Big Spinosaurus tooth

[JorisVV]

My new Spinosaurus Aegypticus tooth just came in. And it's a big one! Over 4'5 inches / 11.5 Centimeters long. Was wondering if you can see any doings with it? So far i can't.

[Troodon]

Dont see any red flags with the two views you are showing.  Nice Spinosaurid tooth

[TyBoy]

Nice tooth

[Guns]

agree. nice tooth and great size ! 

congrat !!

 

Guns

[LordTrilobite]

Yeah, looks good. Nice tooth!

[Praefectus]

Nice tooth!

[Phos_01]

On 10/13/2021 at 10:58 PM, Troodon said:

Dont see any red flags with the two views you are showing.  Nice Spinosaurid tooth

Perhaps the only thing I would suspect is that its colored red like the Moroccan matrix surface? I have seen this a few times to make them ascetically more appealing. It looks like it's been appealed on the top crown wear side and side going down. (just a thought)

[Troodon]

12 minutes ago, Phos_01 said:

Perhaps the only thing I would suspect is that its colored red like the Moroccan matrix surface? I have seen this a few times to make them ascetically more appealing. It looks like it's been appealed on the top crown wear side and side going down. (just a thought)

Anything possible when it comes to morrocan material.   Something you would have to hold to verify.

[Josesaurus rex]

Hello, seeing the photos of this tooth, and reading the different answers, I had a question regarding a partial carcharodontosaurid tooth that I bought some time ago, (I don't know whether to label it as carcharodontosaurus), it has the same red tones, and when it appears, Some paint on the part where it is broken, which is the same color, does it mean that some teeth are usually stained to improve their color?

[Josesaurus rex]

This is the tooth I am referring to, if it is not a bother that I ask you in this thread, could you give me an opinion about it please? And also, that's the label that came with the fossil, I guess the formation data is wrong, could you confirm that too? Any help is appreciated

[Phos_01]

14 hours ago, Josesaurus rex said:

tos of this tooth, and reading the different answers, I had a question regarding a partial carcharodontosaurid tooth that I bought some time ago, (I don't know whether to label it as carcharodontosaurus), it has the same red tones, and when it appears, Some paint on the part where it is broken, which is the same color, does it mean that some teeth are usually stained to improve their color?

You tooth looks good. natural wear on tip , and a little damage on left up side. Color is good. Its not paint in your case from what I can see, just the color of the stone and matrix from Kem Kem beds. This would have been a huge one if it was not broken 

[Josesaurus rex]

3 hours ago, Phos_01 said:

You tooth looks good. natural wear on tip , and a little damage on left up side. Color is good. Its not paint in your case from what I can see, just the color of the stone and matrix from Kem Kem beds. This would have been a huge one if it was not broken 

Thanks for your opinion. Yes, in fact I also thought that if it had been whole it would be a giant tooth, but most likely I would not have had the budget to buy it.

 

Regarding the tip of the tooth, do you think that this wear occurred while the animal was still alive or was caused by an accident during the extraction of the fossil? Is it possible to get a better idea of what would have happened just by looking at the photos?

[carch_23]

18 hours ago, Josesaurus rex said:

Thanks for your opinion. Yes, in fact I also thought that if it had been whole it would be a giant tooth, but most likely I would not have had the budget to buy it.

 

Regarding the tip of the tooth, do you think that this wear occurred while the animal was still alive or was caused by an accident during the extraction of the fossil? Is it possible to get a better idea of what would have happened just by looking at the photos?

In my opinion, if damage to the tip occured during extraction, it wouldnt look that smooth. So for me, it is most likely wear. 

[Troodon]

On 10/26/2021 at 2:21 PM, Josesaurus rex said:

This is the tooth I am referring to, if it is not a bother that I ask you in this thread, could you give me an opinion about it please? And also, that's the label that came with the fossil, I guess the formation data is wrong, could you confirm that too? Any help is appreciated

- Tegana Fo does not exist..The label needs to read

Carcharodontosaurid indet.

Kem Kem Group

Cenomanian Age

Kem Kem Beds, Morocco

 

The missing enamel in the tip does not look like wear facet.   It most likely occurred post mortem 

[carch_23]

17 hours ago, Troodon said:

The label needs to read - Tegana Fo does not exist..

 

Carcharodontosaurid indet.

Kem Kem Group

Cenomanian Age

Kem Kem Beds, Morocco

 

The missing enamel in the tip does not look like wear facet.   It most likely occurred post mortem 

Oh really?? I always thiught those wears occured during feeding. If I may ask, so would this mean that this tip damage occured during fossilisation then? As I would assume if it was during extraction, it wouldnt be a “smooth” type of wear? 

[Phos_01]

22 hours ago, Josesaurus rex said:

Thanks for your opinion. Yes, in fact I also thought that if it had been whole it would be a giant tooth, but most likely I would not have had the budget to buy it.

 

Regarding the tip of the tooth, do you think that this wear occurred while the animal was still alive or was caused by an accident during the extraction of the fossil? Is it possible to get a better idea of what would have happened just by looking at the photos?

Just took a look at it again and agree with Troodon , the wear should be more flat, like on your own corner teeth, best example is wear on suchomimus teeth, they almost all have it. The white line around the tip wear suggests it can also be a damage of some kind. All tough the tip does not look painted to me.

[Troodon]

5 hours ago, carch_23 said:

Oh really?? I always thiught those wears occured during feeding. If I may ask, so would this mean that this tip damage occured during fossilisation then? As I would assume if it was during extraction, it wouldnt be a “smooth” type of wear? 

 

Its a very difficult call since there are various type of wear facets and spalling but I still believe its postmortem spalling.   The attached paper defines antemortem spalling as surfaces that have uneven surfaces and appear more toward the apex of the tooth and the edges are smooth because of wear.  In this specimen the spalling around the tip has a rough jaggerd edge why I call it postmortem spalling.  How it got there is a guess could be anything associated with taphonomy, extraction or just poor handling .   

 

Just an FYI this study attributes wear facets just a result of repeated contact with the opposing tooth not feeding.    

 

Wear facets and enamel spalling in tyrannosaurid dinosaurs BLAINE W. SCHUBERT and PETER S. UNGAR (2005)

http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app50/app50-093.pdf

 

[Josesaurus rex]

Wow, very grateful to @carch_23 @Troodon @Phos_01 of you for your comprehensive responses. Then the label I will do as you suggest trrodon.

Just one more thing. From an article I read on the Kem Kem dinosaur forum, I understand that there is evidence of Carcharodontosaurus and Sauroniops, which is why it is so difficult to assign species to these teeth, however Sauroniops is only represented by a minor skull fragment As far as I know, and from what I could read on the Wikipedia site, (I didn't find anything better) later studies published in 2020 included it as a synonym for Carcharodontosaurus saharicus. I know there are many studies involved, and I don't have so much information yet, but how feasible is it that this rest of the skull actually corresponds to the Sauroniops species, and is not a Carcharodontosaurus with ontogenetic variation?

[Troodon]

First Wikipedia is not a site to obtain solid scientific information.  There are a lot and lots of questions in the Kem Kem Group around its dinosaurs, we know very little.  Most paleontologists have opinions on subjects like how many Spino's or Carch exist, are Spinosaurus aegyptiacus and Sigilmassasaurus valid, are Dromaeosaurids or Megaraptors present, where are the Herbivores?   We know very little because we have very few associated skeletons to study.    Until there is more research and publications its best to assume that this is a very diverse fauna and anything is possible.   Just look at how many Crocodyliforms(8) and Pterosaurs(11) have been described, I'm sure some may be ontogenetic variations but difficult to determine.   So it depends on who you listen to and who has the best stage to get their message out.  Currently we have just scratched the surface on what is or is not present.   Having said that its your fossil, call it what every makes you comfortable.

 

Edit forgot to answer your question

 

It could be an ontogenetic variation but a prominent well respected Theropod paleontologist Thomas Holts felt good enough to include it in his publication on size class of theropods in June of this year.  Again, even which Carcharodontosaurus we have very limited skull material so the sampling size is very small to do comparative studies.

 

 

Theropod guild structure and the tyrannosaurid niche assimilation hypothesis: implications for predatory dinosaur macroecology and ontogeny in later Late Cretaceous Asiamerica    

tom Holt et al. 2021

[Josesaurus rex]

2 hours ago, Troodon said:

First Wikipedia is not a site to obtain solid scientific information.  There are a lot and lots of questions in the Kem Kem Group around its dinosaurs, we know very little.  Most paleontologists have opinions on subjects like how many Spino's or Carch exist, are Spinosaurus aegyptiacus and Sigilmassasaurus valid, are Dromaeosaurids or Megaraptors present, where are the Herbivores?   We know very little because we have very few associated skeletons to study.    Until there is more research and publications its best to assume that this is a very diverse fauna and anything is possible.   Just look at how many Crocodyliforms(8) and Pterosaurs(11) have been described, I'm sure some may be ontogenetic variations but difficult to determine.   So it depends on who you listen to and who has the best stage to get their message out.  Currently we have just scratched the surface on what is or is not present.   Having said that its your fossil, call it what every makes you comfortable.

 

Edit forgot to answer your question

 

It could be an ontogenetic variation but a prominent well respected Theropod paleontologist Thomas Holts felt good enough to include it in his publication on size class of theropods in June of this year.  Again, even which Carcharodontosaurus we have very limited skull material so the sampling size is very small to do comparative studies.

 

 

Theropod guild structure and the tyrannosaurid niche assimilation hypothesis: implications for predatory dinosaur macroecology and ontogeny in later Late Cretaceous Asiamerica    

tom Holt et al. 2021

Yes, I supposed what it would be like, in short, only time and new discoveries will tell if a consensus can be reached on how many species there are and if Sauroniops can be considered as a genus of carch or is a separate species.  
Very complete answer, as always.

I really feel comfortable labeling the tooth Carcharodontosaurido indet.  It is the correct and more sensible thing, considering the scientific data available, in fact, I had long ago had that idea, and I just wanted to confirm it.  Be that as it may, the important thing is to have the tooth, right? For now I will leave it with the one that came, until I transcribe the corrected description that you left me earlier.

[Phos_01]

11 hours ago, Josesaurus rex said:

Yes, I supposed what it would be like, in short, only time and new discoveries will tell if a consensus can be reached on how many species there are and if Sauroniops can be considered as a genus of carch or is a separate species.  
Very complete answer, as always.

I really feel comfortable labeling the tooth Carcharodontosaurido indet.  It is the correct and more sensible thing, considering the scientific data available, in fact, I had long ago had that idea, and I just wanted to confirm it.  Be that as it may, the important thing is to have the tooth, right? For now I will leave it with the one that came, until I transcribe the corrected description that you left me earlier.

Also keep in mind for what I have learned, its very hard to dig fossils in Marokko, they dig tunnels there, and they are extremely dangerous, collapsing etc. This is not good, because of this they can't smoothly extract a full skeleton like they do in the states. Completely different climate, ground surface etc. This is why they usually find separate fossils, in order to find a full skeleton they would have to change their ways of diggings. They have never found a full Spinosaurus skeleton for example.  

And to top it off recently it has become illegal to extract fossils and export them outside of Marokko. That makes it even more difficult. However Moroccan fossils are still the most easy ones to optain as a collector.

 

Heres a photo of how the diggingsite looks like 

[Troodon]

I expect that the new laws which prohibit exportation of dinosaur fossils will slow down discoveries and research.  If you read the publications a lot of the bones described are found by local diggers not by research teams.   In fact paleontologists check out local markets to see what they are selling.

[Kikokuryu]

1 hour ago, Phos_01 said:

And to top it off recently it has become illegal to extract fossils and export them outside of Marokko.

Did those laws pass (or I guess from what I understand, it was quasi-illegal to begin with), or is it still in the drafting process? I assume this is the one from 2019?

 

I'm wondering if this will shift dealers away from Morocco and into Niger. Could we eventually see an influx of Echkar material to fulfill the demand on Spinosaur and Carc fossils?

[Runner64]

1 minute ago, Kikokuryu said:

I'm wondering if this will shift dealers away from Morocco and into Niger. Could we eventually see an influx of Echkar material to fulfill the demand on Spinosaur and Carc fossils?

Niger just passed laws to ban the export of fossils now too so doubtful.

[Josesaurus rex]

2 hours ago, Troodon said:

I expect that the new laws which prohibit exportation of dinosaur fossils will slow down discoveries and research.  If you read the publications a lot of the bones described are found by local diggers not by research teams.   In fact paleontologists check out local markets to see what they are selling.

 

3 hours ago, Phos_01 said:

Also keep in mind for what I have learned, its very hard to dig fossils in Marokko, they dig tunnels there, and they are extremely dangerous, collapsing etc. This is not good, because of this they can't smoothly extract a full skeleton like they do in the states. Completely different climate, ground surface etc. This is why they usually find separate fossils, in order to find a full skeleton they would have to change their ways of diggings. They have never found a full Spinosaurus skeleton for example.  

And to top it off recently it has become illegal to extract fossils and export them outside of Marokko. That makes it even more difficult. However Moroccan fossils are still the most easy ones to optain as a collector.

 

Heres a photo of how the diggingsite looks like 

Wow, I knew the digging conditions weren't the best, but I never thought it would be so precarious and dangerous for people and fossils. Well, if the new laws serve to give more security to those people, welcome. And as collectors, we will have to treasure even more what little is available and what we already have. I really now understand the sheer magnitude of all this, and why it is almost impossible to find complete skeletons.