Tyrannosaurus rex tooth, unusual pale coloured preservation

[GTS]

Recently acquired this beautiful T. rex tooth, just over 5cm / 2” length.

Such teeth are typically dark brown / mahogany coloured but this specimen appears to have escaped the usual staining. 

The location of find (Hell Creek Fmn, nr. Mosby, Garfield Co., Montana, USA), basal rectangular cross section and thicker enamel supports identification that this is a Tyrannosaurus rex maxillary tooth.  

The fact that the whitish / pale colouration is consistent throughout, absence of pitting / “dried out” appearance / absence of splintering would seem to preclude sun-bleaching. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by GTS
Additional photos

[Troodon]

This tooth was presented here on the forum and I had some valid concerns that you cannot positively assign it to T rex or say its from the Hell Creek Formation.  The morphology only indicates it's a Tyrannosaurid.   That's fine its your tooth believe what makes you happy.    Not sure why this additional post is needed it was discussed in detail.   The preservation has nothing to do with identification.

 

 

[GTS]

This post is to show that T. rex teeth from Hell Creek do not always exhibit the commonly seen dark brown colouration.

In other words, don’t disregard a tooth as being x species just because it’s paler coloured than commonly seen.
Would you have your “concerns” if it were dark brown? If not, why not?

 

My tooth shares the same morphology and claimed formation & location (private land, HC, Garfield Co) with other teeth on this forum (differ only in colour) and you’ve willingly ID’d them as being likely T. rex with no apparent concerns (Actually, I disagree with one of your ID’s in that it seems to be too narrow oval / thinly enamelled to be T. rex.)

 

I have not said (and nor do I claim) that colouration has anything to do with identification.

Remember you’re talking to a geologist and fossil collector. One is always going to encounter colour variations, atypical colouration / preservation, etc in the fossil record. 
 

No-one, absolutely no-one, can 100% positively assign a tooth to T. rex and / or say that it is from Hell Creek Fmn unless they collected it themselves or witnessed its excavation with their own eyes.

That appears to be a fact you’re overlooking. If you were to show me your T. Rex tooth saying it’s from x locality etc etc why should I believe that more than any other seller? When you acquired the tooth, why were you so confident that it’s from whatever formation?

 

The only way that it’s possible for anyone to be 100% certain regarding locality and formation is if one was actually at the site / location of excavation.

 

I’ve researched as much as I can and NO T. rex I’ve seen anywhere says anything other than “private land near x town, x formation”.

It is always “Hell Creek (or Lance) Formation, nearest town, x county, x state”. It might say “private land” (as the provenance of mine states) but it NEVER lists who the private land belongs to and / or the exact location. 
It would be nice if we did and had something such as co-ords, what3words, etc but that NEVER happens.

 

EVERY owner of a T. rex tooth CANNOT say with 100% certainty which formation / location their tooth originated from unless they collected themselves / witnessed collection. 

 

All any buyer of a T. rex can do when they see a tooth they want is to undertake due diligence, research, etc as far as is humanely possible and then make a call. 

 

Given that this tooth exhibits Tyrannosaurid morphology (robustness, rectangular cross section / thicker enamel), and is provenanced as being from Hell Creek Fm. in private land, Garfield Co., MT (no reason to believe / suspect that otherwise, if there is, why?), and the absence of any reason to think that it’s anything other than a T. rex, on the balance of probabilities it’s reasonable to make the call that it is as described, i.e. a T. rex from HC, Garfield Co, MT. 
 

I’ve shown the tooth to a good few others and all say T. rex. Some say that it’s sunbleached and has just escaped the splintering (which we don’t think due to colour consistency, presence of sheen, etc). It appears that you’re the only one who is reluctant to make the call that it’s T. rex. 
 

(Yes, there is another Tyrannosaurid bearing formation (JRF) near the town listed in the provenance but another Tyrannosaurid tooth ID post on this forum shows that JRF Tyrannosaurids typically have a morphology that differs a little from T. rex (more rounded, less oval / rectangular). There’s no reason to suspect that this tooth is not from HC.)

 

 

1 hour ago, Troodon said:

This tooth was presented here on the forum and I had some valid concerns that you cannot positively assign it to T rex or say its from the Hell Creek Formation.  The morphology only indicates it's a Tyrannosaurid.   That's fine its your tooth believe what makes you happy.    Not sure why this additional post is needed it was discussed in detail.   The preservation has nothing to do with identification.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by GTS
Addendum

[Troodon]

Why are you hung up on color it has absolutely nothing to do with identification nor does the morphology they are all tyrannosaurid.  It's about location, location, location,  you seem to want to avoid the issue that the location provided does not definitely point to Hell Creek since it could equally be Judith.   That based on the information provided by the seller and looking at a map. 

[Tidgy's Dad]

It amazes me how determined people are that their tooth is a T. rex and not a Nannotyrannus (if it even exists) or any other tyrannosaurid. It's got to be a T. rex. 

'Cos that's what you want it to be. 

We see similar with dinosaur eggs, embryos, claws of Spinosaurus etc. 

I understand that in our pre-teenage years we all want a T. rex. but as we get older it's just as nice to have another species ? 

I have thousands of brachiopods. But, for example, I have one from the Oligocene of Bulgaria that hasn't been described in a paper. I have a pretty good idea what it could be, regarding the genus if not species, but I'm quite happy just calling it a terebratulid until further information is available which is unlikely in my lifetime, frankly.

I think tyrannosaurid is great. 

 

[GTS]

15 minutes ago, Troodon said:

Why are you hung up on color it has absolutely nothing to do with identification nor does the morphology they are all tyrannosaurid.  It's about location, location, location,  you seem to want to avoid the issue that the location provided does not definitely point to Hell Creek since it could equally be Judith.   That based on the information provided by the seller and looking at a map. 

I’m not hung up on colour per se - other than it’s unusual. Did you read my post rather than just skimming it? 
 

I know that it’s “location, location, location”.

 

I have already said that yes, there is another Tyrannosaurid bearing formation (JRF) near the town listed in the provenance but another Tyrannosaurid tooth ID post on this forum shows that JRF Tyrannosaurids typically have a morphology that differs a little from T. rex (more rounded, less oval / rectangular). There’s no reason to suspect that this tooth is not from HC.

 

[GTS]

18 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

It amazes me how determined people are that their tooth is a T. rex and not a Nannotyrannus (if it even exists) or any other tyrannosaurid. It's got to be a T. rex. 

'Cos that's what you want it to be. 

We see similar with dinosaur eggs, embryos, claws of Spinosaurus etc. 

I understand that in our pre-teenage years we all want a T. rex. but as we get older it's just as nice to have another species ? 

I have thousands of brachiopods. But, for example, I have one from the Oligocene of Bulgaria that hasn't been described in a paper. I have a pretty good idea what it could be, regarding the genus if not species, but I'm quite happy just calling it a terebratulid until further information is available which is unlikely in my lifetime, frankly.

I think tyrannosaurid is great. 

 

I’m considering the evidence I have - the morphology, etc. I’m a scientist. I’m not saying it has to be a T. rex in the least. Just saying it is likely based on evidence.  I’ve looked for evidence that it’s unlikely that it’s T. rex and there’s little.   It’s definitely not a Nanno as the basal outline does not exhibit the “pinch” typically associated with Nanno teeth.

 

 

@Troodon seems to refuse to see that I’m not ID’ing based on colour (of course I’m not) and refuses to think it’s HC just because there’s another tyrannosaurid bearing Fmn in the general area - despite that fact that Judith river fmn occupies only a very thin area of Garfield Co., HC covers a much greater area. The town of Mosby just happens to be the nearest town in what seems to be a sparsely populated area. He has said elsewhere on the Forum that other teeth from Garfield are T. rex but appears to be reluctant to do so with this white one for some reason - despite the fact that he wrote a post highlighting morphological differences between T. rex and Gorg / Daes (JRF tyrannosaurids)  Other tyrannosaurids found in JRF typically rounder in basal section (less rectangular/ oval) according to a post Troodon wrote, incidentally.

 

As for your terabratulid - I hope for you that you’ll see it being described within your lifetime. 

[Bobby Rico]

If I understand correctly the location given is close to two formations as Frank said”  Hell Creek since it could equally be Judith“ so with only this limited information and to be on the safe side ID is Tyrannosaurid or it’s guess work. 
 

[GTS]

6 minutes ago, Bobby Rico said:

If I understand correctly the location given is close to two formations as Frank said”  Hell Creek since it could equally be Judith“ so with only this limited information and to be on the safe side ID is Tyrannosaurid or it’s guess work. 
 

 I see that but morphology does not fit with Judith Tyrannosaurids (Gorgo/Daesp). Judith occupies only a small slither of land in the area, HC much greater area. So on balance, seems T. rex. Frank is the only one out of a good number of people whose reluctance to make the call (despite doing so with other specimens from Garfield Co.)

 

All T. rex teeth provenance is limited - as I’ve pointed out in my OP.  Never get co-ords, what3words or anything. 

[AranHao]

You should post it in Member Collections, not in Fossil ID.

[AranHao]

I have also been interested in this tooth. The base can't say anything. I attach two Tyrannosaurid teeth bases from Judith River FM. The location gives you the possibility, your tooth could also be from Judith River FM. The county contains Hell Creek FM and Judith River, they are 90% and 10%. Therefore, we can't ignore another possibility, even if it's only 10%.

Edited February 27, 2023 by AranHao

[Meatasaurus93]

8 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

It amazes me how determined people are that their tooth is a T. rex and not a Nannotyrannus (if it even exists) or any other tyrannosaurid. It's got to be a T. rex. 

'Cos that's what you want it to be. 

We see similar with dinosaur eggs, embryos, claws of Spinosaurus etc. 

I understand that in our pre-teenage years we all want a T. rex. but as we get older it's just as nice to have another species ? 

I have thousands of brachiopods. But, for example, I have one from the Oligocene of Bulgaria that hasn't been described in a paper. I have a pretty good idea what it could be, regarding the genus if not species, but I'm quite happy just calling it a terebratulid until further information is available which is unlikely in my lifetime, frankly.

I think tyrannosaurid is great. 

 

 

T. rex is probably the most iconic dinosaur, so I don't find it too surprising. I would imagine anyone interested in dinosaur fossils would love to have a genuine T. rex tooth in their collection. On top of that, anything rex related carries a hefty premium on its price tag, so I understand why someone would be upset to learn that their fossil might have been ID'd incorrectly. That's why it's always best to get multiple opinions before making a big purchase.

 

With that said, I agree with you that any tyrannosaurid tooth is great and worth having in a collection. I have multiple tyrannosaurid teeth in my collection that will most likely never have a definitive ID, since it's almost impossible to ID isolated teeth. I just catalogue them as "tyrannosaurid indet." I'm fine with that because each one was purchased with that in mind. At the end of the day, I don't think it's possible for any tyrannosaur to not be cool!

[GTS]

Thankyou for sharing. 
 

Location aside, the relatively thinner enamel of your specimens (especially the darker one) preclude likelihood that they’re T. rex, the enamel of which are thicker. 
 

6 hours ago, AranHao said:

I have also been interested in this tooth. The base can't say anything. I attach two Tyrannosaurid teeth bases from Judith River FM. The location gives you the possibility, your tooth could also be from Judith River FM. The county contains Hell Creek FM and Judith River, they are 90% and 10%. Therefore, we can't ignore another possibility, even if it's only 10%.

 

[Bobby Rico]

10 hours ago, GTS said:

 I see that but morphology does not fit with Judith Tyrannosaurids (Gorgo/Daesp). Judith occupies only a small slither of land in the area, HC much greater area. So on balance, seems T. rex. Frank is the only one out of a good number of people whose reluctance to make the call (despite doing so with other specimens from Garfield Co.)

 

All T. rex teeth provenance is limited - as I’ve pointed out in my OP.  Never get co-ords, what3words or anything. 

A lot has been said on TFF about this very interesting tooth. From reading the earlier posts I gauged that this tooth’s slightly  slender appearance could also fit Gorgosaurus  of Judith . In the end it’s your tooth to label as you feel is appropriate.

I was wondering on the very unusual  light colour if this tooth has been partly digested ?

[GTS]

@Bobby Rico 

I don’t think partial digestion is a possibility - more likely colour change due to percolating mineral waters. Lack of splintering and colour consistency precludes sun / air bleaching.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by GTS

[GTS]

@Bobby Rico It’s certainly interesting! Aren’t Gorgosaurus teeth typically narrower towards apex than T. rex teeth? Also, T. rex typically less curved than Gorgo?

 

22 minutes ago, Bobby Rico said:

A lot has been said on TFF about this very interesting tooth. From reading the earlier posts I gauged that this tooth’s slightly  slender appearance could also fit Gorgosaurus  of Judith . In the end it’s your tooth to label as you feel is appropriate.

I was wondering on the very unusual  light colour if this tooth has been partly digested ?

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by GTS

[Bobby Rico]

3 minutes ago, GTS said:

@Bobby Rico It’s certainly interesting! Aren’t Gorgosaurus teeth typically narrower towards apex than T. rex teeth?

 

 

I have no idea only repeating what has been already said by some of TFF experts . It is a beautiful fossil indeed and I hope you enjoy display it. 

[GTS]

13 hours ago, Troodon said:

Why are you hung up on color it has absolutely nothing to do with identification nor does the morphology they are all tyrannosaurid.  It's about location, location, location,  you seem to want to avoid the issue that the location provided does not definitely point to Hell Creek since it could equally be Judith.   That based on the information provided by the seller and looking at a map. 

 

Hi @Troodon I do see what you’re saying

I’m told that it’s HC - might be true, might not - but I’ll just have to go with what I’m told. 

 

At the end of the day, there comes a point whereby all one can do is accept / believe that (regardless of what other Formations might be present nearby / in a County).  That’s all that any buyer can do when told a tooth is from HC.

[Troodon]

49 minutes ago, GTS said:

m told that it’s HC - might be true, might not - but I’ll just have to go with what I’m told

I've been in this hobby for over 25 years and made lots of mistakes but have learned a lot.  What I offer everyone is that never trust what sellers tell you, verify everything you see to the best of your ability.  Sellers are apt to favor what provides them the biggest reward and make assumptions based on that and may not fully checkout the real facts.   This is especially true today with Trex material.   You also have to decide what type of collector you are.  One that needs hard evidence to assign a ID to a specimen or one that is happy with whatever as long as it's what I'm looking for.  If you come to me for an opinion I will need hard evidence that proves to me its a proper assignment

[Bobby Rico]

16 minutes ago, GTS said:

I’m told that it’s HC - might be true, might not - but I’ll just have to go with what I’m told. 

With every purchase fossil  it pays to do your homework. A good location information is most important in my opinion . Some sellers have a great amount of knowledge of what they are selling but others are less vigilant and more happy to fill in the blanks . 

[GTS]

1 hour ago, Bobby Rico said:

With every purchase fossil  it pays to do your homework. A good location information is most important in my opinion . Some sellers have a great amount of knowledge of what they are selling but others are less vigilant and more happy to fill in the blanks . 

I did as much homework as I could. Regarding “hard evidence”, I do rather suspect that very few buyers (if at all) have hard evidence regarding locality, i.e. anything closer than “formation, nearest town, county, state”

[GTS]

1 hour ago, Troodon said:

I've been in this hobby for over 25 years and made lots of mistakes but have learned a lot.  What I offer everyone is that never trust what sellers tell you, verify everything you see to the best of your ability.  Sellers are apt to favor what provides them the biggest reward and make assumptions based on that and may not fully checkout the real facts.   This is especially true today with Trex material.   You also have to decide what type of collector you are.  One that needs hard evidence to assign a ID to a specimen or one that is happy with whatever as long as it's what I'm looking for.  If you come to me for an opinion I will need hard evidence that proves to me its a proper assignment

Indeed, Thankyou. I’ve tried to go by your mantra as much as possible. As a collector, I do like to have as much hard evidence as possible. Regarding “hard evidence”, I do rather suspect that very few buyers (if at all) have hard evidence regarding locality, i.e. anything closer than “formation, nearest town, county, state”.

[Troodon]

27 minutes ago, GTS said:

. As a collector, I do like to have as much hard evidence as possible

Not true, your kidding yourself.  How can you say that, when Judith deposits are adjacent to the locality that your seller told you.  That's not hard evidence that locality raises all sorts of red flags and questions.  All your interested in is what you would like this tooth to be not what the facts tell you, its indeterminate.

[Bobby Rico]

50 minutes ago, GTS said:

I did as much homework as I could. Regarding “hard evidence”, I do rather suspect that very few buyers (if at all) have hard evidence regarding locality, i.e. anything closer than “formation, nearest town, county, state”

This is general advice and formation and nearest town in most cases is all you need. In this case the formation is not 100% assured . This to me then has casted a doubt on the ID been T.rex along with other factors that have been mentioned. 

Edited February 27, 2023 by Bobby Rico

[GTS]

45 minutes ago, Troodon said:

Not true, your kidding yourself.  How can you say that, when Judith deposits are adjacent to the locality that your seller told you.  That's not hard evidence that locality raises all sorts of red flags and questions.  All your interested in is what you would like this tooth to be not what the facts tell you, its indeterminate.

I’m not kidding myself - I’m aware that JRF are near to the locality given. It’s actually better that just saying “County and State”. A red flag to me would be the absence of nearest town. I’ve checked the map - JRF occupies only a very small area in Garfield Co.

 
Formation is never going to be 100% assured unless one saw it coming out of the ground.