Hadrosaur bone

[Guns]

Hi again everyone 

Here is Bone likely from Hadrosaur (as far as seller told me) from Lance creek formation . It look like to be a partial section of Metatarsal bone ?

what do you think guy???

Thank you in advance !

[LordTrilobite]

It seems to fit fairly decently. But it's kinda hard to tell since it's such a small fragment. If it's indeed hadrosaur, then it's likely Edmontosaurus. But keep in mind that they also shared their environment with ceratopsians like Triceratops and Torosaurus. Some ceratopsian toe bones are look a bit similar to those of hadrosaurs. But they are generally chunkier and gnarlier.

[Troodon]

Agree but not the center one

[Guns]

1 hour ago, LordTrilobite said:

It seems to fit fairly decently. But it's kinda hard to tell since it's such a small fragment. If it's indeed hadrosaur, then it's likely Edmontosaurus. But keep in mind that they also shared their environment with ceratopsians like Triceratops and Torosaurus. Some ceratopsian toe bones are look a bit similar to those of hadrosaurs. But they are generally chunkier and gnarlier.

thank you for the comment! yea it is small fragment indeed and luckily still have some feature of joint to identify.Oh i really have no idea how to tell different between hadrosaur and triceratop 's toe&metatarsal bone.. 

[Guns]

1 hour ago, Troodon said:

Agree but not the center one

thank for reply sir!!! but May i ask how do you know? 

[JohnJ]

 

@Troodon

 

Is this preservation typical for the Lance Creek formation? 

 

Based on the photos, it looks like it could easily be mistaken for the cancellous bone of an eroded mammal metapodial.

[Troodon]

1 hour ago, Guns said:

thank for reply sir!!! but May i ask how do you know? 

The roundness of the distal end in your first photo and the deep side dimple but JohnJ has a good point

 

41 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

 

@Troodon

 

Is this preservation typical for the Lance Creek formation? 

 

Based on the photos, it looks like it could easily be mistaken for the cancellous bone of an eroded mammal metapodial.

Good observation.  Its very light for LC so the only possible explanation is that its a surface find.  But not being complete and only a fragment one cannot rule anything out.  Not familiar with that end looks like on a Mammal.

[jpc]

2 hours ago, JohnJ said:

 

@Troodon

 

Is this preservation typical for the Lance Creek formation? 

 

Based on the photos, it looks like it could easily be mistaken for the cancellous bone of an eroded mammal metapodial.

This preservation is typical of Lance Formation surface bones.  They fade pretty quickly.  Way too big to be a Lance Formation mammal. 

 

Please note my use of the term 'Lance Formation'.  The word 'Creek' does not belong.  (Not picking on you John J, just correcting the discussion that seems to have started with the seller.)

[JohnJ]

Thanks, @jpc.  

 

My question, specifically...is it typical for dinosaur bones of the Lance Formation to exhibit the open cell spongy interior bone as opposed to the interior cavities being solidly filled with calcitic minerals?  It looks like you could easily crush the cancellous bone in the photos with a fingernail.

 

If this was a mammal metapodial, I would expect its age to be much younger and original location to be elsewhere.

[JohnJ]

1 hour ago, Troodon said:

Not familiar with that end looks like on a Mammal.

 

Like this.

[jpc]

Yes, Lance Fm stuff is typically very porous, hollowish, spongy if you will.  Rarely ever fully calcified.  This is why some hadrosaur (e.g.) bones are often mistaken for theropod bones, because the very delicate intricate lacey internal bone erodes away and leaves a hollow non-theropod bone. 

[JohnJ]

Thanks, @jpc.

[Guns]

oh! i forgot one more image 

look hollow may be from erosion like you said? @jpc

[jpc]

1 hour ago, Guns said:

oh! i forgot one more image 

look hollow may be from erosion like you said? @jpc

exactly.  This is not theropod hollowness

[Guns]

47 minutes ago, jpc said:

exactly.  This is not theropod hollowness

@jpcoh! then Is there a clearly or obvious spot or how to distinguish between non-theropod hollow bone VS theropod hollow bone?? 

thank in advance!!