Identification Tyrannosaurid Teeth From Canada & United States

[sandgroper]

A great thread gents, thanks for sharing your knowledge and these terrific photos of your tooth collections, thoroughly fascinating and educational!

[LordTrilobite]

Wow what a fantastic Tyrannosaur collection.

[AnatomicFlack]

Nick took a look at the four teeth you had a question on.

Tooth #1 I would lean toward it being a T-rex, probably a maxillary tooth.

Tooth #2 the Larsen tooth I would label it as a Tyrannosaurid. Reason, the restoration and condition has altered some of the diagnostic features I look at the base and tip. The tooth is also compressed with fine serrations which do not help the case for Rex. Could be one but not a slam dunk for me why I said Tyrannosaurid.

Tooth #3 & 4 Identifying teeth based on tips is very problematic simply because you need to see the whole tooth to accurately make that call. I would lean toward #3 being a Rex because of the bulk, shape of serrations and that they go around the tip. I'm not that confident with #4 and label it as Tyrannosaurid.

Again nice collection.

Thanks very much for your input. That's pretty much where I was with my own identification. The Larson tooth was dubious at best being called a t-rex. The root end was heavily reconstructed out of what looks like paleobond. So only about 2/3rds of the original circumference of it is in tact.

The two tips have some indications that hint at t-rex, but you're right, without more of the tooth, it's a snarge shoot to guess at it's origin.

I also have other teeth that fall in the general tyrannosaur category from areas other than Hell Creek. A few were identified by sellers as Daspletosaurus. A couple are beautiful teeth with excellent serrations and enamel, but smaller. The one larger one I have is just over 2". I'll take a few shots of those when I get a moment.

A great thread gents, thanks for sharing your knowledge and these terrific photos of your tooth collections, thoroughly fascinating and educational!

From all the reading I've done on technical papers, it seems as though the range of morphology in T-Rex teeth is still disputed. The obvious specimens with large fat D, or oval, shaped roots and much larger than average serrations are easy to identify. It seems like a lot of times it's the smaller teeth, likely from juveniles, that get so confused. I've also heard reports lately of teeth, in skulls (in situ), that have teeth with very different characteristics, but obviously from the same animal as they are still in it's head.

The more outlier examples we can post photos of should help others to identify questionable teeth a bit better.

Wow what a fantastic Tyrannosaur collection.

Thanks... I appreciate it. Many of the pieces are replicas, of course. A few others are real but just classified as Theropod, not specifically Tyrannosaur. It just presents better like this than trying to have random Theropod shelf with a few misc bits here and there.

I do also have a few other shelves, I'm proud of, with similar grouped items. A Triceratops, Hadrosaur, Shark, and an "Other" Tooth and Claw shelf, mostly replicas except for a couple of nice carcharodontosaurus teeth, a collection of raptor classified teeth, and a few random spinosaurus and mosasaur teeth and ribs.

https://imgur.com/a/4vAd1

(before anyone mentions it, yes I know I have a oviraptor egg shell on my hadrosaur shelf, I ran out of space )

[Troodon]

The issue with tyrannosaur tooth identification are those smaller than 2 1/2" not the big ones. The comparisons I've done with Rex teeth in my collection (see first pg of this thread) from 1/4" to 4.5" show that serration count get smaller as the tooth gets bigger. For teeth under 2 1/2" serrations are not diagnostic and other characteristics need to be looked at why I put this topic out.

On tips there are those that are obviously Rex but most can be difficult to call.

Be glad to look at your Daspletosaurus tooth but again take a look at my 3rd paragraph of this thread. Campanian age Tyrannosaurs cannot be distinguished from one another. So unless it's a very large tooth it's a Tyrannosaurus indet. Sellers are quick to label teeth as Daspletosaurus but have nothing to back that up other than increased sales.

[Runner64]

Thanks very much for your input. That's pretty much where I was with my own identification. The Larson tooth was dubious at best being called a t-rex. The root end was heavily reconstructed out of what looks like paleobond. So only about 2/3rds of the original circumference of it is in tact.

The two tips have some indications that hint at t-rex, but you're right, without more of the tooth, it's a snarge shoot to guess at it's origin.

I also have other teeth that fall in the general tyrannosaur category from areas other than Hell Creek. A few were identified by sellers as Daspletosaurus. A couple are beautiful teeth with excellent serrations and enamel, but smaller. The one larger one I have is just over 2". I'll take a few shots of those when I get a moment.

From all the reading I've done on technical papers, it seems as though the range of morphology in T-Rex teeth is still disputed. The obvious specimens with large fat D, or oval, shaped roots and much larger than average serrations are easy to identify. It seems like a lot of times it's the smaller teeth, likely from juveniles, that get so confused. I've also heard reports lately of teeth, in skulls (in situ), that have teeth with very different characteristics, but obviously from the same animal as they are still in it's head.

The more outlier examples we can post photos of should help others to identify questionable teeth a bit better.

Thanks... I appreciate it. Many of the pieces are replicas, of course. A few others are real but just classified as Theropod, not specifically Tyrannosaur. It just presents better like this than trying to have random Theropod shelf with a few misc bits here and there.

I do also have a few other shelves, I'm proud of, with similar grouped items. A Triceratops, Hadrosaur, Shark, and an "Other" Tooth and Claw shelf, mostly replicas except for a couple of nice carcharodontosaurus teeth, a collection of raptor classified teeth, and a few random spinosaurus and mosasaur teeth and ribs.

https://imgur.com/a/4vAd1

(before anyone mentions it, yes I know I have a oviraptor egg shell on my hadrosaur shelf, I ran out of space )

Neat display, it looks very nice that way.

[AnatomicFlack]

The issue with tyrannosaur tooth identification are those smaller than 2 1/2" not the big ones. The comparisons I've done with Rex teeth in my collection (see first pg of this thread) from 1/4" to 4.5" show that serration count get smaller as the tooth gets bigger. For teeth under 2 1/2" serrations are not diagnostic and other characteristics need to be looked at why I put this topic out.

On tips there are those that are obviously Rex but most can be difficult to call.

Be glad to look at your Daspletosaurus tooth but again take a look at my 3rd paragraph of this thread. Campanian age Tyrannosaurs cannot be distinguished from one another. So unless it's a very large tooth it's a Tyrannosaurus indet. Sellers are quick to label teeth as Daspletosaurus but have nothing to back that up other than increased sales.

Absolutely. Most of the research papers I've tried to read attempt to discern the origin of the teeth through those extra factors, but finding a tooth with near perfect denticles and the starting point of those in relationship to the root of the tooth is certainly a needle in haystack compared to the countless isolated teeth that get found. As you stated though, under a certain size and most of those dimensional rules go out the window.

Yeah I was comfortable with the fact that anything I bought on eBay, not clearly T-Rex, was not going to be 100% identified. I'll take them calling them daspletosaurus over sellers clearly calling teeth T-Rex that are NOT.

Edited January 4, 2016 by AnatomicFlack

[Troodon]

Yeah I was comfortable with the fact that anything I bought on eBay, not clearly T-Rex, was not going to be 100% identified. I'll take them calling them daspletosaurus over sellers clearly calling teeth T-Rex that are NOT.

I would rather they call it correctly, like some suppliers "FossilEra" than try to deceive people by using names that will attract a buyer. To many buyers are too trustful of sellers.

[AnatomicFlack]

I would rather they call it correctly, like some suppliers "FossilEra" than try to deceive people by using names that will attract a buyer. To many buyers are too trustful of sellers.

Sadly agree and agree.

I will give FossilEra some credit. It seems that most of the time, unless the tooth is over 2", they just classify it as Tyrannosaur Tooth with a description of the possible tyranosaurids from the formation it was found.

I've found what I would believe to be "fair" eBay sellers, with others being pretty blatantly off their rockers with naming just to raise the value. For normal buyers I don't feel to bad, for gift buyers who don't really know better I feel for when they get duped.

I have to share these two listings I keep looking at that I find amusing:

This one... makes me laugh each and every time I see it.

"T-Rex Tooth":

Who tries to sell an expensive item on eBay with a drive by photo shoot? Seriously? That looks significantly more like a patchwork Spinosaurus tooth than anything else. So I'm guessing it's a clueless seller who was duped and is trying to offload a mistake.Heh... if it's anyone heres auction I apologize, but wow.

Then there is this tooth... which was originally listed at $40,000

The price is more what's shocking than anything else. It's a beautiful tooth for sure (now), and at least the seller was kind enough to show the before photos documenting it's radical reconstruction and restoration, but that tooth is almost entirely fabricated. Even at it's new listing price of $15,000 seems a little much considering it's in so many pieces, and the root (which is a fair chunk of the overall measurement) could be made up of anything. Maybe I'm way off base, but can a tooth this size in such poor original shape warrant such a high asking price?

Again if this is someone's listing here, I don't mean to call you out... but it's just shocking to see this and raises my curiosity on how the price was arrived at.

Edited January 4, 2016 by AnatomicFlack
Ebay links removed; images attached

[Ridgehiker]

Here's some of mine. I keep them in a few display cases. Tyrannosaur teeth are relatively common in our Late Cretaceous deposits. T. rex from the Scollard Formation and assorted other tyranossaurids from other deposits.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Ridgehiker

[Troodon]

Then there is this tooth... which was originally listed at $40,000. <Link deleted> The price is more what's shocking than anything else. It's a beautiful tooth for sure (now), and at least the seller was kind enough to show the before photos documenting it's radical reconstruction and restoration, but that tooth is almost entirely fabricated. Even at it's new listing price of $15,000 seems a little much considering it's in so many pieces, and the root (which is a fair chunk of the overall measurement) could be made up of anything. Maybe I'm way off base, but can a tooth this size in such poor original shape warrant such a high asking price?Again if this is someone's listing here, I don't mean to call you out... but it's just shocking to see this and raises my curiosity on how the price was arrived at.

This tooth has been a discussion item since mid Dec.

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/59937-tyrannosaurus-rex-tooth/

[AnatomicFlack]

Here's some of mine. I keep them in a few display cases. Tyrannosaur teeth are relatively common in our Late Cretaceous deposits. T. rex from the Scollard Formation and assorted other tyranossaurids from other deposits.

That's quite impressive. I tried to do something similar with a bunch of tyrannosaur fragments I have, but was trying to use one of those floating silicone sheet frames, like I've used for other stuff, but it wouldn't work. The size differences in the fragments was too great and the smaller one kept falling down.

This tooth has been a discussion item since mid Dec.

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/59937-tyrannosaurus-rex-tooth/

Sorry about posting the eBay links before... I didn't know it wasn't allowed, but it's my own fault for not reading up first.

I also should have checked for a thread about the 40K tooth.

I'm going to attempt shots tomorrow of the four "daspletosaurus" teeth I have. Not that I expect any exact identification, but more wood for the information fire.

[-Andy-]

Beautiful photos! That's one fine collection. You should post in the Members' Collection section.

Sadly agree and agree.

I will give FossilEra some credit. It seems that most of the time, unless the tooth is over 2", they just classify it as Tyrannosaur Tooth with a description of the possible tyranosaurids from the formation it was found.

I've found what I would believe to be "fair" eBay sellers, with others being pretty blatantly off their rockers with naming just to raise the value. For normal buyers I don't feel to bad, for gift buyers who don't really know better I feel for when they get duped.

I have to share these two listings I keep looking at that I find amusing:

This one... makes me laugh each and every time I see it.
"T-Rex Tooth": ~.jpg
Who tries to sell an expensive item on eBay with a drive by photo shoot? Seriously? That looks significantly more like a patchwork Spinosaurus tooth than anything else. So I'm guessing it's a clueless seller who was duped and is trying to offload a mistake.Heh... if it's anyone heres auction I apologize, but wow.

Then there is this tooth... which was originally listed at $40,000

~.jpg
The price is more what's shocking than anything else. It's a beautiful tooth for sure (now), and at least the seller was kind enough to show the before photos documenting it's radical reconstruction and restoration, but that tooth is almost entirely fabricated. Even at it's new listing price of $15,000 seems a little much considering it's in so many pieces, and the root (which is a fair chunk of the overall measurement) could be made up of anything. Maybe I'm way off base, but can a tooth this size in such poor original shape warrant such a high asking price?

Again if this is someone's listing here, I don't mean to call you out... but it's just shocking to see this and raises my curiosity on how the price was arrived at.

Don't forget the horn corals sold as Rex!

Well, there are collectors who'd gladly take highly restored teeth. I know at least one fella who spent hundreds to have his tooth transformed into something that no longer resembled it's original condition. Not judging. I have restored teeth tips myself, and to me, T-Rex is T-Rex, regardless of restoration

[AnatomicFlack]

Didn't get a chance to photograph the other teeth yet, I was working on my technique for the macro photos to get better focus and depth.

I believe I found it using focus stacking in Photoshop.

Here is my test case from tonight of the teeth in the dome.

(at first blush the shot doesn't look much better than my previously posted photo, but with the link below to the full image you can see there is a pretty significant difference in the sharpness and tooth detail)

Here is the link to the full size stacked image:

http://i.imgur.com/5PmUXeo.jpg

And here is the album with the photos I stacked: (the two composite photos are first)

http://imgur.com/a/JvGDZ

I'm going to get the shots of the other teeth soon now that I have a technique to get the real macro shots of the entire tooth I'll be able to better capture the serrations from the side profiles.

If anyone is interested in the process this it the link I used:

http://briansmith.com/how-to-use-lightroom-photoshop-focus-stacking-auto-blend/

You don't need lightroom as he noted, you can use these directions to import the photos into layers:

http://blogs.adobe.com/jkost/2012/02/open-several-photographs-into-a-single-photoshop-document.html

Didn't mean to get too off topic just wanted to share my findings since nicely photographing fossils can be a bit of a challenge.

UPDATE: Found a small gap in the focus so added another image to the stack and updated links.

Edited January 5, 2016 by AnatomicFlack

[Runner64]

Didn't get a chance to photograph the other teeth yet, I was working on my technique for the macro photos to get better focus and depth.I believe I found it using focus stacking in Photoshop.Here is my test case from tonight of the teeth in the dome.(at first blush the shot doesn't look much better than my previously posted photo, but with the link below to the full image you can see there is a pretty significant difference in the sharpness and tooth detail)Here is the link to the full size stacked image:http://i.imgur.com/IwcOcdu.jpgAnd here is the album with the photos I stacked: (the two composite photos are first)http://imgur.com/a/JvGDZI'm going to get the shots of the other teeth soon now that I have a technique to get the real macro shots of the entire tooth I'll be able to better capture the serrations from the side profiles.If anyone is interested in the process this it the link I used:http://briansmith.com/how-to-use-lightroom-photoshop-focus-stacking-auto-blend/You don't need lightroom as he noted, you can use these directions to import the photos into layers:http://blogs.adobe.com/jkost/2012/02/open-several-photographs-into-a-single-photoshop-document.htmlDidn't mean to get too off topic just wanted to share my findings since nicely photographing fossils can be a bit of a challenge.

Neat teeth. How big is the largest one?

[AnatomicFlack]

Neat teeth. How big is the largest one?

Back right is 3.2"

It's my list to get shots from all sides.

[Troodon]

Great teeth, hey a better place to post these gems in under Member Collections. That topic was set up to show off goodies like these.

[deep2thektline]

I have collected on private land in Montana and Wyoming in the Judith River Formation, Hell Creek and the Lance. My gut feeling is that the difference between Albertosaurine and Tyranosaurine teeth is their girth. Tyranosaurine teeth which include Daspleteosaurus are more rounded and less bladelike. "Nanotyranus" teeth are indistinguishable from Albertosaurine teeth. The frame below are smaller fossils from the Judith River; all of the tyranosaur teeth are quite bladelike except the 3rd and 2nd from the left in the bottom row. I do not think there are Daspleteosaurus teeth in the Montana Judith River

[Troodon]

@deep2thektline

There is no way to distinguish Tyrannosaurid teeth from the Judith River of Montana other than extremely large teeth similiar to Daspletosaurus.  No tyrannosaurid has been described from that fauna but similar aged Tyrannosaurs in Alberta have seen Daspletosaurus and Gorgosaurus described in several formations.  Albertosaurus is still big question from the Judith and is currently only known from the very late campanian- early maastrichtian deposits like the Horseshoe Canyon Fm in Alberta.  The girth of teeth are typically associated with the location in the jaw and are not diagnostic to species.   

[Troodon]

I am not interested in getting into a Nanotyrannus/T rex discussion so I post this to provide REAL information to the collector community.   

 

I was very fortunate able to obtain this replica BABY T-rex jaw (35 cm wide) through an individual who was present when it was found.  The Jaw was prepared by Akiko Shinya and the replica was meticulously cast, even the weight matched to the original specimen, its heavy.   Six casts were made with one on display at the Black Hills Institute.  The jaw is a match to any adult T-rex with the only difference being size.   The teeth are big, fat and scream T rex no question what they are.   The jaw is very wide and bulky.

 

 

 

Here is a group of photos provided by Pete Larsen that compare this jaw to one from Nanotyrannus so you can see the differences

 

 

[Masp]

@Troodon  this is very cool, glad you’re back and thanks for providing value. The baby rex replica is nice. 

[TyBoy]

Wow that certainly passes the eyeball test no follow-up needed thanks for posting. Yes this is in private hands but its real and cannot be discounted as it did not exist.   The real problem is that one high profile person has made a gross error and his reputation would take a big hit if the real facts came out.  His minions agree with everything he says without looking at the facts.   In addition younger paleontologist may be afraid to challenge him in fear of reprisal.  Sad..   .

[Troodon]

Revamped my initial post to be more current and reflect Hendrickx most recent paper.

 

@Omnomosaurus anything to add or change?

[Omnomosaurus]

48 minutes ago, Troodon said:

Revamped my initial post to be more current and reflect Hendrickx most recent paper.

 

@Omnomosaurus anything to add or change?

 

No, I think you've covered everything beautifully there, Troodon.

 

The only thing to maybe add is the additional information in the paper that states Daspletosaurus transitional teeth (those between the mesial & lateral dentition) bear "minute and, in some cases, poorly delimited mesial denticles and much larger and well-differentiated distal denticles".

 

Very similar to the mention of beaded mesial carina in premaxilliary teeth, but it isn't fully clear in the paper whether this feature in transitional teeth is referred to in reference to young specimens still, or if it is a more blanket statement that can also apply to adults.

[Troodon]

1 minute ago, Omnomosaurus said:

 

No, I think you've covered everything beautifully there, Troodon.

 

The only thing to maybe add is the additional information in the paper that states Daspletosaurus transitional teeth (those between the mesial & lateral dentition) bear "minute and, in some cases, poorly delimited mesial denticles and much larger and well-differentiated distal denticles". It isn't clear whether this feature is referred to in reference to young specimens still, or if it is a more blanket statement.

I struggled with whether to incorporate those comments for two reasons, not clear if that feature is not seen with Gorgo teeth but present in all Daspleto, all fauna, good Q to ask him ? His charts dont show anything. And I think most collectors are going to struggle with just calling teeth mesial and lateral now you add transitional features.  What do you think? 

Hey another item for your email with Hendrickx.  

[Omnomosaurus]

3 minutes ago, Troodon said:

I struggled with whether to incorporate those comments for two reasons, not clear if that feature is not seen with Gorgo teeth but present in all Daspleto, all fauna, good Q to ask him ? His charts dont show anything. And I think most collectors are going to struggle with just calling teeth mesial and lateral now you add transitional features.  What do you think? 

Hey another item for your email with Hendrickx.  

 

That's a good point actually. The terminology might just confuse matters more for people, especially when things like DSDI calculations already look scary enough if you're not familiar with them. Probably best to leave it out; especially with the ambiguity of the statements too.

 

I'll add the query on this to the list for Christophe... there'll be a novel for him before long, if the questions keep coming at this rate!