using privately-owned specimens, or fragments of bones and teeth. 2. We need complete juvenile T. rex specimens that are not in private hands, and show traits that are not seen in “Nano.” This would be near impossible because all “Nano” specimens show T. rex traits. 3. We need a complete adult T. rex hand that shows differences from "BHI 6437 ("Bloody Mary"), which is what we do not have. Not even “Sue,” or “Wyrex,” have a complete hand. This is why “Nano” does not exist. On the bright side, we finally have a growth series of T. rex that shows how this awesome animal transformed as it grew. We should be happy that we have any juvenile T. rex specimens at all. Second, I do understand what the “Nano” fans are going through. My favorite sauropod used to be “Seismosaurus.” Later on, I learned that multiple scientists have proven that it is actually Diplodocus. I was in denial for a while, but I came to the conclusion that I was wrong. Now, my favorite sauropod is Diplodocus. That’s how science works. There are plenty of other small-medium-sized tyrannosauroids that the “Nano” fans could gravitate towards to: Alioramus, Qiazhousaurus (or Alioramus sinensis, depending on who you talk to), Nanuqsaurus, Albertosaurus, Gorgosaurus, Bagaraatan, Raptorrex, or any of the other earlier tyrannosauroids (Guanlong, etc.). All of these dinosaurs have been backed up by scientists for decades as being valid genera. Alioramus is a valid genus because we have a growth serious of Tarbosaurus that shows that Alioramus’ traits are distinctive from Tarbosaurus’. This has been stated mainly by Steven Brusatte, an expert on tyrannosauroids. He also states that “Nano” does not exist, and since he is an expert, his research bears more weight on “Nano” being an invalid taxon (Brusatte et al., 2016). On the other hand, I highly doubt that anyone can argue against Carr’s 2020 paper. With so much detail in it, it would be near impossible to prove Carr wrong on “Nanotyrannus’” invalidity. Unless there is a secret adult fossil of “Nanotyrannus” hidden somewhere, and it is in the process of being placed in a museum, then the most scientifically based conclusion is that “Nanotyrannus” does not exist. The ONLY tyrannosauroid present in North America 68-66 Ma is Tyrannosaurus rex. With regards to the scientists, or scientific advocates, that support “Nano” as valid, I have no ill will against them. For example, Peter Larson. I really do like the guy. He’s passionate about dinosaurs, and helped to discover numerous T. rex fossils. Dr. Bakker is a revolutionary in paleontology, no questions asked. Philip Manning is also very passionate about dinosaurs, and helped to describe the T. rex specimen “Trix.” “Dinosaur” George is another one. I loved his QnA videos back in the day. Unfortunately, with the evidence I’ve laid out above, they’re wrong about “Nanotyrannus” being valid. Links: Carr (2020): https://peerj.com/articles/9192/ Woodward et al., (2020): https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/1/eaax6250.full Brusatte et al., (2016): https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/23714255/23714179._AAM._BrusatteetalNanotyrannusResponseMSRevision.pdf Carr (1999): https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/227005733.pdf Horner (2011): Carr and Williamson (2004): https://www.academia.edu/2291683/Diversity_of_late_Maastrichtian_Tyrannosauridae_Dinosauria_Theropoda_from_western_North_America Carr (2005): https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2009NC/webprogram/Paper156740.html Larson (2013): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289687970_The_case_for_Nanotyrannus “The Case for Nanotyrannus” by Troodon: Yun (2015): https://peerj.com/preprints/852/ Bakker et al., (1988): https://zenodo.org/record/1037529#.X9Ai5CVOmEf Carpenter (1992): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314988830_Tyrannosaurids_Dinosauria_of_Asia_and_North_America Eberth (2020): https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/abs/10.1139/cjes-2019-0019 Carr’s blog (Summary, number 2). http://tyrannosauroideacentral.blogspot.com/2013/09/nanotyrannus-isnt-real-really.html?m=1 Larson and Carpenter (2008) (P. 46): https://www.google.com/books/edition/Tyrannosaurus_Rex_the_Tyrant_King/5WH9RnfKco4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Wyrex Kawabe et al., (2015): https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comments?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0129939 Tsuihiji et al., (2011): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232865497_Cranial_Osteology_of_a_Juvenile_Specimen_of_Tarbosaurus_bataar_Theropoda_Tyrannosauridae_from_the_Nemegt_Formation_Upper_Cretaceous_of_Bugin_Tsav_Mongolia

I have found this psittacosaurus skeleton for sale and was wondering if it's authentic the skull looks a bit funky but not sure about the rest