FB003 Posted September 10, 2022 Share Posted September 10, 2022 Hi all! Got another tooth here I'm looking for help on ID with. Only unfortunate thing is the exact county is unknown. Bought from an older collection so all the seller knew for sure is Hell Creek Formation. Seller has been very cooperative and is also very interested if an ID can be found with that little caveat. It was labeled dakotaraptor from the old collection. Initial thought was R. gilmorei or nano but doesn't look to have the defined nano pinch. No mesial serrations visible or can be felt. Best picture he could get of the serrations is below as well. Appreciate any input! Thanks! *Frank* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted September 10, 2022 Share Posted September 10, 2022 Beautiful tooth Unfortunately nothing is described from the Hell Creek as far as this morphology as I indicated in my PM. I ruled out the two described Dromaeosaurids and Nanotyrannus because of the density of posterior serration but with new discoveries this could change. So the best we can do will be to compare it to Campanian specimens and see if anything fits. If we look at P. Currie's description and illustration of Richardoestesia gilmorei there is a possibility it's a potential fit. The tooth in the illustration is about the same size, profile, base cross-section and density as yours. Phil does indicate that the serrations are often limited to the posterior carina, so that works. The only gotcha is the lingual twist of the posterior carina which I need to investigate further. One illustration Fig 8.4 S shows a bit of twist on a short version. Phil feels that the Maastrichtian teeth represent a different species so it may have some different characteristics or it may represent some other critter. Since we do not have a locality for the time being best identified as Richardoestesia sp. Nice tooth to own and we may have more clarity on it down the road. We could find out that this morphology winds up being a new Dromaeosaurid. My two cents. Theropod teeth from the Judith River Fm of southern Alberta, Canada. P. Currie et al.1990 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FB003 Posted September 10, 2022 Author Share Posted September 10, 2022 Thanks for the info! Very much appreciate the input. I agree. *Frank* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino Dad 81 Posted September 10, 2022 Share Posted September 10, 2022 @FB003, love it! Looks like the sibling of this one: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FB003 Posted September 10, 2022 Author Share Posted September 10, 2022 21 minutes ago, Dino Dad 81 said: @FB003, love it! Looks like the sibling of this one: Pretty close! I think the lack of mesial serrations is the key difference between the two. *Frank* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted September 10, 2022 Share Posted September 10, 2022 I'm continuing my investigation of this tooth and found a publication with Richardoestesia teeth from the Lance Fm which are significantly smaller than yours. The key characteristic that may also question if its one is serration density. The larger tooth in the photo is 7mm with distal densities of 7, 8, 9 and 10 denticles/mm. Your tooths size and density matches Currie's publication which has me scratching my head but its a much larger tooth. Two very small Milk River Fm teeth with no mesial serrations and a lingual ttwist were described as Richardoestesia. Its from an old publication so might not be current. I also looked at Sankey book and the rest of the above publication and did not see any Dromaeosaurid teeth other than Dromaeosaurus with a lingual twist. I'm now wondering if its just a Nanotyrannus check these chompers of a photo I took of the Dueling Dinosaurs. The base works not sure of the mesial edge. Time to email P Currie? Ref: CFS 196 Investigation on Canadian Dinosaurs, Sven Baszio 1997 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino Dad 81 Posted September 10, 2022 Share Posted September 10, 2022 4 hours ago, FB003 said: Pretty close! I think the lack of mesial serrations is the key difference between the two. Wasn't clear to me that they were absent or just worn away. Any scope you can take to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino Dad 81 Posted September 10, 2022 Share Posted September 10, 2022 This is from an unrelated tooth, but I'd never have thought there were mesial serrations until seeing a pattern of blemishes: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FB003 Posted September 10, 2022 Author Share Posted September 10, 2022 43 minutes ago, Dino Dad 81 said: Wasn't clear to me that they were absent or just worn away. Any scope you can take to it? Don't have it yet but from what I'm told they are absent. *Frank* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FB003 Posted September 10, 2022 Author Share Posted September 10, 2022 49 minutes ago, Troodon said: I'm continuing my investigation of this tooth and found a publication with Richardoestesia teeth from the Lance Fm which are significantly smaller than yours. The key characteristic that may also question if its one is serration density. The larger tooth in the photo is 7mm with distal densities of 7, 8, 9 and 10 denticles/mm. Your tooths size and density matches Currie's publication which has me scratching my head but its a much larger tooth. Two very small Milk River Fm teeth with no mesial serrations and a lingual ttwist were described as Richardoestesia. Its from an old publication so might not be current. I also looked at Sankey book and the rest of the above publication and did not see any Dromaeosaurid teeth other than Dromaeosaurus with a lingual twist. I'm now wondering if its just a Nanotyrannus check these chompers of a photo I took of the Dueling Dinosaurs. The base works not sure of the mesial edge. Time to email P Currie? Ref: CFS 196 Investigation on Canadian Dinosaurs, Sven Baszio 1997 I can take better pictures once it comes in of the serrations on one side and of the unserrated twist on the other on the computer scope. Would be happy with Richardoestesia or Nanotyrannus as its just genuinely a nice looking tooth. If nano it'd certainly be a tooth location I don't have which is neat. *Frank* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted September 16, 2022 Share Posted September 16, 2022 Not seen anything published on longform Richardoestesia gilmorei from Maastrichtian deposits and with the denticles not being as dense has they should be, an unserrated mesial edge, have come around thinking that this is a Dromaeosaurid tooth. This size could be Dakotaraptor or an indeterminate dromie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FB003 Posted September 18, 2022 Author Share Posted September 18, 2022 Updated pictures below for reference. 1 *Frank* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino Dad 81 Posted September 20, 2022 Share Posted September 20, 2022 Interesting mesial situation. There are a couple of patches there where there might be pattern of ticks...which may or may not be related to denticles. Did you try different lighting angles to see if any help confirm they're not denticle-related? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted September 20, 2022 Share Posted September 20, 2022 Visited the BHI and showed Pete the new photos of this tooth and he agreed its a Dromaeosaurid tooth, especially with that smooth outside edge. Coincidentally he was showing me several new additions to the museum since my June visit while we were trying to ID a toe bone in my collection. To my shock there was a replica Dakotaraptor that they recently poured which was designed by DePalma. Its very cool and big. Check out the chompers in that maxilla, nothing like the few teeth on the holotype publication. I'll have lots more photos with my trip report by the end of the month. BTW he believed that toe bone was a good match to the one on DR. Please don't ask me to assign teeth in collections to DR based on this replica. A dentition of this animal does not exist. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FB003 Posted September 20, 2022 Author Share Posted September 20, 2022 (edited) 9 hours ago, Dino Dad 81 said: Interesting mesial situation. There are a couple of patches there where there might be pattern of ticks...which may or may not be related to denticles. Did you try different lighting angles to see if any help confirm they're not denticle-related? Yes sir. Not a thing there. The light does play some tricks depending on angles but an otherwise very smooth surface. With how smooth it is the light reflects off of it quite a bit the closer you get. Edited September 20, 2022 by FB003 *Frank* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FB003 Posted September 20, 2022 Author Share Posted September 20, 2022 5 hours ago, Troodon said: Visited the BHI and showed Pete the new photos of this tooth and he agreed its a Dromaeosaurid tooth, especially with that smooth outside edge. Coincidentally he was showing me several new additions to the museum since my June visit while we were trying to ID a toe bone in my collection. To my shock there was a replica Dakotaraptor that they recently poured which was designed by DePalma. Its very cool and big. Check out the chompers in that maxilla, nothing like the few teeth on the holotype publication. I'll have lots more photos with my trip report by the end of the month. BTW he believed that toe bone was a good match to the one on DR. Please don't ask me to assign teeth in collections to DR based on this replica. A dentition of this animal does not exist. Thanks for checking! Very much appreciate it. Look forward to seeing the trip report and a full size picture of this guy/gal. Looks fierce. *Frank* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino Dad 81 Posted September 20, 2022 Share Posted September 20, 2022 Very cool! @Troodon Have you seen teeth like this one before? Are you considering this to be DR or dromaeosaurid indet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino Dad 81 Posted September 20, 2022 Share Posted September 20, 2022 @Troodon Unrelated to this tooth, did you happen to get any clarification from Pete on him saying a couple months back (when he ID'ed that 1" tooth posted by jikohr as DR) that a straight mesial carina that's slanted/displaced doesn't rule out dromaeosaur? Here's the straight on shot that jikohr posted--I can kind of see the resemblance to those DR maxillaries: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 12 hours ago, Dino Dad 81 said: Very cool! @Troodon Have you seen teeth like this one before? Are you considering this to be DR or dromaeosaurid indet? How can it be DR if we dont know what the dentition looks like. Its possible and cannot be ruled out. 12 hours ago, Dino Dad 81 said: @Troodon Unrelated to this tooth, did you happen to get any clarification from Pete on him saying a couple months back (when he ID'ed that 1" tooth posted by jikohr as DR) that a straight mesial carina that's slanted/displaced doesn't rule out dromaeosaur? Here's the straight on shot that jikohr posted--I can kind of see the resemblance to those DR maxillaries: No, What relationships? I'm not going to start identifying teeth based on a replica. Please read my comment from above. "Please don't ask me to assign teeth in collections to DR based on this replica. A dentition of this animal does not exist" 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 I did confirm that only two teeth were found with the Holotype, thats all we positively know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino Dad 81 Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 1 hour ago, Troodon said: No, What relationships? I'm not going to start identifying teeth based on a replica. Please read my comment from above. "Please don't ask me to assign teeth in collections to DR based on this replica. A dentition of this animal does not exist" I saw your comments and wouldn't go against it. My questions has nothing to do with Pete's replica--it only about you and Pete having different interpretations of the holotype description: You: mesial carina should be straight and centered Pete: mesial carina should be straight, but can be centered or slanted (and I showed a pic above of his straight but slanted green light) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeS Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 2 hours ago, Troodon said: I did confirm that only two teeth were found with the Holotype, thats all we positively know. Interesting, the paper lists a total of five teeth as referred specimens. So I would assume that all five are represented in the graphs shown in the paper. Curious if there were any morphological distinctions between them. Any additional data points would make our ID quests easier 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeS Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 17 hours ago, Dino Dad 81 said: Very cool! @Troodon Have you seen teeth like this one before? Are you considering this to be DR or dromaeosaurid indet? 4 hours ago, Troodon said: How can it be DR if we dont know what the dentition looks like. Its possible and cannot be ruled out. While it cannot be fully ruled out due to the few DR data points we have, the tooth in question: • lacks proper provenance • CBW, CBL and thus CHR lie outside of what is published • distal denticle count lies outside of what is published • mesial carina shape does not fit the paper description • cross section does not fit the paper description However, denticle shape, general size of the tooth and the allover Dromaeosaurid morphology are points to keep in mind. A new publication might change some of the above mentioned issues. @FB003 Out of curiosity, is the distal carina centered or does it run towards the side of the tooth close to the base? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 2 hours ago, JoeS said: Interesting, the paper lists a total of five teeth as referred specimens. So I would assume that all five are represented in the graphs shown in the paper. Curious if there were any morphological distinctions between them. Any additional data points would make our ID quests easier I re-read the email and it said he thought it was two, which is wrong, but your correct it identifies 5. Unfortunately the only images provided are the two in the paper. The site was a mixed taxa one so its hard to point to anything conclusively even with those isolated teeth. Why possibly they were not listed as part of the holotype but as referred specimens. If the other teeth were different why not show them in the paper? The largest tooth in the chart was just shy of 24mm and the largest ones in the maxillary of the replica appear much larger. Unfortunately the cast was to far back for me to measure them. Not sure why DePalma went with that skull configuration and long recurved maxillary teeth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 5 hours ago, Dino Dad 81 said: You: mesial carina should be straight and centered Pete: mesial carina should be straight, but can be centered or slanted (and I showed a pic above of his straight but slanted green light) I can only describe the teeth in the paper on DR. We really need a jaw with teeth in it to understand the dentition 1 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