Haravex Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 I've in the last year so far have to see any dinosaur jaws only fragments of crocodile and fish jaws when one comes up I will be the first to share information on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted August 3, 2018 Author Share Posted August 3, 2018 1 hour ago, Haravex said: I've in the last year so far have to see any dinosaur jaws only fragments of crocodile and fish jaws when one comes up I will be the first to share information on it. Not surprised, not many partial jaws have been found with complete teeth. It would make news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted August 10, 2018 Author Share Posted August 10, 2018 I thought this recent comment by Andrea Cau a noted paleontologist was a good interpretation of the current state of understanding of Spinosaurids that very little is known, not a surprise. "At this moment, calling all Kem Kem spinosaurid elements as "Spinosaurus" or as "Spinosaurini" is merely due to personal interpretation of the known sample. We need more complete skeletons that simultaneously include skull, presacral vertebrae and hindlimb" His 2015 blog is interesting if you have not seen it. http://theropoda.blogspot.com/2015/10/sigilmassasaurus-awakens.html His conclusion: The distinction between Sigilmassasaurus and Spinosaurus has not been demonstrated uniquely . What we know is that there are two spinosaurides in Kem Kem: these two taxa are Sigilmassasaurus and Spinosaurus (as implicitly conclude Evers et al.), Or Spinosaurus (including Sigilmassasaurus ?) And a new taxon? From this derives also this question: Spinosaurus aegyptiacus is present in Morocco? My current proposal is to limit the name " Spinosaurus aegyptiacus " to the original specimen of Stromer, waiting for new remains that allow to compare the various Moroccan morphologies with the Egyptian ones. All the Moroccan remains refer to indeterminate Spinosauridae, pending further information. Sigilmassasaurus could be a distinct form, but only the discovery of specimens unequivocally referable to Spinosaurus and preservatives of the posterior cervical and the first dorsal will allow to establish if these two taxa are synonymous or distinct, and if indeed the second Moroccan morphotype is the same Egyptian species (or one of his closest relatives to the " Sigilmassasaurus " morphotype"). @LordTrilobite 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 Quite interesting. Though for now I think I'll stick with using both Sigilmassasaurus and Spinosaurus's names as being present in the Kem Kem beds. I'm noticing also that in this image he marks the dorsal spines of "Spinosaurus maroccanus" as being incomplete. Now while I have not seen those specimens in person, I do know that there are Spinosaurid cervical vertebrae that do not have a tall spine like some others do. The keeled and keel-less cervical and dorsal vertebrae are also clearly different and there are specimens of overlapping positions. 1 Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haravex Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 It's my understanding that there is spinosaurus material from the kem kem beds, and we can't work out if its the same as spinosaurus aegyptiacus in Egypt or slightly different in morocco? Correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 I'd say the Spinosaurus aegyptiacus neotype looks pretty consistent with the holotype. Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haravex Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 True however given the limited amount of remains found, its possible think of edmontosaurus for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted August 10, 2018 Author Share Posted August 10, 2018 2 hours ago, Haravex said: It's my understanding that there is spinosaurus material from the kem kem beds, and we can't work out if its the same as spinosaurus aegyptiacus in Egypt or slightly different in morocco? Correct? There are two Spinosaurid species in the KK we just need to understand is one the same as the Egyptian, S. aegyptiacus or something different and is Sigil distant from these to be a separate taxon or the same. 2 hours ago, LordTrilobite said: Quite interesting. Though for now I think I'll stick with using both Sigilmassasaurus and Spinosaurus's names as being present in the Kem Kem beds. I'm noticing also that in this image he marks the dorsal spines of "Spinosaurus maroccanus" as being incomplete. Now while I have not seen those specimens in person, I do know that there are Spinosaurid cervical vertebrae that do not have a tall spine like some others do. The keeled and keel-less cervical and dorsal vertebrae are also clearly different and there are specimens of overlapping positions. Its interesting to see a paleontologist view of Spinosaurids in the KK and how uncertain everything is in their minds. His point is valid that associated specimens are needed to really understand relationships. Im with you on continuing to support the two two names until some new discovery is made to help clarify matters. 56 minutes ago, Haravex said: True however given the limited amount of remains found, its possible think of edmontosaurus for example. Not sure what point you are making? They have found quite a number of skulks and articulated skeletons 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haravex Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 Sorry troodon the point I was trying to make it there is a small difference between Annectens and Regalis if the case was reversed and we had only partial skeletons from these two dinosaurus I see the possibility of these two potentially being confused maybe not the best example but and example non the less. No take the Spinosaurus from egypt and the spinosaurus from kem kem are they the same or slightly different in there anatomical features to classify them as a different sub order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haravex Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 Just as an additional thought, and again this comes from a rather layman perspective but if Stromer originally dug and discovered Spinosaurus Aegyptiacus, in the Bahariya Formation and then further went on to discover Spinosaurus B which we now attribute to and have further renamed to Sigilmassasaurus is it that far of a stretch to say the Kem Kem formations might just be the same and these two species where wide spread across? Just a thought again take my opinion and ideas as an amateur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted August 10, 2018 Author Share Posted August 10, 2018 40 minutes ago, Haravex said: Sorry troodon the point I was trying to make it there is a small difference between Annectens and Regalis if the case was reversed and we had only partial skeletons from these two dinosaurus I see the possibility of these two potentially being confused maybe not the best example but and example non the less. No take the Spinosaurus from egypt and the spinosaurus from kem kem are they the same or slightly different in there anatomical features to classify them as a different sub order? E regalis is a bit easier to underetand since its found in older deposits, Horseshoe Canyon fm, than the very late maastrichtian deposits of the Hell Creek/Lance Fm where E. annectens is described. 37 minutes ago, Haravex said: Just as an additional thought, and again this comes from a rather layman perspective but if Stromer originally dug and discovered Spinosaurus Aegyptiacus, in the Bahariya Formation and then further went on to discover Spinosaurus B which we now attribute to and have further renamed to Sigilmassasaurus is it that far of a stretch to say the Kem Kem formations might just be the same and these two species where wide spread across? Just a thought again take my opinion and ideas as an amateur. All opinions are great and you may be right on however unless we can find associated material with a skull everyones opinions are just that, opinions. Every paleontologist has a different spin on these dinosaurs because we do not have enough evidence to gain consensus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haravex Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 The sad thing is even if we...I say this me making up the tiniest amount of Moroccan kem kem material coming out of there along with every other miner the pieces that come out are normally so scattered and so fragmented I feel it might be hard to put anything together even before the next 20 years and the beds get depleted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haravex Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 Sorry for the double post but for example here is a tub or parts I've collected that I've simply labelled fish fauna can't bring myself to throw any fossil away yet but and example of what is to be found most of it is water worn this is not a case of of mindless Berber or Moroccans not knowing how to excavate properly but a real situation of the fossilization of many of these pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted August 10, 2018 Author Share Posted August 10, 2018 19 minutes ago, Haravex said: The sad thing is even if we...I say this me making up the tiniest amount of Moroccan kem kem material coming out of there along with every other miner the pieces that come out are normally so scattered and so fragmented I feel it might be hard to put anything together even before the next 20 years and the beds get depleted. Very possible and there might not be any articulated skulls out there to be found so this might always remain a mystery 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haravex Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 Just now, Troodon said: Very possible and there might not be any articulated skulls out there to be found so this might always remain a mystery This honestly does make me feel a little sad inside however hopefully in the future we might get more scientific expeditions to the Bahariya Formation and hopefully pick up where Stromer left off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 Though rare, we do see articulated remains from the Kem Kem beds. Much is still fragmentary. But sometimes we see articulated skull parts and even mostly complete fish. So of course there are no guarantees. I'd say there's a fair chance with some luck there might be some better articulated remains still waiting to be discovered. Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haravex Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 This is not mine and I no way take credit for this but might help some people with the paleofauna 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted August 14, 2018 Author Share Posted August 14, 2018 Interesting. I agree with some but a bit to many dinosaurs, dont agree with all the sauropods, the Ornithopod and all those small theropods. He's on board with multiple Carcharodontosaurids and Spinosaurids but left out ornithomimids and oviraptors. The fossil record that we see on teeth gives us a reasonable understanding of whats out there and does not match that paleofauna but that his opinion. Bet if you polled paleontologists everyone would have a very different view of this paleofauna. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haravex Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 Oh this is all based on evidence he links the journal's to each silhouette on this image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted August 14, 2018 Author Share Posted August 14, 2018 I gathered that but it does not support a different genus/species just because of these finds. Where else in the fossil record do you have such diversity in the late Cretaceous 6 sauropods, 15 theropods. Interesting stab but what it tells you is that it supports what we've said that there are more than one Sauropod, Carch., and Spino which is what most paleontologists believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 4 hours ago, Troodon said: I gathered that but it does not support a different genus/species just because of these finds. Where else in the fossil record do you have such diversity in the late Cretaceous 6 sauropods, 15 theropods. Interesting stab but what it tells you is that it supports what we've said that there are more than one Sauropod, Carch., and Spino which is what most paleontologists believe. Note that some of these are duplicates. The artist puts Onchopristis, Mawsonia, Axelrodichtys, Neoceratodus and Spinosaurus all on there twice and there are several Noasaurids, Titanosaurs and Abelisaurids pictured. So I think this is more meant to illustrate that even if some of those animals are the same genus or species, different size ranges are present of those types of animals. It could be evidence for animals of all ages living in roughly the same area. Some stuff I don't agree with on the chart. I think Elosuchus got bigger than that. I also wouldn't reconstruct Sigilmassasaurus with a sail on it's back. Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Amateur Paleontologist Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 @Troodon Not sure if it had been posted in this thread, but this is a paper from 2012 that I thought might be worth lookin' at Richter et al. 2012 Kem Kem theropod teeth.pdf -Christian 1 Opalised fossils are the best: a wonderful mix between paleontology and mineralogy! Q. Where do dinosaurs study? A. At Khaan Academy!... My ResearchGate profile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted August 30, 2018 Author Share Posted August 30, 2018 1 hour ago, The Amateur Paleontologist said: @Troodon Not sure if it had been posted in this thread, but this is a paper from 2012 that I thought might be worth lookin' at Richter et al. 2012 Kem Kem theropod teeth.pdf -Christian Most everything posted comes from that paper. , thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted January 3, 2020 Author Share Posted January 3, 2020 On my first page added a Carcharodontosaurid Premaxillary tooth, which is a very interesting positive identification since it was done by the theropod tooth expert Christophe Hendrickx. Tooth is part of @Omnomosaurus collection. Photos and specifications were his, so thanks for obtaining the data and following up with Christophe. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omnomosaurus Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 8 minutes ago, Troodon said: On my first page added a Carcharodontosaurid Premaxillary tooth, which is a very interesting positive identification since it was done by the theropod tooth expert Christophe Hendrickx. Tooth is part of @Omnomosaurus collection. Photos and specifications were his, so thanks for obtaining the data and following up with Christophe. Happy to help. Christophe was very confident in his identification and stated that the morphology of the tooth to be a very close match to premaxilliary teeth of Acrocanthosaurus. Not all Carcharodontosaurids share this exact morphology. 3 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