dingo2 Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 These pieces were both found in the horseshoe canyon cretaceous formation in Alberta. There were multiple hadrosaur teeth and bones nearby, so that could be a starting point. Could anybody help me with an ID? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingo2 Posted September 13, 2020 Author Share Posted September 13, 2020 Bottom view here 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingo2 Posted September 13, 2020 Author Share Posted September 13, 2020 Side view here 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 Ironstone concretions, methinks. 1 Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingo2 Posted September 13, 2020 Author Share Posted September 13, 2020 2 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said: Ironstone concretions, methinks. Neither are concretions. Ill take pictures to show the obvious bone material later today if nobody can figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrehistoricWonders Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 To me, they look like ironstone concretions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingo2 Posted September 13, 2020 Author Share Posted September 13, 2020 Clearly bone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrehistoricWonders Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 Yup... I was wrong, that does look like bone... I don’t know that it’s IDable, but if it is @Troodon @LordTrilobite @jpc can help. Were you on private property? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingo2 Posted September 13, 2020 Author Share Posted September 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, Familyroadtrip said: Yup... I was wrong, that does look like bone... I don’t know that it’s IDable, but if it is @Troodon @LordTrilobite @jpc can help. Were you on private property? I'm guessing somebody knowledgeable will easily be able to ID the smaller piece, but I agree the larger one will be a lot tougher. I was pretty shocked at how accurate the ID was last time I posted on here with an obscure piece so I've got high hopes. They were found on public land, legal surface collecting area. I'd prefer if the thread doesnt derail into the standard discussion of AB's fossil collection laws. Some additional information and thoughts on the larger piece. -The top portion of the bone in the first 3 pictures comes to a long flat point, sort of like a shovel. You can see it best in the bottom of this picture. -The material that can be seen in the first and third pictures I posted is most similar to anklyosaurus scutes I have found in the past, like seen in the following image. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, dingo2 said: I'd prefer if the thread doesnt derail into the standard discussion of AB's fossil collection laws. And it won't. This is as good an opportunity as any to remind our members to always extend the benefit of the doubt that our collectors are operating within legal bounds. 2 ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrehistoricWonders Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, Kane said: And it won't. This is as good an opportunity as any to remind our members to always extend the benefit of the doubt that our collectors are operating within legal bounds. I don’t mean to be condescending or turn it into a legal discussion, I just wanted to make sure it was fine to take stuff from there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, Familyroadtrip said: I don’t mean to be condescending or turn it into a legal discussion, I just wanted to make sure it was fine to take stuff from there. Your intentions were good. That being said, our Forum rules are clear that we do not condone illegal activities, and have an expectation that members operate within the law. It is far beyond our ability to enforce the laws. By inquiring if the specimen was collected legally can be construed as an implicit accusation, and without evidence. If there is evidence of illegal activity, members should not post it on the open boards, but use the "report" button so that our staff can investigate. 1 ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrehistoricWonders Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 13 minutes ago, Kane said: Your intentions were good. That being said, our Forum rules are clear that we do not condone illegal activities, and have an expectation that members operate within the law. It is far beyond our ability to enforce the laws. By inquiring if the specimen was collected legally can be construed as an implicit accusation, and without evidence. If there is evidence of illegal activity, members should not post it on the open boards, but use the "report" button so that our staff can investigate. Ok, sorry! My bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 The smaller item possible process of a vertebra ? Clueless on the larger one 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingo2 Posted September 13, 2020 Author Share Posted September 13, 2020 11 minutes ago, Troodon said: The smaller item possible process of a vertebra ? Clueless on the larger one I thought the same thing about the smaller piece, but I am unable to find any pictures of hadrosaur or anklyosaur verts that support the idea. It appears to be rather intact so I would think it should be pretty obvious when a match is found. Edit: Just saw the image you added, I think its safe to say its part of a vertebrae. I still dont think its a perfect match to anything in that picture, just because of the overall shape. The flat bottom is a dead ringer for the circled sections labelled prz though so I'm satisfied with saying its from a vert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 Just a sample photo of a Moroccon theropod. I doubt you will get much closer than Vertebrae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 I agree on the smaller piece. Seems likely to be a zygapophysis of a vertebra. The bigger one looks like unidentifiable chunkosaur. Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpc Posted September 15, 2020 Share Posted September 15, 2020 On 9/13/2020 at 4:00 PM, LordTrilobite said: I agree on the smaller piece. Seems likely to be a zygapophysis of a vertebra. The bigger one looks like unidentifiable chunkosaur. I agree 100 per cent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingo2 Posted September 16, 2020 Author Share Posted September 16, 2020 Ive done some cleanup on the big piece and am pretty confident its a anklyosaurus scute now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingo2 Posted September 16, 2020 Author Share Posted September 16, 2020 Blood grooves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingo2 Posted September 16, 2020 Author Share Posted September 16, 2020 Overall, pretty similar to the ones seen in this post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted September 16, 2020 Share Posted September 16, 2020 Most of this is just much too worn to tell the original shape. Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingo2 Posted September 16, 2020 Author Share Posted September 16, 2020 9 hours ago, LordTrilobite said: Most of this is just much too worn to tell the original shape. I'm a bit confused as to what part of the fossil you think is worn. Especially to the point that it would no longer be representative of the original shape. There is a clear break on one side, but the rest is in fine condition. There is a flat edge that goes around the entire front end of the fossil, which is clear evidence to me that it is hardly worn at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted September 16, 2020 Share Posted September 16, 2020 11 hours ago, dingo2 said: 90% of what I see here looks worn beyond recognition. Only the patterns on the bottom and bottom left look to be original anatomical features. Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilsandScience Posted September 16, 2020 Share Posted September 16, 2020 I'm throwing out a guess here, but could it be a chunk of frill or skull section? Usually, frill has those large blood grooves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now