Hell Creek Bird Bone?

[PaleoNoel]

Another small Hell Creek bone found in North Dakota, this time it appears to be a the end of a limb from what I believe may be a bird, small non-avian theropod or perhaps even pterosaur. It has very thin walls which is what made me think that way and I would appreciate any input from my fellow members. The bone is about 1 cm in length and 6 mm at it's widest point at the bulbous base.

[Rockwood]

Doesn't strike me as being a  long bone from a bird. Pneumatization of another skeletal element in a terrestrial dinosaur seem more likely. 

[Pemphix]

@Troodon may help here...

[Troodon]

Partial bone.  Very thin walled,  bird or pterosaur about all I can say

[PaleoNoel]

6 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Doesn't strike me as being a  long bone from a bird. Pneumatization of another skeletal element in a terrestrial dinosaur seem more likely. 

 

2 hours ago, Troodon said:

Partial bone.  Very thin walled,  bird or pterosaur about all I can say

Thanks for taking a look!

[Rockwood]

9 hours ago, PaleoNoel said:

The bone is about 1 cm in length and 6 mm at it's widest point at the bulbous base.

I really should pay more attention to the scale.  

[jpc]

I agree with troodon.  Nice find.  

A friend once showed me a pile of micros he got from the North Dakota Hell Creek microsite.  It contained at least a few bird bones.  I have collected thousands of micros from out local Lance Fm and have seen maybe one or two definite bird bones.  I wonder if they may be more common in the Hell Creek.  

[PaleoNoel]

1 hour ago, jpc said:

I agree with troodon.  Nice find.  

A friend once showed me a pile of micros he got from the North Dakota Hell Creek microsite.  It contained at least a few bird bones.  I have collected thousands of micros from out local Lance Fm and have seen maybe one or two definite bird bones.  I wonder if they may be more common in the Hell Creek.  

It seems like a possibility, it felt like the Hell Creek had more sandy & pebbly microsites compared to the lance which I find has more conglomerate channel deposits. That's not to say they're exclusive to either as you and Troodon already know, but it seems that the sites with softer sand can preserved delicate bones better. 

[jpc]

1 hour ago, PaleoNoel said:

It seems like a possibility, it felt like the Hell Creek had more sandy & pebbly microsites compared to the lance which I find has more conglomerate channel deposits. That's not to say they're exclusive to either as you and Troodon already know, but it seems that the sites with softer sand can preserved delicate bones better. 

another interesting aspect of the comparison is that the Lance has a lot more dinosaur mummies than the Hell Creek.  All found in massive sandstones.  

[PaleoNoel]

3 minutes ago, jpc said:

another interesting aspect of the comparison is that the Lance has a lot more dinosaur mummies than the Hell Creek.  All found in massive sandstones.  

Interesting! I've heard of a couple paleoprospectors participants finding a few patches of hadrosaur scales on one of the Lance ranches, along with a huge tail with some skin being found on one of the HC ranches and donated somewhere, but whenever I hear about dinosaur mummies it always seems like they come out of Hell Creek, maybe Dakota is just the most prominent example in my mind. 

[jpc]

There are three classic hadrosuar mummies found about 100 years ago.  One at the SAMNH, one at the Senckenberg Museum in Frankfort and one at the bottom of the Atlantic.  A beautiful 17 foot long articulated tail and hips and back legs were collected on one of my ranches in the early 2000's.  Supposedly took a beating in hurricane Katrina.  There's another one I know of, but can't remember it.  

 

Two of the hadrosaurs that the Tate Museum (my employer) is working on have had skin impressions, though I hesitate to call those mummies as they are small bits of skin.  Same goes for another one that one of my rancher friends ran over with his front end loader while fixing a fence.  

 

It could be that I am less in touch with what is being found in the HC than in the Lance.  

[Troodon]

There is a Edmontosaurus mummy named Dakota from ND.  

[jpc]

Just now, Troodon said:

There is a Edmontosaurus mummy named Dakota from ND.  

yeah, that's the one PaleoNoel mentioned.  

 

There are actually quite a few being found as we speak in the Grand Staircase Escalante national Monument by teams from Utah and Denver.  

[Troodon]

@jpcMissed that.. Awesome finds, aware of any theropod ones from the Grand Staircase? 

[jpc]

 

22 minutes ago, Troodon said:

@jpcMissed that.. Awesome finds, aware of any theropod ones from the Grand Staircase? 

not off the top  of my head... hadrosaurs mostly.  

[PaleoNoel]

49 minutes ago, jpc said:

 

not off the top  of my head... hadrosaurs mostly.  

always gotta be hadrosaurs, I know there's been discussion as to why their mummies are more numerous but I can't remember reasoning off the top of my head. Seems to be much more of a trend than pure luck. 

[jpc]

my personal obsertvations are that hadrosaurs are more often preserved in sandstones (fluvial sandbars), ceratopsians in mudstones (overbank deposits), and all the mummies I know of are in those sandstones.  I have seen at least one ankylosaur mummy (from Alberta; backstage at the ROM), and it was in a sandstone.  As for rexes, they are found in various rocks and there are no mummies of them.  The Utah hadrosaur mummies I have seen pictues of are also in sandstones.  I htink this preservatin is ecologically biased (hadrosaurs liked the rivers and riverbanks, ceratopsians lived further from the water.  And these differences also contribute to the fatcors that create mummies.

 

There is also a triceratops mummy.. found in Wyoming... in a sandstone.  (at the Black Hills Institute)  

 

There are generally more massive sandstones in Wyoming's Lance than in the HC.  Hence more mummies.  

 

These "facts" are my opinion based on years of field and museum work.