Search the Community

Hello, I have recently found these pycnodontes at a maastrichtian site in SE North Carolina, USA . It is Pee Dee formation. Would anyone know the speices ? The upper valve is rather flat as opposed to concave and has radiant grooves which I have not seen in my research. The lower valves vary from being almost flat on some to a deep dish concave on others. I have attached two different ones. The first picture of each is the upper valve showing the radiant grroves. Second picture is lower valve. Third picture is the hinge area. Fourth picture is an attempt to show the overall contour. Thanks for any help.

This was on several twitter paleo pages, posted this morning by several paleontologists. Comments and photos are that of the of North Dakota Geological Survey's Paleontology protection program. 2014 article https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/21/dakota-ducbkilled-dinosaur-home-bismarck This was the old "Dakota" exhibit. It was meant to be temporary. The arm is the piece on the bottom edge. It was previously displayed with the palm up, and this side was not well prepared and wasn't exposed before. This is indeed a portion of "Dakota" the Dinomummy, which is part of the North Dakota State Fossil Collection. We are currently working on cleaning this specimen for a new exhibit to open Feb 2020 People were confused at exactly what they were looking at here, so we've thrown together a little guide to explain how the bones of the hand relate to the fossilized soft tissue. Yes, digit III has a large 'hoof-like' nail, and much of the hand is encased in 'mitten' of skin. What this means is that the fingers could not really move independently that much, but acted more as a single unit. The tiny pink finger (digit V) is reduced and had no nail. Note: these images are "in progress" images. More work has been completed since they were taken Tail skin

On Saturday Oct 5, Tyrannosaurus rex celebrated its 114 birthday when it was formally named by H F Osborne in his 1905 paper: Osborn, H. F. (1905). "Tyrannosaurus and other Cretaceous carnivorous dinosaurs". Bulletin of the AMNH. 21 (14): 259–265. hdl:2246/1464. Retrieved October 6, 2008. One little known fact was that Albertosaurus sarcophagus was also formally named on the last page of that paper based on this skull.

I try to get out dinosaur collecting twice a year and this year has been very good to me. Here are some quick field shots of SOME of my finds for this fall. I have a big prep job in front of we but I also use someone in Hill City to do some of my complicated work. Sites are in Montana and South Dakota all from the Hell Creek Formation. My Spring trip post have more specifics on the localities. My best find of the trip occurred on day 3 in Montana a complete dentary (lower jaw) with teeth of a Ceratopsian most likely Triceratops sp. The field photo show the jaw with lots of matrix around it to protect the sheath and teeth.. The jaw layed perfectly for me with teeth side up and flat so it made collecting easy. Here is an initial look at the jaw. The bone area in the middle is actually a sheath that is covering battery of teeth. Not all the teeth are covered by the sheath those in the far right are exposed and you can see the center ridge poking out, red circles. Prepping will expose them. Length 25" (65 cm) sorry did not brush it clean before the photo In addition to the one above I found two Hadrosaur jaws in SD from an Edmontosaurus. Both jaws are laying vertically, teeth side in against the wall. Typically they do not have teeth but until the prep is complete hard to say. One was from a Juvie about 20" (19 cm) and the other from a very young animal +13" (33 cm) which is pretty rare for this site. My initial view of the larger one was to expose the ascending ramus ( hinge) Here is the small jaw - preservation of the hinge area was not good but needed to collect it because of size. No teeth present.

Another important dinosaur paper that is paywalled. Went the rental route again. The paper takes the first good look at the Skull of the Dromaeosaurid, Saurornitholestes langstoni from the Dinosaur Park Formation. It provided great insight into Dromaeosaurid's and specifically the dentition which we as collectors are most interested in. Similar species are found in Montana's Judith River and Two Medicine Formation. The biggest surprise were the premaxillary teeth, they are distinctive, and teeth previously identified in the Dinosaur Park Formation as Zapsalis abradens can now be identified as the second premaxillary tooth of S. langstoni. The morphology and wear patterns suggest that these may have been specialized for preening feathers. Zapsalis is one of those tooth taxons and brings into question if its indeed valid or just synonymous with Saurornitholestes. The paper makes the following statement "The similarity between the premaxillary teeth of Saurornitholestes and Zapsalis show that the latter is a dromaeosaurid and suggests that the two genera are synonymous. However the differences suggest they are distinct at least at the species level. Pending the discovery of additional Associated skeletal material from the Judith River formation of Montana it is recommended that the two genera be kept separate." The holotype tooth of Zapsalis (right) from the JRF is slightly different than the Saurornitholestes tooth. See Fig. Might just be tooth to tooth variations. https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.24241#.XXZqJ1PoYmg.twitter Cranial Anatomy of New Specimens of Saurornitholestes langstoni (Dinosauria, Theropoda, Dromaeosauridae) from the Dinosaur Park Formation (Campanian) of Alberta Philip J. Currie, David C. Evans First published: 09 September 2019 https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24241 @hxmendoza @-Andy-

Found this yesterday. Not perfectly round, but really close. Very smooth except the “eyes”. There is a pattern of sorts that looks like a crab, maybe. Diameter is the same as a penny.

Hello!! This is my first time here and I was really hoping to get some assistance is identifying some stuff. Several years ago my uncle built a large workshop on his property and had has this huge pile of rocks in his backyard ever since. I am not positive of the whole story, but I do believe that the company he hired to dig for the foundation came across one, or several dinos, and just left the broken specimen in a large pile. I have several large chunks, this is only one piece, with the photos taken from several angles and ranges in an attempt to show the most detail. There are some weird little pink squiggly things that kind of look like worms in all of the larger chunks that I have, those really piqued my interest because I've never seen anything like that stuck in rock before. I have painstakingly attempted to clean some of the larger pieces up; I didn't want to unnecessarily bombard the forum with a ton of pictures, but will happily post more if anybody is interested. I'm kind of totally new to all of this paleontology stuff and any guidance or assistance will be very greatly appreciated!! Thanks for your time!! --Cassie

Hi everyone, I have this partial fish bone from the Late Campanian of New Jersey, 72 Ma. I have never seen this type of bone structure before, but for some reason it reminds me of some type of rostrum (billfish?). It is a little over an inch at greatest dimension. Any ideas are appreciated!

Just got back from a trip to the badlands of Montana and South Dakota in the Hell Creek Formation.. Here are some photos of some of the bones I picked up at an Edmontosaurus site. My hope was to collect specimens fitting in a shoebox and I was fairly successful at that which was quite surprise since you dont get to choose what you find. The site is faily large and the area I was collected had about 6 foot of overburden removed a couple of years ago so there was only 12 inches left before I hit the layer. The layer in this area is about 17 to 20 inches thick, white lines. Nothing is prepped at this point, lots of work in front of me but here are the raw photos before beautification Foot Bones - numbers correspond to my finds #1 Juvenile Metatarsal - IV #2 Phalanx II-2 Ventral view #3 Phalanx IV not yet sure which one #3 Another Phalanx IV bone #4 Ungual Digit III... found two close match to each other #4 Ungual Juvie think its Digit IV but I need to verify after prepping

A new paper is available online: Christopher R. Noto; Stephanie K. Drumheller; Thomas L. Adams; Alan H. Turner (2019). "An enigmatic small neosuchian crocodyliform from the Woodbine Formation of Texas". The Anatomical Record. in press. doi:10.1002/ar.24174. Scolomastax constitutes the youngest record of Paralligatoridae from North America, indicating that paralligatorids spread to Appalachia prior to the Western Interior Seaway forming.

Hi TFF friends, how are you? I would like to have your opinion concerning the following fossil. It's a bone I found a while ago in the Himenoura formation, Santonian (Kumamoto Japan) and I forgot until I decided to clean my drawers. It has a quite distinctive shape and make me think to a sea turtle bone, a paddle or an ulna maybe. What kind of bone do you think it is? Any ID? I am not looking for the ID, I just would like to know what kind of bone it is.

So I was rooting again around in the garage and found a couple plates I had bought a few years back and never tracked down an ID for. Tentative provenance was Paleocene from Montana. I found this article recently and was wondering if it could be one of the genera/sp described or one of the other genera mentioned in the discussion section. Trapa, Trapago, Fortuna, Quereuxia. STOCKEY, R. A., AND G. W. ROTHWELL. 1997. The aquatic angiosperm Trapago angulata from the Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) St. Mary River Formation of southern Alberta. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 158: 83-94. Can be found here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240563741_The_Aquatic_Angiosperm_Trapago_angulata_from_the_Upper_Cretaceous_Maastrichtian_St_Mary_River_Formation_of_Southern_Alberta I also was looking at the USGS pub 375 https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0375/report.pdf My plates have a number of leaflets and fragments with very little venation visible and in a pale gray and a light pink color in a very fine matrix.....Many of the leaflets have small teeth... Plates: Crenulations Leaflets and partial venation Anyone have any expertise in these? Looks like the authors were indicating more study is needed in this area of aquatic plants--that was 20 years ago. Any help is appreciated. Thanks! Regards, Chris

I have been out discovering some fossils and other cool stuff this spring. Lots of generally recognizable material but specifically I dont know what exactly I have here. Hopefully some of the enthusiasts and experts on the forum can help me out?

Hello TFF, I got a couple items from the Late Cretaceous of NJ that seem to be pathological. The first one, an Anomoeodus phaseolus tooth, seems to be very wrinkly and so I deemed it a patho. That is more of a verification as I haven’t seen a pathological one before. The second is an Ischyrhiza mira rostral blade that has a third carina on one of its faces and a slight flattening (flattening better seen in person). This is also a verification as I just didn’t expect to see a patho rostral. The third one is a bit strange. It is definitely a fish tooth. There are prominent growth cracks on the surface & no striations, which supports Xiphactinus. However, the base doesn’t look exactly elliptical (Xiphactinus) or bulging like in Enchodus. But it does look more like X-fish than Enchodus; it just seems as if one side of the base got flattened out, leading me to think that it could be a pathological Xiphactinus. The base also seems to be somewhat hollow (other than the matrix infill). @non-remanié Thanks guys! Anomoeodus phaseolus:

Hi everyone, I got this interesting peripheral turtle shell from the Late Campanian Wenonah formation of NJ. It is not reworked and seems to be IDable. It also has some interesting shark predation marks on the top of the first pic. It is about 2.75” X 2.25” @non-remanié Thanks for any help!

A new genus and species of hadrosauroid, Gobihadros mongoliensis, is described from a virtually complete and undeformed skull and skeleton from the Baynshire Formation (Cenomanian-Santonian) of the central and eastern Gobi Desert, Mongolia This paper is a GREAT reference for what the skull elements look like as well as most of the bones of the skeleton https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208480 A new hadrosauroid (Dinosauria: Ornithopoda) from the Late Cretaceous Baynshire Formation of the Gobi Desert (Mongolia) Khishigjav Tsogtbaatar, David B. Weishampel, David C. Evans , Mahito Watabe Published: April 17, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208480

Does anyone have a copy of the following paper: Ricardo C.Ely & Judd A.Case (2019) Phylogeny of a New Gigantic Paravian (Theropoda; Coelurosauria; Maniraptora) from the Upper Cretaceous of James Ross Island, Antarctica. Cretaceous Research (advance online publication)doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2019.04.003Â https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667118300120 Imperobator is quite notable as the first Gondwanan non-avialan paravian to be named from Antarctica.

Does anyone have a copy of these papers??? : Javier Párraga; Albert Prieto-Márquez (2019). Pareisactus evrostos, a new basal iguanodontian (Dinosauria: Ornithopoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of southwestern Europe. Zootaxa 4555 (2): 247–258. doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4555.2.5. PMID 30790960. Julian C. G. Junior Silva; Thiago S. Marinho; Agustín G. Martinelli; Max C. Langer (2019). Osteology and systematics of Uberabatitan ribeiroi (Dinosauria; Sauropoda): a Late Cretaceous titanosaur from Minas Gerais, Brazil. Zootaxa. 4577 (3): 401–438. doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4577.3.1. It's quite odd that despite being described as a distinct genus from Rhabdodon, Pareisactus is known only from one skeletal element. Therefore, it is highly probable that some very fragmentary rhabdodontid specimens from France and Spain assigned to Rhabdodon could be from Pareisactus (Matheronodon shows that more than one rhabdodontid lived in Europe during the late Campanian-Maastrichtian interval).

Very cool article on a Hell Creek Fm bonebed in Bowman, North Dakota A meteor impact 66 million years ago generated a tsunami-like wave in an inland sea that killed and buried fish, mammals, insects and a dinosaur, the first victims of Earth’s last mass extinction event. The death scene from within an hour of the impact has been excavated at an unprecedented fossil site in North Dakota. (Graphics and photos courtesy of Robert DePalma) https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/03/29/66-million-year-old-deathbed-linked-to-dinosaur-killing-meteor/

The First Definite Lambeosaurine Bone From the Liscomb Bonebed of Upper Cretaceous Prince Creek Formation, Alaska is presented in this paper. Nothing spectacular just from a cool place Article https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/197034.php Paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-41325-8?fbclid=IwAR0RTstNFgb9CWp6GdNEmGxb52k-44JZ5WfQMds2KgmFjY_mQc8wLF0BoP8

Hi, Is there a copy of the following paper: Leonardo S. Filippi, Leonardo Salgado & Alberto C. Garrido (2019) A new giant basal titanosaur sauropod in the Upper Cretaceous (Coniacian) of the Neuquen Basin, Argentina. Cretaceous Research (advance online publication)doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2019.03.008Â https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667118304816

Step aside Sue, the T rex. The attached article finally describes the largest T rex discovered from the Frenchmans Formation of Saskatchewan, Canada after being discovered in 1991 Abstract Here we describe an extremely large and relatively complete (roughly 65%) skeleton of Tyrannosaurus rex (RSM P2523.8). Multiple measurements (including those of the skull, hip, and limbs) show that RSM P2523.8 was a robust individual with an estimated body mass exceeding all other known T. rex specimens and representatives of all other gigantic terrestrial theropods (Paywalled) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.24118#.XJQsTuqqy7k.twitter An Older and Exceptionally Large Adult Specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex W. Scott Persons IV, Philip J. Currie, Gregory M. Erickson First published: 21 March 2019, https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24118

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-03/ou-rrb031519.php https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app64/app005682018.pdf

Updated 1/17/20 I've taken a pretty firm position on the validity of Nanotyrannus ever since I spent some time looking at the Dueling Dinosaurs shortly after they were discovered. Subsequent to that, new information that I've become aware of just cemented my position. I'm interested in understanding the "truth" and have no problem looking at all available specimens that are in private hands or museums. The optics are very clear to me and I have difficulty understanding the debate. Collectors need to form their own opinion on this but I would like to share with you why I believe its a valid species. A recent paper that CLAIMS that Jane and Petey are still growing that they have to be T Rex is ridiculous. WHY? Just because they are growing.... We have no idea what stage in their life cycle they were and obviously they are not adults. Nano's grow, we have no idea how large, and have similar life cycles has do T rex's. If it was not for all the other supporting evidence to validate Nanotyrannus it might make sense but the claim is nonsensical. I present here several examples supporting my case, many others exist but will leave it at this. You always hear we need see sub-adult/baby specimens of Trex so a comparison can be make against Nanotyrannus claimed specimens. Shocking but some specimens do exist in institutions and private hands. Included in this discussion are a couple of examples of these specimens other are out there some in private hands and hopefully will be published. Jaws Case in point here is a jaw of a Baby T rex in private hands. Its only 35 cm wide. Paleontologists involved in this debate are very well aware of its existence. This cast is in my collection Top jaw: T rex (BHI6439), White jaw: Nanotyrannus (BMPR2002.4.2) Note that the length of the tooth row is nearly identical, Top jaw contains 12 circular alveloi typical of adult T rex's while the white jaw contains 17 rectangular alveloi typical of what is described as Nanotyrannus. Morphology of the teeth is classic for Trex: fat, oval and robust. Morphology of white jaws teeth is classic for Nanotyrannus: rectangular, lean and more gracile. There are a number of other morphological differences that Pete Larsen has identified with the jaws but the eye test should be enough for this discussion Compare the widths for both of these species, there is no comparison its pretty obvious how robust one is over the other. ARMS If the Jaws were not enough here are the arms and claws. Here is a sub-adult Trex arm (UCRC-PV1) housed at the University of Chicago (Paul Sereno). Paleontologists involved in this debate are very well aware of its existence. This is the only complete Trex arm and hand that has been found to date and articulated including the scapula and coracoid and partial skeleton including vertebrae. The bones including the claws compare well with those of known adult T rex and the vertebrae are about twice the size of Jane (Nanotyrannus) Added (1/7/20) Pete Larsen : "Adult and sub adult hands of T.rex (A, B and D) compared to the hand of Nanotyrannus (C), BHI 6437, which has a skull length of 610mm, the same as Jane BMRP2002.4.1." How can the rational paleontologists support the papers claim B is a Sub-Adult T rex (UCRC PV1) who's bones look just like D from an adult T rex.(MOR 555) C bones a Nanotyrannus is larger with very different bone morphology Every known bone from the hand of a Nanotyrannus is larger than and morphologically different from every known hand bone of adult or sub-adult T rex. I'm not aware of any other Tyrannosaurid where juvie and adult arms become smaller as the animal ages. Here is an sketch comparing the two to see how different the bones are. Pete Larsen also points out that "Animals do not change the orientation of semicircular canals, imbedded within solid bone, as they grow" Compare the long bone of Nanotyrannus with arrow to the one below on T rex Sue Sue - Carpal is much shorter and with a different morohology... Here is a comparison of a carpal digit I Wyrex (Top), Nanotyrannus (Middle), Sue (Bottom) Both Trex's have a larger bulge at the end of the bone. Very different morphology. You can argue ontogenetic changes but the robustness is present in the arm from above. Added 1/17/20 From left to right : Gorgosaurus TVM 2001.89.1, Nanotyrannus BHI-6437, adult T.rex MOR-980, and sub adult T.rex TCM 2001.90.1. Your can see on similarities with the two on the right both of Trex of different ages. Interesting thought the paleontologists said the younger one should be longer CLAWS Lets move on to the claws - Top T rex Digit I - Sue (Left), Digit II - Victoria (Right) Bottom Nanotyrannus - Digit I (Left), Digit II (Right) (BMRP 2006.4.4) (Petey's) Morphology is very different and Digt II of Victoria is very similar to that of the sub adult claw see below. Sub Adult Trex claw Digit II, 5 cm .. compares quite well to adult Victoria not Nanotyrannus Lots of the photos provided by Peter Larsen Added 1/7/20 Pete recently posted "But wait, you say. wasn’t Jane still growing? She certainly was, comparing Jane size BHI-6437’s manus claws ( Brown) to Petey’s (BMRP 2006.1.1) (White). The question I have is: when do the hands stop growing so they can shrink (a lot) and then begin growing again?" Braincase One last item to present is the Witmer Labs study on Tyrannosaurid braincases...it clearly demonstrates that there is a difference between T-rex and Nanotyrannus. Conclusion on the Cleveland "Nano" skull "Given the obvious closeness of CMNH 7541 and BMR P2002.4.1 "Jane", it would likely have been taxonomically decisive. Our data on CMNH 7541 may be taken as evidence for the validity of N. lancensis on the grounds that it is ‘‘too different’’ from T. rex. However, we are hesitant to argue that the debate over its status is settled for the simple reason of sample size. CMNH 7541 presents one specimen—one highly divergent specimen. Although we see no clear signs of distortion or pathology in the braincase, its divergent nature concerns us, and we maintain that the possibility remains that future discoveries will show CMNH 7541 to be aberrant. For that reason, we urge caution and continue to regard the specimen’s status as open" https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ar.20983 New Insights Into the Brain, Braincase, and Ear Region of Tyrannosaurs (Dinosauria, Theropoda), with Implications for Sensory Organization and Behavior Lawrence M. Witmer Ryan C. Ridgely First published: 26 August 2009 https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.20983 It's unfortunate that the skeleton Jane does not have the two skeletal areas discussed in this topic: Arms and Braincase. More reason for the Dueling Dinosaur Nanotyrannus to be studied it's almost a complete skeleton. The End...

Does anyone have a copy of the following paper that I could read: Louise M V Meunier, Hans C E Larsson; Trematochampsa taqueti as a nomen dubium and the crocodyliform diversity of the Upper Cretaceous In Beceten Formation of Niger, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 182, Issue 3, 17 March 2018, Pages 659–680, https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlx061