Fake Citipati Egg?

[-Andy-]

So here I have this egg that is once again the center of an argument on its authenticity.

There are renowned experts and paleontologists on both ends. I thought I would let you guys take a crack at it.

On one hand, its surface seem to have different consistency and texture. On the other hand, I cleaned this one myself, and the cracks do run across the entire egg.

Do share your thoughts, thank you.

[-Andy-]

Another pic.

Your input is appreciated.

[JustPlainPetrified]

Were the renowned experts and paleontologists able to tell you what kind of egg it is? I mean, is there something you can compare it to? I don't know eggs from coprolite so just wondering.

[snolly50]

I don't see a hatching window. That implies (to me); an unhatched egg or the hand of a forger who believed the buyer would want a "whole" one.

The close up does appear to reveal diversity of color texture. I don't know if this is a feature of Citipati eggs. Comparision with a known genuine egg would be of benefit, I imagine.

Those that feel it is fraudulent, do they contend it is made from glued on, unrelated shell shards? Does examination with a hand lens reveal any trace of glue? A destructive approach would be to pop off a piece of apparently mismatched shell in an effort to spot adhesive.

You report that you cleaned the piece yourself, do you have "before" pictures? It would take a clever forger to coat a piece with convincing clinging matrix, albeit certainly possible.

Just my random thoughts, the only observation of which I am confident - the egg on the right appears authentic.

Edited November 23, 2014 by snolly50

[-Andy-]

Were the renowned experts and paleontologists able to tell you what kind of egg it is? I mean, is there something you can compare it to? I don't know eggs from coprolite so just wondering.

Yes. They were able to tell me that it is an Elongaloolithus sp. from Nanxiong formation of China.

The issue is that the different coloration of the egg is dubious. However, their opinions split because one party believes that the sign of a dubious area on the egg points it to be fake, the other party believes that as long as the other section of the egg holds up, it being dubious is not a determining factor, there could be reasons for different colorations.

[Auspex]

Texture and structure are important indicators (and not easy to forge); color is not a diagnostic factor, at all.

[painshill]

Texture and structure are important indicators (and not easy to forge); color is not a diagnostic factor, at all.

Certainly agree with that... but a UV source might be illuminating in terms of the possibility of showing up areas where glue, consolidant or resin may have been used.

[-Andy-]

I don't see a hatching window. That implies (to me); an unhatched egg or the hand of a forger who believed the buyer would want a "whole" one.

The close up does appear to reveal diversity of color texture. I don't know if this is a feature of Citipati eggs. Comparision with a known genuine egg would be of benefit, I imagine.

Those that feel it is fraudulent, do they contend it is made from glued on, unrelated shell shards? Does examination with a hand lens reveal any trace of glue? A destructive approach would be to pop off a piece of apparently mismatched shell in an effort to spot adhesive.

You report that you cleaned the piece yourself, do you have "before" pictures? It would take a clever forger to coat a piece with convincing clinging matrix, albeit certainly possible.

Just my random thoughts, the only observation of which I am confident - the egg on the right appears authentic.

Citipati eggs are as often hatched as they are unhatched.

The one who calls it fake says it is a mosaic of unrelated egg parts.

There is indeed glue on it.

I do not have a "before picture", but it is not hard matrix, and could be removed with water, acetone and alot of scrubbing.

[snolly50]

Citipati eggs are as often hatched as they are unhatched.

The one who calls it fake says it is a mosaic of unrelated egg parts.

There is indeed glue on it.

I do not have a "before picture", but it is not hard matrix, and could be removed with water, acetone and alot of scrubbing.

Was the glue you discovered covered by the matrix you removed? If so, I would view that as evidence that someone actively altered the appearance of the egg. To what end (deceit or not) would be unknown, but it definitely would point to purposeful manipulation.

[-Andy-]

Was the glue you discovered covered by the matrix you removed? If so, I would view that as evidence that someone actively altered the appearance of the egg. To what end (deceit or not) would be unknown, but it definitely would point to purposeful manipulation.

I can't tell really. The matrix is rather thin, and it was a long time ago when I cleaned it.

I am under no illusions that this egg has not been repaired. The glue points to someone doing a haphazard job of pasting eggshells back.

Issue is, there are experts claiming it is an outright mosaic of eggshells.

I am much happier thinking it is a genuine egg that was badly prepped.

[Boesse]

Note: as tempting as it may be to identify this egg to a particular dinosaur genus - even if matching Elongatoolithus eggs in a nest with a Citipati skeleton on top (e.g. AMNH "big mama") - eggs are not identifiable to the genus level under almost any circumstances. The reason for this is that similar eggs are produced by all sorts of different dinosaurs; indeed, one large type of egg (can't think of the ootaxon) has been found associated with hadrosaur and sauropod nests. This is the whole reason why egg parataxonomy was even started. Most oviraptorids probably produced Elongatoolithus eggs, and similar eggs have been found associated with dromaeosaur remains in Montana (possibly a diff. ootaxon, but similar overall shape). Point is this: even if the oogenus is restricted to oviraptorids, there are plenty of others in Mongolia/China other than Citipati. Lastly, often for a good ID, destructive thin section analysis using an SEM is necessary. If it's not obvious yet, I sat through a lot of presentations on eggs from faculty and other students at MSU.

[-Andy-]

Note: as tempting as it may be to identify this egg to a particular dinosaur genus - even if matching Elongatoolithus eggs in a nest with a Citipati skeleton on top (e.g. AMNH "big mama") - eggs are not identifiable to the genus level under almost any circumstances. The reason for this is that similar eggs are produced by all sorts of different dinosaurs; indeed, one large type of egg (can't think of the ootaxon) has been found associated with hadrosaur and sauropod nests. This is the whole reason why egg parataxonomy was even started. Most oviraptorids probably produced Elongatoolithus eggs, and similar eggs have been found associated with dromaeosaur remains in Montana (possibly a diff. ootaxon, but similar overall shape). Point is this: even if the oogenus is restricted to oviraptorids, there are plenty of others in Mongolia/China other than Citipati. Lastly, often for a good ID, destructive thin section analysis using an SEM is necessary. If it's not obvious yet, I sat through a lot of presentations on eggs from faculty and other students at MSU.

That's true.

Kenneth Carpenter said this too. He diagnosed this egg as a theropod only.

In your opinion, is this egg real?

[jpc]

when you cleaned it, what did you get rid of? Glue, or matrix?

[-Andy-]

when you cleaned it, what did you get rid of? Glue, or matrix?

Matrix.

Evidence for fake: This egg definitely has glue on it. This egg has egg shells that are of an inconsistent pattern and color.

Evidence for real: This egg has cracks that consistently run through it, unlike mosaic eggs. This egg is of the right weight.

Other facts: This egg was covered in a soft matrix that could be scrubbed off. This egg looks and feels better than the common mosaic eggs in the market. Elongaloolithus-type fake eggs are much rarer than hadrosaur fake eggs, and usually placed on a matrix base. Mine was not found in a matrix base.

At the moment, 2 paleontologists and 1 fossil dealer has handled this egg personally, and all agreed it to be real. I've also had the egg-expert Laogao from China who wrote the Chinese book on China eggs to view its pic, and he says its a real egg with a bad prep job. Kenneth Carpenter who wrote the book on dino eggs also considers this to be real.

However, Tom Kapitany whom I consider to be very knowledgeable on Chinese eggs is adamant that this is a complete fake egg, and that he has seen mosaics like these many times, he also raised the 2 critical evidence on why it is fake. I've seen instances where 9 out of 10 people claim a fossil to be fake, only for it to turn out real. So I won't dismiss Tom's analysis.

Edited November 24, 2014 by -Andy-

[RJB]

Off the cuff, this egg looks like it was put together. Is it real or not,,,, I don't know for sure, but for me I wouldn't buy it just cause of my first judgment. I wish the best of luck though.

RB

[jpc]

from your descriptions of evidence for and against realitude, my guess is that it is a real fossil egg with some pieces of eggshell glued into a few places where the eggshell was originally missing. So a real egg with some reconstruction. That is my guess without handling it.