Jump to content

Kem Kem Theropod Teeth: what you need to know


Troodon

Recommended Posts

Is there a certain type of scope you would recommend?

My photos are from an eScope then I added a better mounting stand. Had it for a few years and happy with it

http://www.oi.com.hk/node/14.html

There are others that might be better from Celestron or AmScope I just don't know. You might want to ask the community, they might have better options. My needs are pretty basic "serrations"

http://www.celestron.com/browse-shop/microscopes/digital-

http://www.amscope.com/200x-2mp-8-led-zoom-usb-digital-microscope-endoscope-xp-vista-mac.html?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Andy, just looked at my Carch teeth and one of mine looks just like the one you have except mine curves more. I have to agree, it doesn't look Carch but I would have to look at the serrations to be more accurate.

I'm sure if the teeth fit the profile of the two I show with the serrations photos chances are good its not a Carch. Agreed serrations images would be needed to nail it down. Keep in mind Juvie Carch's do exits to ruin the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you folks think of this Kem Kem tooth?

It was sold to me as Deltadromeus, It has a somewhat similar profile to small Carch, but is far skinnier with a thickness of 0.35 inches. Straight line measurement is 2.03 inches.

attachicon.gifP1060857.jpg

attachicon.gifDelta_5.jpg

attachicon.gifDelta_6.jpg

Comparison with small Carch.

Any ideas what it actually is?

I guess I'm a little confused and amused by this ongoing debate. Why is it so important to so many people, not just you Andy, that their tooth "NOT" be a Carch tooth? Carch teeth are going to come in a lot of different shapes and sizes. We are talking about tiny hatchlings all the way to full grown adults. Positional variation, teeth in different parts of the jaw are going to have different shapes. Younger teeth are going to look slightly different than full grown adult teeth. Personally, I have no problem with owning a Carch tooth. I love Carch teeth! When it comes right down too it, I would say it is my favorite dinosaur tooth even over T. rex. It just seems so many people want their Carch teeth to either be a Delta or some other indeterminate species in such a bad way. Like I said, I just don't really get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm a little confused and amused by this ongoing debate. Why is it so important to so many people, not just you Andy, that their tooth "NOT" be a Carch tooth? Carch teeth are going to come in a lot of different shapes and sizes. We are talking about tiny hatchlings all the way to full grown adults. Positional variation, teeth in different parts of the jaw are going to have different shapes. Younger teeth are going to look slightly different than full grown adult teeth. Personally, I have no problem with owning a Carch tooth. I love Carch teeth! When it comes right down too it, I would say it is my favorite dinosaur tooth even over T. rex. It just seems so many people want their Carch teeth to either be a Delta or some other indeterminate species in such a bad way. Like I said, I just don't really get it.

I can't speak for others, but I am guessing it's because Carch teeth are rather common, so if they have a small tooth, they'd rather something else besides a Carch tooth.

Now as me, it's because I don't need to own doubles of theropod teeth, and I have someone eager to buy my small carch tooth. If I do know that this tooth is a Carch, I'll sell my existing one to him. If I know it isn't Carch, I'd keep my current Carch.

Looking forward to meeting my fellow Singaporean collectors! Do PM me if you are a Singaporean, or an overseas fossil-collector coming here for a holiday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak for others, but I am guessing it's because Carch teeth are rather common, so if they have a small tooth, they'd rather something else besides a Carch tooth.

Now as me, it's because I don't need to own doubles of theropod teeth, and I have someone eager to buy my small carch tooth. If I do know that this tooth is a Carch, I'll sell my existing one to him. If I know it isn't Carch, I'd keep my current Carch.

It's funny because I'm just the opposite of most everyone else. I'm not looking necessarily for other theropod species from the Kem Kem, although don't get me wrong, if they were proven to exist I would love to have them. What I want are baby Carch teeth! I'm always looking for the smallest Carch teeth I can find. But just like most people want to call Carch teeth in the one to two inch range Delta teeth, they also want to call baby Carch teeth that are very small say under half an inch Dromaeosaurid teeth. That's OK, like I've said before, I don't care what other people call these teeth, it doesn't make any difference to me. What matters is what I believe the teeth to be. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong :-)

I know others will strongly disagree with me but until a Delta skull is found with teeth, all teeth that look like Carch teeth are Carch teeth! I know I'm going to get an ear full from that statement HaHa!

Edited by Dracorex_hogwartsia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Although a lot of this has already been posted on a number of topics, I thought consolidation it might prove useful with some additional information.

Are you planning to purchase theropod teeth from the Morocco's Kem Kem region or already have some in your collection? My thoughts on these teeth since theropods are poorly understood and not a lot has been published. There is also lots of mis-information, mostly unintentional, from some dealers but especially online auction sites.

So first lets identify what is known and has been published to the best of my knowledge.

Theropods that have been described:

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus

Carcharodontosaurus saharicus

Deltadromeus agilis

Theropods that have not been described from the Kem Kem but may exist.

Dromaeosaurus sp.

Abelisaurus sp.

Rugops sp. (from Niger)

Bahariasaurus sp. (from Niger & Egypt)

Elaphrosaurus sp. (from North Africa)

So what is being sold and what are the issues?

Spinosaurus teeth are well understood by both collector and dealers, see photo. Issues are typically associated with restoration and fabrication a larger tooth from multiple teeth. Teeth with matrix attached to them are suspect for restoration so be careful.

attachicon.gifSuchtoothD146.jpg

Carcharodontosaurus teeth, those that are compressed and blade like are also well understood with no real issues, first photo. Those that I receive questions on are fat, slender and look very different (D shapped) (next three photos). I believe these to be Mesial teeth (front of the jaw) and are Carcharodontosaurus teeth

attachicon.gifCarch.jpg

attachicon.gifCarch1a.jpgattachicon.gifCarch1b.jpgattachicon.gifCarch1.jpg

There are also intermediate size teeth (1 1/2") that are being sold as Deltadromeus or another theropod. I believe these could be juvenile Carcharodontosaurus teeth. I did a comparison of serrations to adult teeth and could not see a difference but I'm not 100% certain. These type of teeth should be identified as Theropod indet.

attachicon.gifCarch3.jpg

Adult left, Juvenile right

attachicon.gifCarch2.jpgattachicon.gifCarch3b.jpg

Dromaeosaur teeth... most all being sold are not, so here is what to look for. Teeth are typically small around 1/2" (1.2cm), recurved and there is a distinct difference in the serrations on both edges. These teeth should be identified as Dromaeosaurid indet.

attachicon.gifDromie1a.jpg

Deltadromeus teeth... Its unknown what these teeth look like since we do not have a skull with teeth to identify them. Once a skull is found and described we can unwrap the mystery.

Abelisaurus teeth... This species does not exist in the Kem Kem but the teeth being sold as that are actually Abelisaurid indet. With new discoveries we can put a real species name to these teeth. These are easily identifiable. The teeth are very compressed, the cross-section is oval at the base, the mesial side is strongly curved and the distal side is almost straight to the base of the tooth, see red lines in the photo. These teeth are typically around an inch long but I've seen them up to 2 inches.

attachicon.gifAbel1a.jpgattachicon.gifAbel2.jpg

Other names... most likely its one of the teeth shown above.

Thank you so much! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Opinions on this tooth?

It was marketed as a Deltadromeus tooth, and measures over 6 inches (the guy has a huge hand).

The authenticity of the tooth is not in question; the seller comes highly recommended and the tooth has been seen by several experts. The only question is... what animal does it belong to.

attachicon.gif11182787_712611535527488_4807277455909726937_o.jpg attachicon.gif11203102_712611662194142_8471632002505527163_n.jpg attachicon.gif11206532_712611648860810_4931611738754267848_o.jpg

Tooth is a Carch tooth for sure

,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tooth is a Carch tooth for sure

,

Agreed.

Welcome to the forums, George!

Looking forward to meeting my fellow Singaporean collectors! Do PM me if you are a Singaporean, or an overseas fossil-collector coming here for a holiday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice rooted tooth. In my opinion it's a Carch tooth from the front of a jaw. Just ask yourself what size skull can support that size tooth? Much too big to fit into midsize dinosaurs like Deltadromeus. Are you buying or just gawking at it. :wub:

Question? How can any seller be highly recommended if they are marketing Deltadromeus teeth that no one knows what they look like?

I attended the official unveiling of Rugops Primus,a few years back as a guest of Paul Sereno and the teeth many people are describing as delta teeth are in fact more than probably the scavenger Rugops,I spoke at length with Gabrielle Lyon the discoverer and she described lots of these small teeth around the fossil remains,there was NO skull found,which is a great pity,these smaller teeth misidentified as delta are identical to the teeth i saw in the partial skull and jaws of Rugops primus,Thelarger teeth which are approx 2 inches narrow and long and laterally compressed,they are not in my opinion carch teeth and they were desribed to me by Gabrielle as been as been Delta more than probable,there is not other described large predator I know of that they could be from. .I have some photos which i can post once I get a hang of the forum

post-10695-0-21413100-1454600567_thumb.jpg

post-10695-0-87022200-1454600570_thumb.jpg

post-10695-0-38909900-1454600573_thumb.jpg

post-10695-0-99081200-1454600575_thumb.jpg

post-10695-0-67481200-1454600577_thumb.jpg

post-10695-0-40941800-1454600579_thumb.jpg

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree my gut tells me that the smaller teeth are Rugops, if it exists in the Kem Kem, since its an Abelisaurid and the larger ones are Delta not Carch but some may be positional juvie Carch. One needs to look at the serrations under a scope to determine that, they are different. The Carch has squared off serrations and the other tooth possibly Delta are narrower and rounded. Bottom line until we find skull material with teeth it, that is published, it will remain "in my opinion" and "possibly" etc. so right now they are theropod indet..

Carch

post-10935-0-74795800-1454618292_thumb.jpg

Possible Delta

post-10935-0-98672100-1454618295_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tooth is a Carch tooth for sure

,

Hi George, Welcome to the forum. I can't believe it's taken you this long to join!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update to theropods from Kem Kem

Spinosaurid

I think the case for more than one Spinosaurid in the Kem Kem is pretty strong and in the end at least two species will prevail Sigilmassasaurus brevicollis and Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. This will continue to play out until a skull is found.

Carcharodontosaurid

To appreciate the lack of understanding of the theropods from this region one needs to look no further than the most recent (2012) predator that was described Sauroniops pachytholus based on a skull fragment. It's tentatively placed as a Carcharodontosaurid based on fragmentary material. This one will need more discoveries to firm up or validate.

The Kem Kem may yield more theropods as exploration and discoveries are made. Keep those erasers handy

post-10935-0-80510200-1455630005_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just received my quarterly SVP publication and one of the topic that attracted my attention was on "Dental terminology of non-avian theropods". They confirmed my beliefs that serrations (denticles) are the key in the identification of theropod teeth. A number of different example were shown and the diversity that exists between them. But what I found eye opening was that you need to look very closely at the denticles, 1 mm sections, to see differences that can be subtle and its all about denticle shape.

So I took a much closer look at those intermediate teeth that I called juvenile Carcharodontosaurus and it changed my conclusion on their identification.

These are the teeth in question.

attachicon.gifCarch3.jpg

This is an image of Carcharodontosaurus denticles from the SVP paper. The scale bar is 1 mm

This type of denticle is called "subquadrangular distocentral" definitely a technical term :blink:

attachicon.gifCarch.jpg

This is an image of one of my Carch teeth and they look identical ( 2 denticles per mm )

attachicon.gifCarchFF4RC.jpgattachicon.gifCarchFF4RC1.jpg

Now here is a closeup of the denticles of one of the two teeth in question. Both teeth were the same so just showed one. With the super closeup you can see that they are different. They are narrower, more rounded and are called "proximodistally subrectangular distocentral" woweeeee thats a mouthful :o (3 denticles per mm )

attachicon.gifCarchFF1RC.jpgattachicon.gifCarchFF1RC1.jpg

Conclusions that I've made:

1) These two teeth should be identified as Theropod indet. and may be Deltadromeus but we cannot draw that conclusion without further evidence.

2) Closeup examination of the denticles of these type of teeth are necessary to determine if they are juvenile Carcharodontosaurus teeth or another Theropod. You cannot do it visually, a strong hand loop may help, but the best approach is a scope because of how similar the denticles can look. The size and shape of tooth are the first characteristic to get you to the next step a closer look at the serrations. Buying these type of teeth online can be risky and should be done with the ability to return them if necessary.

3) Serration count although helpful does not by itself identify species. Smaller teeth from younger animals tend to have a higher count than adults. Denticle shape is more critical in identification.

I am in complete agreement with Troodon, and George of Fossilgrove, on these intermediate sized, very bladed teeth. I've always considered them different from Carcharodontosaurus, in overall shape, and in denticle morphology. One feature that tends to be overlooked is that they are also generally slightly more recurved in shape. Whereas Carcharodontosaurus teeth are not, except for some of the fatter more anterior positioned Carch teeth.

I agree that these teeth should be considered as Theropod indeterminate, or maybe possibly Ceratosaur sp. indet.

I personally suspect, that when a skull or tooth bearing elements of Deltadromeus are eventually found, that these type of teeth will be the ones found in them. But that's just my opinion.

Edited by hxmendoza
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abelisaurid indet Teeth

Recently picked up this rooted tooth and believe it to be a Premaxillary position on an Abelisaurid dinosaur, but since we've never seen one its not a slam dunk. Nice position to collect.

post-10935-0-82965200-1456157316_thumb.jpgpost-10935-0-88412700-1456157305_thumb.jpgpost-10935-0-13029500-1456157303_thumb.jpg

Comparison to a dentary/maxillary positon where one side is almost at right angle to the base of the tooth.

post-10935-0-40561700-1456158118_thumb.jpg

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw that tooth not too long ago from George. It's a very nice tooth. Maybe the best theropod tooth I've seen from Morocco.

Edited by Runner64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw that tooth not too long ago from George and Carlos.

Wait, what? How did we see the same tooth from multiple different sellers?

Looking forward to meeting my fellow Singaporean collectors! Do PM me if you are a Singaporean, or an overseas fossil-collector coming here for a holiday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw that tooth not too long ago from George and Carlos.

Wait, what? How did we see the same tooth from multiple different sellers?

Oh my goodness, I mixed the two up; I'm terrible with names.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update to theropods from Kem Kem

Spinosaurid

I think the case for more than one Spinosaurid in the Kem Kem is pretty strong and in the end at least two species will prevail Sigilmassasaurus brevicollis and Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. This will continue to play out until a skull is found.

Don't forget Spinosaurus maroccanus :)

Each dot is 50,000,000 years:

Hadean............Archean..............................Proterozoic.......................................Phanerozoic...........

                                                                                                                    Paleo......Meso....Ceno..

                                                                                                           Ꞓ.OSD.C.P.Tr.J.K..Pg.NgQ< You are here

Doesn't time just fly by?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget Spinosaurus maroccanus :)

The most recent paper on Spinosaurus (2014) by Ibrahim, Sereno, et al says the following about Spinosaurus maroccanus. Quote: This species was based on a single supposed proportional difference using measurements given by Stromer. We regard this difference as an artifact of differing ways to measure vertebrae. We regard this species as a nomen dubium.

The paper also places Sigilmassasaurus as a junior synonym of S. aegyptiacus but additional studies and papers have been published since 2014 that appears to validates that as a valid taxon.

The understanding of Theropods from the Kem Kem is a fluid one and will keep evolving with new discoveries and research.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most recent paper on Spinosaurus (2014) by Ibrahim, Sereno, et al says the following about Spinosaurus maroccanus. Quote: This species was based on a single supposed proportional difference using measurements given by Stromer. We regard this difference as an artifact of differing ways to measure vertebrae. We regard this species as a nomen dubium.

The paper also places Sigilmassasaurus as a junior synonym of S. aegyptiacus but additional studies and papers have been published since 2014 that appears to validates that as a valid taxon.

The understanding of Theropods from the Kem Kem is a fluid one and will keep evolving with new discoveries and research.

Interesting! I didn't know that. Thank you for clarifying. :)

Each dot is 50,000,000 years:

Hadean............Archean..............................Proterozoic.......................................Phanerozoic...........

                                                                                                                    Paleo......Meso....Ceno..

                                                                                                           Ꞓ.OSD.C.P.Tr.J.K..Pg.NgQ< You are here

Doesn't time just fly by?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abelisaurid indet Teeth

Recently picked up this rooted tooth and believe it to be a Premaxillary position on an Abelisaurid dinosaur, but since we've never seen one its not a slam dunk. Nice position to collect.

attachicon.gifAbelT - D196E.jpgattachicon.gifAbelT3 - D196E.jpgattachicon.gifAbelT2 - D196E.jpg

Comparison to a dentary/maxillary positon where one side is almost at right angle to the base of the tooth.

attachicon.gifAbel1.jpg

WOW! Absolutely beautiful! I have a couple of nice examples of this tooth position which I have always described as a pre-max tooth. I have never seen even a partially rooted much less fully rooted example. Very nice indeed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Draco, hope it is that but since we have not seen a jaw it's only our best call.

You're right but I think it's a pretty good educated guess but sometimes those can get you in trouble :-) The tooth definitely has a premaxillary shape to it. Did you recently purchase this at the show?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...