Hypsilophodon caudal vertebra

[Iguanodonfossil]

My favourite and rarest find from my latest long stay trip to the Isle of Wight (whilst working for a local museum). 

 

To the layman's eye this might look like just a "funny rock" but it's actually a Hypsilophodon (small Ornithopod dinosaur) caudal vertebra within matrix. Finding any "Hypsy" fossils are rare and most of the time they are only commonly found in the aptly named "Hypsilophodon bed" which is further along the cliff beds to where I picked this up at Grange chine. 

 

Sadly part of the vertebra is missing (hence the cross section) but if it had been complete it would have been almost impossible to find so double-edged sword. After discovering the fossil at precisely 6:43 pm ( on the 24th of August) I immediately took it to the museum where a few palaeontologists inspected it (at this point we were unsure of the ID).

 

We all decided that it was worth taking out of the matrix...Luckily there is an expert fossil preparator on the island who has the correct tools, knowledge and experience to deal with fossils this size. (Most people were far too scared to attempt!)

 

Once the fossil was taken out of the matrix we were able to confirm its ID as "Hypsy". I'm honestly so chuffed with this! I've found dinosaur teeth and very large bones in the past but nothing yet until now from a Hypsilophodon.

 

* I apologise in advance that the photos are not the best! Once my DCLR camera is uploaded I'll have better photos. 

Edited September 2, 2016 by Iguanodonfossil

[Fossildude19]

Excellent find!
Thanks for showing us. 

Regards,

[Ridgehiker]

That's a unique find!

 

This is an often overlooked group of dinosaurs so its a positive you were able to identify the vertebra. Good info about the cross section.

 

I'm never sure if this family of dinos is common in our Cretaceous deposits. I'd have a hard  time recognizing any of the skeletal elements as all that distinct.  Whenever someone claims to find a vertebra or phalange, I can see it possibly being from another family of Dinos.

 

Good luck with the prep but it also looks neat in matrix.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Ridgehiker

[Iguanodonfossil]

37 minutes ago, Canadawest said:

That's a unique find!

 

This is an often overlooked group of dinosaurs so its a positive you were able to identify the vertebra. Good info about the cross section.

 

I'm never sure if this family of dinos is common in our Cretaceous deposits. I'd have a hard  time recognizing any of the skeletal elements as all that distinct.  Whenever someone claims to find a vertebra or phalange, I can see it possibly being from another family of Dinos.

 

Good luck with the prep but it also looks neat in matrix.

 

Thank you!

(It's already prepped out of matrix, we had to do it in order to get a confirmed ID  the second photo shows it prepped out.)

 

I'm no expert on the geology of Alberta, but from what I gather there are no -confirmed- hypsilophodon specimens from that area. As it stands the only confirmed holotypes come from the Isle of Wight (UK) and other finds have not yet been confidently ID'd as hypsilophodon. It would make sense for there for be small ornithopods running around in any ecosystem, but as you probably know it takes a lot of paperwork and whole specimens being discovered before scientists can confidently say that hypsilophodons are found elsewhere other than the island. So until then you can only say it's possibly hypsilophodon or something similar. 

 

This specimen was found not far from Cowleaze chine where the first hypsilophodon was discovered. So it comes with provenance as well as evidence that it's from an adult ornithopod dinosaur of which with this size there are no others found. Also helps with you have other specimens to compare it to, as well as being prepped out by professionals that know Hypsy's from the back of their hands after working in the local museums on the island. 

 

Despite these little guys being in herds they aren't usually found. Usually you find much larger ornithopods and theropods!

[Ridgehiker]

True. Not that genus.

 

However we actually have a few complete skeletons of Hysophilodonts from that family.  A half dozen genera or so are listed from Alberta Formations.  All Late Cretaceous so younger than your specimen.

 

Its a bit of an enigmatic family. Unlike the Ceratopsians and Hadrosaurs, the genera are based as much on skeletal size and location than anything else. Also, for whatever reason, they don't get much press...perhaps because they werent that big and were an unassuming looking herbivore.

[Iguanodonfossil]

22 minutes ago, Canadawest said:

True. Not that genus.

 

However we actually have a few complete skeletons of Hysophilodonts from that family.  A half dozen genera or so are listed from Alberta Formations.  All Late Cretaceous so younger than your specimen.

 

Its a bit of an enigmatic family. Unlike the Ceratopsians and Hadrosaurs, the genera are based as much on skeletal size and location than anything else. Also, for whatever reason, they don't get much press...perhaps because they werent that big and were an unassuming looking herbivore.

 

Didn't know that (you learn something new every day!) but then again I only really put credit to my knowledge on dinosaurs of the British Isles.

 

I guess if you want to get a confirmation of ID comparison with a confirmed specimen from that same locality/bed is best (Though it gets harder when you have more than two similar species of dinosaur within one locality). It also depends on the type of bone that is discovered and what clues it leaves...For example with this vertabra we know it's from an adult dinosaur due to fused elements and not a juvenile (which would make the ID ambiguous) so we know instantly that it's a small ornithopod (if it was a theropod caudal vertabra from this locality it would present as a beautiful hourglass shape). Personally I find that provenance is everything and can give you a lot of information, if you had the evidence of it's morphology relating to a specific type of dinosaur as well as information on the beds it came from you can get a fairly confident ID. As well as getting different opinions of paleontologists that work in the area and  know what they are looking at.  Usually I find ID's more comforting when you find the fossil yourself!  

 

It's true that small ornithopods don't get the same lime light as "the big guys" especially in mainstream media and publications, but if you tail down the right expert then they will have more intimate knowledge on how to tell apart these dinosaurs and what presents in their skeletal structures that simply doesn't in others. I've certainly learned a great deal about the small dinosaurs from talking to the paleontologists that work with them more so than books/media available to the public. Because you have quite a few small ornithopods within your locality chances are they are far more common than their earlier ancestors here in Britain. 

[Killclaw]

On 02/09/2016 at 8:40 PM, Iguanodonfossil said:

 

Didn't know that (you learn something new every day!) but then again I only really put credit to my knowledge on dinosaurs of the British Isles.

 

I guess if you want to get a confirmation of ID comparison with a confirmed specimen from that same locality/bed is best (Though it gets harder when you have more than two similar species of dinosaur within one locality). It also depends on the type of bone that is discovered and what clues it leaves...For example with this vertabra we know it's from an adult dinosaur due to fused elements and not a juvenile (which would make the ID ambiguous) so we know instantly that it's a small ornithopod (if it was a theropod caudal vertabra from this locality it would present as a beautiful hourglass shape). Personally I find that provenance is everything and can give you a lot of information, if you had the evidence of it's morphology relating to a specific type of dinosaur as well as information on the beds it came from you can get a fairly confident ID. As well as getting different opinions of paleontologists that work in the area and  know what they are looking at.  Usually I find ID's more comforting when you find the fossil yourself!  

 

 

As a British dinosaur fossil collector I'm certainly impressed by that find simply because I know how scarce Hipsy fossils are. 

I mean its one of the more well known dinosaurs, featuring in pretty much any dinosaur book you care to read but you never really hear about their fossils turning up and certainly they are not on the market. I don't even know what 

I wonder why this is, is it simply that they didn't live across a long enough time range, that their delicate skeletons didn't preserve well, or were there just never many of them about in the first place?

[JohnBrewer]

Super find!

[Iguanodonfossil]

On 9 September 2016 at 1:15 AM, Killclaw said:

As a British dinosaur fossil collector I'm certainly impressed by that find simply because I know how scarce Hipsy fossils are. 

I mean its one of the more well known dinosaurs, featuring in pretty much any dinosaur book you care to read but you never really hear about their fossils turning up and certainly they are not on the market. I don't even know what 

I wonder why this is, is it simply that they didn't live across a long enough time range, that their delicate skeletons didn't preserve well, or were there just never many of them about in the first place?

 

My only educated guess is that their skeletons and teeth are tiny compared to the other dinosaurs on the island therefore recognisable skeletal elements are broken up more/slip under people's  visual radars more. 

 

A few hard-core fossil hunting island residents will have a few bits. But it's rarer to find ID able hypsy stuff than it is to find theropod teeth. 

 

- There has been the odd bone appear up for sale as hypsy but it's usually reptile you have to be careful. The clues are in the centrum if it's a vertebra!

 

I only just managed to save this vertebra from the sea because it's cross section was exposed. If it was totally encased in the rock...no chance. 

[Ridgehiker]

The above comment is important when making any study of a fossil assemblage. There is a collecting 'bias'.  Certain specimens are more likely to catch the eye. A theropod tooth 'looks like a tooth' and will be picked up.   In contrast,  a hypsy tooth doesn't look like much of anything unless oriented the right way...even then it might not be easy to pick out a recognizeable shape.

 

Anyways, there  can be a difference between certain fossils being rare and fossils being rarely found.