Jump to content

Red Flag on Kem Kem Dinosaur Material


Troodon

Recommended Posts

Good examples of reconstructed vertebrae can be seen on the Web at hefty prices.

 

In this example the seller properly identifies it just has a theropod and says the repair is "using the filler method " and it's an investment grade fossil.   It's impossible to tell what has been done to this vertebra but what is evident is that the processess have been added and covered using the " filler method..:wacko:  We do not know if the processes belong to the centrum, my guess probably not, or if the front and back are from the same vertebra.    All the sand fill tells you how much repair has been done to the specimen.  

 

s-l1600 (9).jpg

 

s-l1600 (1).jpg

 

 

Here the seller is offering an associated pair of tail vertebrae from a Spinosaurus.   In my opinion they don't look like theropod vertebra more like croc but I really don't know.  Again the excessive sand matrix on the sides is a red flag for problems.

 

s-l1600 (2)_20161104143315019.jpg

 

Another Spinosaur vertebra being offered.  Think I've seen this one before.  The processes have been added and we do not know where from in fact the short ones don't even look like processes but peices if bone.  The centrum may be Spinosaurs but identifying vertebrae in the Kem Kem without known processes is very problematic.

.

s-l1600 (7).jpgs-l1600_20161104144352384.jpg

 

 

This is what caudal "tail" vertebrae looks like from a Spinosaurid.

 

post-10955-0-35055600-1410473402_20161104153226177.jpg

 

 

 

  • I found this Informative 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That last vertebra centrum is probably Spinosaurid. As far as I know they are pretty tall and not very wide. I think most other Theropods have caudal verts that are generally much longer than tall. but I could be mistaking.

 

But yes, I agree that these have been tampered with. If they were priced as B grade botch jobs they might be worth it. Otherwise I would steer clear of these.

 

Those two associated vertebra look like they have natural matrix on them. I don't have much experience with croc but I would agree that they look weird if they are supposed to be dinosaurian. But I do not think these have been tampered with.

 

 

I would also say that the added fake matrix is not always a perfect indicator of how complete a specimen is. Yes this is very often used to hide botch jobs and repair. But in most cases they cover more than needed and often there are still perfectly fine parts of real fossil underneath fake matrix. Almost as if they are activly trying to ruin good fossils and make them more ugly. It boggles the mind really.

  • I found this Informative 4

Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Wow, worriedly I would've fallen for all of those!!!

heres pictures of a few that I'd been mulling over for awhile, and plan(ned) to get one of them....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one(I have to post them separately because of the limit of pictures in each post:/)

IMG_6938.PNG

IMG_6939.PNG

IMG_6940.PNG

To be honest, the shape of this one/angle of the process, has always given me a twinge of doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And finally...

 

 

 

 

*there are others, but those were the only ones I was ever thinking about.

IMG_6949.PNG

IMG_6951.PNG

IMG_6952.PNG

IMG_6953.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please pass on them, just junk.  These are constructed vertebrae to add spines and hide imperfections with matrix.  The photos on the second one not adequate to see much but probably more of the same. No idea what mess is that last one.

  • I found this Informative 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Still_human said:

image.png.8c965b98f6712f8021011fa428b9446e.png

 

I see this vertebra definitely as being a caudal vertebra of a Spinosaurid. The morphology is quite clear about this. But indisputably the processe have been added!

 

image.png.bc4e8fc7fb58a8bf0548b4381cecef85.png

 

As long as the seller is aware of this, and for this reason he sell this vertebra for an honest price (B grade), I would have no problem buying it.

 

As our friend Frank said, identifying vertebrae in the Kem Kem beds without known processes is very problematic, but in this case, not only the morphology of the vertebra, but also the process itself, is well known. What I am afraid of in this case, are unfair prices. :wacko:

 

By the way, chunkasaurus like this bizarre bone from the second photo also give me fear and chills!

  • I found this Informative 1

Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question!

03.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent post my friend Frank! Thank you for taking your time so we can do our homework! Very informative! :dinothumb:

Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question!

03.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Seguidora-de-Isis said:

Excellent post my friend Frank! Thank you for taking your time so we can do our homework! Very informative! :dinothumb:

I'm not sure who frank is, but yes, thank you frank, and not-franks, for the continuing help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/4/2016 at 5:45 PM, Troodon said:

identifying vertebrae in the Kem Kem without known processes is very problematic.

Does this go for verts in general? Like ID what species also? or just which type of vert from an animal? Don't spinosaurus have very unique and telling caudal vert shape?

I was thinking of that in general because it was accompanying a picture of a spino caudal, so I don't know if it was a separate general thought, or still refering the the aforementioned picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Still_human said:

Does this go for verts in general? Like ID what species also? or just which type of vert from an animal? Don't spinosaurus have very unique and telling caudal vert shape?

I was thinking of that in general because it was accompanying a picture of a spino caudal, so I don't know if it was a separate general thought, or still refering the the aforementioned picture.

I think verts can only be boiled down to a certain type of animal. Charcharodontosaurus verts are basically identical to spinosaurus verts, so you can see where the problem arises. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bone guy said:

I think verts can only be boiled down to a certain type of animal. Charcharodontosaurus verts are basically identical to spinosaurus verts, so you can see where the problem arises. 

They most definitely are not.

 

There is less reference material out there for Carcharodontosaurids, but their vertebrae are very different from that of Spinosaurids. I am not familiar enough with the morphology of the caudal vertebrae of Carcharodontosaurids, but the cervical and dorsal vertebrae don't look anything like those of Spinosaurid.

 

The confusion arises because in the past some Spinosaurid vertebrae had been described as Carcharodontosaurid, which they are not. I think it was Sereno that described those if I remember correctly.

 

Spinosaurid cervical vertebrae. Sigilmassasaurus, one of the two known Spinosaurids from Kem Kem. The third image also shows another Spinosaurid mid cervical which might be Spinosaurus. And of course the long dorsal spine of Spinosaurus is specific to Spinosaurus.

fig-1-2x.jpgfig-8-2x.jpgfig-19-2x.jpg

 

 

 

Carcharodontosaurid cervical vertebra. The angle of the prezygapophyses is very different and there are two foramina holes on each side while Spinosaurids only have one. Kem Kem Carcharodontosaurid on the left and Mapusaurus cervicodorsal vertebra on the right.

fig-24-2x.jpgFIG-14-Mapusaurus-roseae-n-gen-n-sp-cervicodorsal-vertebra-MCF-PVPH-10882.png.896c885dcae97e7e1a16771737765abe.png

 

 

Spinosaurid dorsal vertebrae. Dorsal vertebrae of Spinosaurids are strongly opisthocoelous for the most part, meaning the front of the centrum is convex and the back end is concave. Sigilmassasaurus has a strong keel on the bottom and Spinosaurus lacks a keel. Spinosaurid dorsal vertebrae are most typically identifiable by the slender middle of the centrum. Sigilmassasaurus left and Spinosaurus right.

fig-14-2x.jpgSpinosaurus_vertebrae.png

 

 

Carcharodontosaurid dorsal vertebrae. Acrocanthosaurus replica from BHI. The dorsals are much fatter than those of Spinosaurids, much shorter and less slender in the middle of the centrum. Even without the elongated dorsal spine these dorsals generally have a much more tall profile as the whole vertebra is short and tall. In Spinosaurids it's mostly the only the dorsal spine itself that is very elongated.

5b5c2ef97c3e7_CozNiwUWAAACQgL.jpglarge.thumb.jpg.f6097aba29e6fd3bbc505bd4b368b902.jpg

 

 

Sources

 

2015 A reappraisal of the morphology and systematic position of the theropod dinosaur Sigilmassasaurus from the “middle” Cretaceous of Morocco

 

2006 A new carcharodontosaurid (Dinosauria, Theropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of Argentina

  • I found this Informative 5

Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Still_human said:

Does this go for verts in general? Like ID what species also? or just which type of vert from an animal? Don't spinosaurus have very unique and telling caudal vert shape?

I was thinking of that in general because it was accompanying a picture of a spino caudal, so I don't know if it was a separate general thought, or still refering the the aforementioned picture.

Yes,  but some are identifiable with just the shape of the centrum like the ones LordTrilobite showed.  Very little is published from the Kem Kem so we know very little about these dinosaurs.  Paleontologists still don't agree how many Spinosaurids or Carcharodontosaurids exist in this fauna so how can you put a species name on any of them?  We have no clue what Caudal vertebrae look like on Sigilmassasaurus is it the same as Spinosaurus or not ?   A number of very well respected Paleontologists don't even believe Spinosaurus aegyptiacus is a valid species in the Kem Kem.  So until all this shakes out and more discoveries are made and published most verts, with a few exceptions, are not identifible to a species or even to genus. 

 

When Moroccans start adding processes to centrums or matrix to hide faults it makes diagnosing more problematic and turns a good centrum into junk like the ones you were looking at.

 

We should not trust any vertebrae ID that is being sold from the Kem Kem.  Most sellers are clueless in that they are selling and some cannot even see the alterations done to them.  Always best to post here before you buy.

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LordTrilobite said:

They most definitely are not

Interesting! I never knew this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Troodon said:

We should not trust any vertebrae ID that is being sold from the Kem Kem.  Most sellers are clueless in that they are selling and some cannot even see the alterations done to them.  Always best to post here before you buy.

Yes, I think Ive learned my lesson now--I'm so glad it was without having lost lots of money!!!! just like most things from China. I avoid Chinese stuff altogether now. You can bet I'll post anything on here before even considering it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I came across this while doing spinosaur fossil/vert/etc searching(online)... I know its a little off topic, but look at that cute little guy! 

IMG_6956.JPG.1366525a3bc7ce44a271b979b450483c.JPG

IMG_6955.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Still_human said:

By the way, I came across this while doing spinosaur fossil/vert/etc searching(online)... I know its a little off topic, but look at that cute little guy! 

 

FYI, the accuracy of that sketelal reconstruction is debated among Paleontologists since KK18888 is not a complete skeleton, its the red in the illustration shown below.  Since no discoveries of anything more complete exist and the reconstruction is a hodgepodge of inferred, scaled bones and other bones lots of open questions and debate still exist.  V4047 is just based on the upper and lower snout of one and V6894 on a foot claw.  So lots of scaling going on based on a debated reconstruction

Screenshot_2018-07-29-06-51-58.thumb.jpg.7e38df628bada47897972a8de8070965.jpg

 

From

Supplementary Materials for
Semiaquatic Adaptations in a Giant Predatory Dinosaur
Nizar Ibrahim,* Paul C. Sereno, Cristiano Dal Sasso, Simone Maganuco, Matteo Fabbri,
David M. Martill, Samir Zouhri, Nathan Myhrvold, Dawid A. Iuri

 

 

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but isnt that be enough? If we know what many of the bones look like comparably, and from similar species, that should be more than enough to figure out size, shouldn't it? Isn't there a general consensus on their size? I mean, thats how we figure out what many, if not most actually look like as an animal, let alone size. In fact, isn't that actually a LOT of bones to use, compared to other animals? lots of extinct species are figured out as with a generally accepted size based on a single, or few bones...some with a grain of salt, but still, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not that easy since they don't know what this dinosaur looked like and they created this quadrupedal stance that to many just looks odd. The scaling they use to reconstruct the skeleton has been brought to question especially with the pelvis and the placement of those bones .  They also examined fossils of Sigilmassasaurus brevicollis and regarded it as a junior symonym of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus.  Many paleontologists believe S. brevicollis is valid in the  Kem Kem.  So were some of the bones used S. brevicollis ?

Just to much variability in the bones they used and lack of agreement how many Spinosaurids are in this fauna just creates uncertainty.   They just need to find a more complete skeletons with skulls.  Thats the biggest problem in the Kem Kem lack of skeletons with skulls 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, i absotively HATED the idea of quadrupedal spino! I loved it in Jurassic park 3, and that's how I want it to look!!!!! SOOOOOOOO much cooler and beastlier! The quads looked so weird and wrong, until I saw this picture--it just looks so creepy. Maybe it's the shading, or colors, or face or something, cause I don't like other similarly posed pictures, but since seeing this picture Ive been able to accept it and see it in all its monstrous glory, again.

IMG_7044.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once saw a spinosaurus vertebra artificialy combined with a carch vert on ebay...   

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...