Daspletosaurini evolution

[dinosaur man]

So last year my friend Jared Voris named both Thanatotheristes degrootorum and Daspletosaurini (as you all probably know).  For the past year a few others and I been studying this clade (you probably all know as well) and have been able to put up a good argument for two unnamed and controversial Daspletosaurus species, one from the Dinosaur Park Formation of Alberta and the other from the Judith River Formation of Montana.  This presents that there’s most likely 4 Daspletosaurus species, there’s also been evidence of a possible (note possible, just kind of a guess based of age and location) Thanatotheristes from the early Judith River Formation.  Along with Thanatotheristes degrootorum that’s 6 species of Daspletosaurini.  Though there has been some recent news of a new Tyrannosaur that seems to fit perfectly in this lineage that my friend discovered, I can’t say much on it though until the paper is out.  Careful radiometric and geological dating has shown the species don’t overlap.  In order that unnamed species my friend discovered is 83.4-80 million years old, Thanatotheristes degrootorum is 80-79.5 million years old, the Judith Rivers possible Thanatotheristes sp. is 79.5-78 million years old, the Judith River Daspletosaurus sp. is 78-77 million years old, Daspletosaurus torosus is 77-76.5 million years old, the Dinosaur Park Formation Daspletosaurus sp. is 76.5-74.8 million years old, and Daspletosaurus horneri is 74.6-74 million years old (note that through time the features on these species change and flow perfectly together) (there’s also a gap there of 100,000 years I’ll get to soon) (and there might be another species in the Horseshoe Canyon Formation of Alberta but for now we suspect they went extinct 74 million years ago due to absence of diagnostic fossils and the Elkhorn range volcanoes in Montana experiencing huge volcanic events and the Western Interior Seaway rising causing an extinction and faunal turnover in North Western North America) anyways that gap of 100,000 years between the Dinosaur Park Formation Daspletosaurus sp. and Daspletosaurus horneri is pretty special as it contains three mysterious specimens from the upper Two Medicine Formation (Currie, P.J., Trexler, D., Koppelhus, E.B., Wicks, K., Murphy, N., 2005
An Unusual Multi-Individual Tyrannosaurid Bonebed in the Two Medicine Formation (Late Cretaceous, Campanian) of Montana (USA). pp. 313-324
In: The Carnivorous Dinosaurs. Carpenter, K. (ed.) Indiana University Press, 371 pp.) Interestingly, now that Daspletosaurus horneri has been described, TA.1997.002 (which is one of the specimens) instead seems to share characters with D. torosus plus the Dinosaur Park Formation species.  In particular, the maxillary fenestra is longer than tall, the upper half of the lacrimal orbital margin is convex, the lacrimal horn is tall, the dorsal margin of the posterior postorbital process is convex, and the surangular shelf overhangs the posterior foramen.  And this adding on that the sediments it was found in were between the Dinosaur Park Formation Daspletosaurus sp.  and Daspletosaurus horneri in age, along with some Daspletosaurus horneri features (more research has to be done on these features) shows it’s most likely a transitional form! Especially since it’s the right age to be and shares features of both its predecessor and ancestor!  Along with a transitional form this shows possibly our first complete Anagenetic lineage!  I’m quite interested to hear everyone’s thoughts on this subject. 

Edited May 8, 2021 by dinosaur man

[PaleoNoel]

Very cool to hear about all of the progress being made on this subject, can't wait to read more!

[Troodon]

The JRF and TMF spanned millions of years so its highly probable that a good number of dinosaurs evolved during that period not only Tyrannosaurids.  I would expect to see variations from early deposits to later one.  We see that in Triceratops in the Hell Creek over a much shorter period..  The question for those doing the research is are they significant enough to create a new species.    Will be interested to see what is finally published 

[dinosaur man]

On 5/8/2021 at 6:02 PM, PaleoNoel said:

Very cool to hear about all of the progress being made on this subject, can't wait to read more!

Thank you!  It’s been very tedious work.

[dinosaur man]

On 5/8/2021 at 7:28 PM, Troodon said:

The JRF and TMF spanned millions of years so its highly probable that a good number of dinosaurs evolved during that period not only Tyrannosaurids.  I would expect to see variations from early deposits to later one.  We see that in Triceratops in the Hell Creek over a much shorter period..  The question for those doing the research is are they significant enough to create a new species.    Will be interested to see what is finally published 

I’m not sure, as most of the diagnostic features of the specimens are based off features observed in already known species, and currently nothing new.  And thank you 

[dinosaur man]

I’d like to announce the discovery of a possible new Tyrannosaur species!  Note this is not confirmed or even close to being yet, so currently take this with a grain of salt.  When a few others and I were researching on the Two Medicine Formation Transitional Form we found many similarities and differences showing it to be a transitional form (which I list in the below photo and previous comments). In this process we were told by many people saying the same thing, are the features enough to warrant a new species? 

 

“It’s like having a gradient of blue to purple. Is the in between color still blue or is it purple or is it something else entirely?” 

 

“The JRF and TMF spanned millions of years so its highly probable that a good number of dinosaurs evolved during that period not only Tyrannosaurids.  I would expect to see variations from early deposits to later one.  We see that in Triceratops in the Hell Creek over a much shorter period.. The question for those doing the research is are they significant enough to create a new species.  Will be interested to see what is finally published.” 

 

And after discovering features both the Dinosaur Park Formation Daspletosaurus sp. and Daspletosaurus horneri don’t have (I also list these in the below photo) it seems that this is really likely.  Most notably the upper part of the maxilla curving more upwards, this would create a notch similar (not as near prominent) to the notch found in Dilophosaurus wetherilli. I’m curious to everyone’s thoughts.

Edited June 1, 2021 by dinosaur man

[dinosaur man]

So we have one final specimen that has recently posed a problem to the “Anagenetic Daspletosaurini Theory”, this specimen is RMDRC 2002.MT-001, or “Sir William”.  It posed a problem as over the last month or two researching on it it kept throwing features that made it hard to place, especially with not having the actual specimen in hand.  But after months of research on this specimen I’ve come up with a phylogenetic placement for it.  I’ve placed it in Daspletosaurus being likely the most  derived (probably the oldest Daspletosaurus species) of the genus.  I placed it here because of a few reasons I’ll explain.  First the idea that it’s something different then Daspletosaurus stems from a few features and the first few paragraphs are my reasoning it is not but instead in the genus of Daspletosaurus:  The Dentary: The dentary is both extremely robust and short more comparable to a Tyrannosaurini like Tyrannosaurus, the low tooth count also suggests this.  But Tyrannosaurs can have different tooth count during aging and just general variation as many specimens of many different species have shown, meaning this does not prove it is something other than Daspletosaurus.  The robustness can also be affected by aging and variation, and as two specimens of two different Daspletosaurus species in particular, TMP 2001.036.0001 and MOR 1130 show, jaws of the older and larger specimens of this genus can get extremely robust just like “Sir William”.  The Lacrimal: The oddness of the lacrimal have made many to speculate if it’s something new as it does not match any other Tyrannosaur specimen and is thought to be a good indicator for species identification amongst Theropods like Tyrannosaurs, but this idea has been challenged many times proving it’s not the most reliable.  The different lacrimal can be explained with lacrimal sinus inflation.  Lacrimal sinus inflation has a major role in the shape of the lacrimals and is especially common in Daspletosaurus, and it is a subject of many variation especially amongst age.  This is probably what’s going on here as like I said before no other specimen has a lacrimal like “Sir William” does which is kinda strange if it isn’t to do with lacrimal sinus inflation as the few other specimens we have from the same area and aged rocks don’t have this besides “Pete 111” but it’s lacrimals are technically missing and are are based off “Sir William”.  Other Smaller and Less Prominent Features: There are a few here but as they are less important I won’t go into much detail.  In the paper that originally described “Sir William” (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289696035_Preliminary_analysis_of_a_sub-adult_tyrannosaurid_skeleton_from_the_Judith_river_formation_of_Petroleum_county_Montana) they used TMP 1994.143.0001 to compare the features with as a Daspletosaurus representative, but since then this specimen has be classified as being from a Gorgosaurus libratus, and a juvenile specimen at that which causes a lot of ontogenetic issues.  Meaning it wouldn’t work and these features can’t be classified as not being present in Daspletosaurus as they used a Gorgosaurus specimen for this, showing that there is even less evidence for it being something different than Daspletosaurus.  With all this and the evidence I presented a while back about the Daspletosaurus “Pete 111” being a new Daspletosaurus species, a specimen that was found in the same area and aged rocks as “Sir William”, being known to be close phylogenetically to “Sir William” too.  I think it’s safe to say that “Sir William” is in fact a new species of Daspletosaurus, a derived species (probably the oldest Daspletosaurus species) at that too and not something else, and has been subjected to a fair amount of variation as well.  But what about it’s Tyrannosaurus like Tyrannosaurini features?  Well it’s close to the base of Daspletosaurini (like Thanatotheristes degrootorum which also has some of these Tyrannosaurus like Tyrannosaurini features) where they broke off from Tyrannosaurini  and another unnamed clade which is the reason why it has some of these features still and is often attributed to these other clades.  This both fits in the “Anagenetic Daspletosaurini Theory” perfectly but fills in an area that’s been a bit mysterious in the Daspletosaurini and many other Tyrannosaur tribes evolution too.

[AlexSciChannel]

On 6/28/2021 at 1:51 AM, dinosaur man said:

So we have one final specimen that has recently posed a problem to the “Anagenetic Daspletosaurini Theory”, this specimen is RMDRC 2002.MT-001, or “Sir William”.  It posed a problem as over the last month or two researching on it it kept throwing features that made it hard to place, especially with not having the actual specimen in hand.  But after months of research on this specimen I’ve come up with a phylogenetic placement for it.  I’ve placed it in Daspletosaurus being likely the most  derived (probably the oldest Daspletosaurus species) of the genus.  I placed it here because of a few reasons I’ll explain.  First the idea that it’s something different then Daspletosaurus stems from a few features and the first few paragraphs are my reasoning it is not but instead in the genus of Daspletosaurus:  The Dentary: The dentary is both extremely robust and short more comparable to a Tyrannosaurini like Tyrannosaurus, the low tooth count also suggests this.  But Tyrannosaurs can have different tooth count during aging and just general variation as many specimens of many different species have shown, meaning this does not prove it is something other than Daspletosaurus.  The robustness can also be affected by aging and variation, and as two specimens of two different Daspletosaurus species in particular, TMP 2001.036.0001 and MOR 1130 show, jaws of the older and larger specimens of this genus can get extremely robust just like “Sir William”.  The Lacrimal: The oddness of the lacrimal have made many to speculate if it’s something new as it does not match any other Tyrannosaur specimen and is thought to be a good indicator for species identification amongst Theropods like Tyrannosaurs, but this idea has been challenged many times proving it’s not the most reliable.  The different lacrimal can be explained with lacrimal sinus inflation.  Lacrimal sinus inflation has a major role in the shape of the lacrimals and is especially common in Daspletosaurus, and it is a subject of many variation especially amongst age.  This is probably what’s going on here as like I said before no other specimen has a lacrimal like “Sir William” does which is kinda strange if it isn’t to do with lacrimal sinus inflation as the few other specimens we have from the same area and aged rocks don’t have this besides “Pete 111” but it’s lacrimals are technically missing and are are based off “Sir William”.  Other Smaller and Less Prominent Features: There are a few here but as they are less important I won’t go into much detail.  In the paper that originally described “Sir William” (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289696035_Preliminary_analysis_of_a_sub-adult_tyrannosaurid_skeleton_from_the_Judith_river_formation_of_Petroleum_county_Montana) they used TMP 1994.143.0001 to compare the features with as a Daspletosaurus representative, but since then this specimen has be classified as being from a Gorgosaurus libratus, and a juvenile specimen at that which causes a lot of ontogenetic issues.  Meaning it wouldn’t work and these features can’t be classified as not being present in Daspletosaurus as they used a Gorgosaurus specimen for this, showing that there is even less evidence for it being something different than Daspletosaurus.  With all this and the evidence I presented a while back about the Daspletosaurus “Pete 111” being a new Daspletosaurus species, a specimen that was found in the same area and aged rocks as “Sir William”, being known to be close phylogenetically to “Sir William” too.  I think it’s safe to say that “Sir William” is in fact a new species of Daspletosaurus, a derived species (probably the oldest Daspletosaurus species) at that too and not something else, and has been subjected to a fair amount of variation as well.  But what about it’s Tyrannosaurus like Tyrannosaurini features?  Well it’s close to the base of Daspletosaurini (like Thanatotheristes degrootorum which also has some of these Tyrannosaurus like Tyrannosaurini features) where they broke off from Tyrannosaurini  and another unnamed clade which is the reason why it has some of these features still and is often attributed to these other clades.  This both fits in the “Anagenetic Daspletosaurini Theory” perfectly but fills in an area that’s been a bit mysterious in the Daspletosaurini and many other Tyrannosaur tribes evolution too.

Just wanted to let know your updates are not falling on deaf ears and I am invested in the possible description of the Judith River taxon at some point soon hopefully.

 

A bit of wishful thinking on my part but whom ever chooses the species names for these new taxa, I hope they make a continuing trend of naming the different Daspletosaurus species after famous tyrannosaur scientists. Daspletosaurus holtzi/holtzii doesn't sound too shabby imo.

 

I do have one question though. You mentioned how Sir William and Pete III can fit into the anagenetic Daspletosaurus theory. But how would this be possible if both specimens represent more derived species yet are in older rock 79-78 Ma?

Edited July 20, 2021 by AlexSciChannel

[dinosaur man]

On 7/20/2021 at 12:42 AM, AlexSciChannel said:

Just wanted to let know your updates are not falling on deaf ears and I am invested in the possible description of the Judith River taxon at some point soon hopefully.

 

A bit of wishful thinking on my part but whom ever chooses the species names for these new taxa, I hope they make a continuing trend of naming the different Daspletosaurus species after famous tyrannosaur scientists. Daspletosaurus holtzi/holtzii doesn't sound too shabby imo.

 

I do have one question though. You mentioned how Sir William and Pete III can fit into the anagenetic Daspletosaurus theory. But how would this be possible if both specimens represent more derived species yet are in older rock 79-78 Ma?

Thank you, though I’m not quite sure what you mean by the question?

[AlexSciChannel]

15 hours ago, dinosaur man said:

Thank you, though I’m not quite sure what you mean by the question?

Let me rephrase. If the Judith River Daspletosaurus species is a more advanced stage of the anagentic series how are they the oldest aged species? It doesn't match up to me.

 

I am referring to this quote specifically,

 

"I’ve placed it in Daspletosaurus being likely the most  derived (probably the oldest Daspletosaurus species) of the genus."

 

How is the Judith River Daspletosaurus the most derived if it's the oldest species?

[dinosaur man]

6 hours ago, AlexSciChannel said:

Let me rephrase. If the Judith River Daspletosaurus species is a more advanced stage of the anagentic series how are they the oldest aged species? It doesn't match up to me.

 

I am referring to this quote specifically,

 

"I’ve placed it in Daspletosaurus being likely the most  derived (probably the oldest Daspletosaurus species) of the genus."

 

How is the Judith River Daspletosaurus the most derived if it's the oldest species?

Ah I see what you mean, derived has a few different meanings and in this case I was referring to this definition: “as a root or origin” and taking this definition the lower JRF species would be the most derived Daspletosaurus as it’s the oldest making it at the root or origin of the genus.  Hopefully this clears it up.  Also I have some new research involving Pete 111 that might actually change it’s placement.

[AlexSciChannel]

6 minutes ago, dinosaur man said:

Ah I see what you mean, derived has a few different meanings and in this case I was referring to this definition: “as a root or origin” and taking this definition the lower JRF species would be the most derived Daspletosaurus as it’s the oldest making it at the root or origin of the genus.  Hopefully this clears it up.  Also I have some new research involving Pete 111 that might actually change it’s placement.

Are you a Paleontologist or something?

 

And when it comes to Pete III I assumed it was the Judith River taxon like Sir William. They were both found in the same temporal range and are anatomically very similar. Hopefully it doesn't get needlessly complicated.

[Praefectus]

30 minutes ago, dinosaur man said:

Also I have some new research involving Pete 111 that might actually change it’s placement.

Have you seen Pete 111 in person?

[dinosaur man]

36 minutes ago, AlexSciChannel said:

Are you a Paleontologist or something?

 

And when it comes to Pete III I assumed it was the Judith River taxon like Sir William. They were both found in the same temporal range and are anatomically very similar. Hopefully it doesn't get needlessly complicated.

I am not a Paleontologist, and it seems Pete 111 could be horneri.  Here’s my research on the specimen, note I label it as Daspletosaurus cf. horneri, pretty confident but not fully sure as most of the skull is missing.

 

“Recently after talking to Mike Triebold about both RMDRC 2002.MT-001 “Sir William” and RMDRC 06-005 “Pete 111” I was informed that “Pete 111” is from the upper most Judith River Formation, meaning it would’ve lived at the exact time as Daspletosaurus horneri.  This conflicts with the whole anagenesis trend the rest of the Daspletosaurini specimens display.  So what’s happening and where does “Pete 111” sit in the Daspletosaurini?  Well taking the identifiable features that have preserved with its partial skull we can conclude it most likely can be classified as Daspletosaurus cf. horneri.  I place it here because of two features.

The first feature is “Pete 111” does have anteroventral margin of quadrate's orbital process extends along a steep 45-degree angle shared with Daspletosaurus horneri.

The second feature is the quadratojugal lacks a lateral pneumatic foramen unlike adult Daspletosaurus horneri specimen MOR 1130, which “Pete III” is larger than (qj height ~229 mm vs. ~199 mm), but the variation of this feature is unknown, as its apparent absence in the smaller subadult Daspletosaurus horneri intended holotype (qj height 151.4 mm) could easily be individual difference instead of ontogenetic difference.

These two features show it has a lot in common with Daspletosaurus horneri meaning that it most likely is one as we should always factor in individual variation.  Another thing learned in the research on this specimen is that many Tyrannosaur species weren’t quite as restricted to certain formations and areas as many think and that “Sir William” is not as similar to “Pete 111” as thought.  I should also mention that the skull of “Pete 111” was partially reconstructed off of “Sir William’s” skull which is far more complete, this might need to be change though due to these two features I discuss above. “Sir William” is still different enough however to be a new species, but with this I might have to revisit some other specimens.”

[Kane]

"Derived" has the meaning that something is derived from something else, making the derived thing subsequent to another thing said to be the original or root. An older species cannot be derived from a younger one unless time works backwards.  An example of derivation: "The word 'algebra’ is derived from the 9th century Arabic term al-jabr, meaning 'bone-setting.'"

 

And given the odd placement of quotation marks in your stated research above, I am not sure who you are quoting. Are these your words, or is there an attribution?

[AlexSciChannel]

11 hours ago, dinosaur man said:

I am not a Paleontologist, and it seems Pete 111 could be horneri.  Here’s my research on the specimen, note I label it as Daspletosaurus cf. horneri, pretty confident but not fully sure as most of the skull is missing.

 

“Recently after talking to Mike Triebold about both RMDRC 2002.MT-001 “Sir William” and RMDRC 06-005 “Pete 111” I was informed that “Pete 111” is from the upper most Judith River Formation, meaning it would’ve lived at the exact time as Daspletosaurus horneri.  This conflicts with the whole anagenesis trend the rest of the Daspletosaurini specimens display.  So what’s happening and where does “Pete 111” sit in the Daspletosaurini?  Well taking the identifiable features that have preserved with its partial skull we can conclude it most likely can be classified as Daspletosaurus cf. horneri.  I place it here because of two features.

The first feature is “Pete 111” does have anteroventral margin of quadrate's orbital process extends along a steep 45-degree angle shared with Daspletosaurus horneri.

The second feature is the quadratojugal lacks a lateral pneumatic foramen unlike adult Daspletosaurus horneri specimen MOR 1130, which “Pete III” is larger than (qj height ~229 mm vs. ~199 mm), but the variation of this feature is unknown, as its apparent absence in the smaller subadult Daspletosaurus horneri intended holotype (qj height 151.4 mm) could easily be individual difference instead of ontogenetic difference.

These two features show it has a lot in common with Daspletosaurus horneri meaning that it most likely is one as we should always factor in individual variation.  Another thing learned in the research on this specimen is that many Tyrannosaur species weren’t quite as restricted to certain formations and areas as many think and that “Sir William” is not as similar to “Pete 111” as thought.  I should also mention that the skull of “Pete 111” was partially reconstructed off of “Sir William’s” skull which is far more complete, this might need to be change though due to these two features I discuss above. “Sir William” is still different enough however to be a new species, but with this I might have to revisit some other specimens.”

Every source I've seen cites Pete III being in the same strata as Sir William 78 mya. Not saying Mike is wrong I am simply hearing a lot of conflicting information so consider me skeptical.

 

And when it comes to the anagenisis theory, it seems you're post hoc justifying being this single conclusion. Not saying it's wrong but let's just say I don't buy Pete III being D. horneri.

 

For one I am hestitant to take credence when chalking anything up to individual variation when it doesn't fit a conclusion Thomas Carr style. Also foramina variation isn't something that can be usually be explained away by individual variation as most of the time their presence is to allow the passage of vital structures. However due to such a low sample size of D. horneri quadratojugals I guess it's too early to tell.

 

Another autapomorphic feature of D. horneri is that the humerus is 34% the length of the femur. Seeing how Pete III arms are proportionally the longest of any tyrannosaurine I fail to see how that standard is met as well.

[Kane]

15 minutes ago, AlexSciChannel said:

Every source I've seen cites Pete III being in the same strata as Sir William 78 mya. Not saying Mike is wrong I am simply hearing a lot of conflicting information so consider me skeptical.

 

And when it comes to the anagenisis theory, it seems you're post hoc justifying being this single conclusion. Not saying it's wrong but let's just say I don't buy Pete III being D. horneri.

 

For one I am hestitant to take credence when chalking anything up to individual variation when it doesn't fit a conclusion Thomas Carr style. Also foramina variation isn't something that can be usually be explained away by individual variation as most of the time their presence is to allow the passage of vital structures. However due to such a low sample size of D. horneri quadratojugals I guess it's too early to tell.

 

Another autapomorphic feature of D. horneri is that the humerus is 34% the length of the femur. Seeing how Pete III arms are proportionally the longest of any tyrannosaurine I fail to see how that standard is met as well.

Great points!

 

I do wonder if there is enough material to perform a cladistic analysis, and on what characters might be chosen to ensure species differentiation (phylogeny) as opposed to something that is mere variation within the species (ontogeny). Or, alternatively, to plot species richness using software that would allow for the use of ANOVA? (On the latter, I am just getting my feet wet, but I know it has worked well for gastropods). 

[TyBoy]

@dinosaur man

Interesting topic.  Just curious when you say you're doing research is that in a lab with these specimens or just through web interactions? 

Since the sample size is very small and some relatively incomplete is it not early to drawn conclusions ?

[dinosaur man]

On 7/23/2021 at 6:17 AM, Kane said:

"Derived" has the meaning that something is derived from something else, making the derived thing subsequent to another thing said to be the original or root. An older species cannot be derived from a younger one unless time works backwards.  An example of derivation: "The word 'algebra’ is derived from the 9th century Arabic term al-jabr, meaning 'bone-setting.'"

 

And given the odd placement of quotation marks in your stated research above, I am not sure who you are quoting. Are these your words, or is there an attribution?

 Must’ve used a wrong definition for origin.  And yeah, I didn’t write all of it which is why I quoted it, but most of it was done by me from when I used it for something else.

@AlexSciChannel @Kane those are great points, I’m going to do some digging into these and work on some cladistic analysis as suggested, any ideas of what to use to make it, any websites or programs that would help?

[dinosaur man]

On 7/23/2021 at 4:15 PM, TyBoy said:

@dinosaur man

Interesting topic.  Just curious when you say you're doing research is that in a lab with these specimens or just through web interactions? 

Since the sample size is very small and some relatively incomplete is it not early to drawn conclusions ?

At the moment it’s been web interactions, I have got access to some amazing photos of many specimens which I’ve been using but I have a trip planned for whenever COVID calms down to head out west to actually work with some specimens in person and do field work.  It may be too early but there are a fair amount of specimens with some great complete skulls and skeletons from a few different formations.

[Kane]

9 hours ago, dinosaur man said:

And yeah, I didn’t write all of it which is why I quoted it, but most of it was done by me from when I used it for something else.

@AlexSciChannel @Kane those are great points, I’m going to do some digging into these and work on some cladistic analysis as suggested, any ideas of what to use to make it, any websites or programs that would help?

Well, this is a good learning moment.  Always be sure to credit others for their work. In academia, plagiarism is pretty much the equivalent of committing murder.  

 

As for doing cladistic analysis, that might require specialized training to do effectively, and that can take a very long time (possibly years) which might include good skills in both computer science and statistics, as well as bioinformatics. You may wish to entrust that to an expert in order to pick out the precise characters for analysis.