Red Flag on Kem Kem Dinosaur Material

[Still_human]

11 hours ago, Deinocheirusmaster! said:

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

It turns out Ive been seeing many Frankenstein verts from kem kem on that popular auction site, but for the first time ever, I see someone selling it AS a Frankenstein vert! It's the worst example Ive ever seen!

[Still_human]

Does this look real? At the very least it think it looks unbelievable better than everything else posted on the thread so far! It's supposed to be a spino from kem kem.

[Troodon]

NO its not real and a pretty bad one.  The processes have been added, in a pretty bad way,  and the centrum is not a Spinosaurid might even be a distal caudal of Carch but most likely sauropod.  You do not see too often might buy it ,  discard the processes and you have a cool centrum

 

Too wide for a Spino and you don't see a pleuroceol (red circle) in them.

 

@Still_human

[LordTrilobite]

I agree. Definitely a bad composite. But with some work the centrum could be quite interesting. Indeed not Spinosaurid.

[Still_human]

i totally see, thanks to you guys:), how on the 2nd pic I included, that area of sand across the top that looks textbook for someone connecting 2 different things, but "from here" on the first picture it didn't look like there was as much sand covering work, especially covering an entire split across the whole thing. Is it very uncommon to find non-tampered-with fossils with any significant sand left on? I know now that any sandy looking areas are suspect(again, thank you guys!), but it seems everytime I DO see something with sand, its ALWAYS covering up tampering. Also, less common, but as in THIS piece, are there ever multi-colored/textured fossils from kem kem? Other than teeth. Ive seen plenty of fossils with different textures, shades, and colors, but this would have been the first Ive seen something with this extreme contrast from kem kem, I think, and its cause it IS "fake". Can I assume anything from kem kem that has more than just tan sandy/orange-red colors, is likely more than 1 fossil?

[Still_human]

22 hours ago, Troodon said:

might even be a distal caudal of Carch

Is there any way to really determine that? 

[Troodon]

20 minutes ago, Still_human said:

Is there any way to really determine that? 

No typical for the Kem Kem, we know very little because not much associated material has been found that can be described. My two cents is based on what I can extract from other faunas like South American Carchs.

[Troodon]

48 minutes ago, Still_human said:

i totally see, thanks to you guys:), how on the 2nd pic I included, that area of sand across the top that looks textbook for someone connecting 2 different things, but "from here" on the first picture it didn't look like there was as much sand covering work, especially covering an entire split across the whole thing. Is it very uncommon to find non-tampered-with fossils with any significant sand left on? I know now that any sandy looking areas are suspect(again, thank you guys!), but it seems everytime I DO see something with sand, its ALWAYS covering up tampering. Also, less common, but as in THIS piece, are there ever multi-colored/textured fossils from kem kem? Other than teeth. Ive seen plenty of fossils with different textures, shades, and colors, but this would have been the first Ive seen something with this extreme contrast from kem kem, I think, and its cause it IS "fake". Can I assume anything from kem kem that has more than just tan sandy/orange-red colors, is likely more than 1 fossil?

Unfortunately a lot of what you see sold on auction sites with sand is very suspect to either be composited or hiding defects like the tooth below.   You typically do not see these composited items from higher end dealers but the prices are much higher.  The tucson show has a few good dealers.

 

 The color variation is a clue and red flag but should not automatically say composite.  It all depends on the matrix that element was mineralized in.  There are layers in the Kem Kem with different colors and a fossil may cross the layer.  Sand is the biggest red flag since it does not allow you to see the joints.  So if you see sand on auction sites the odds are its most likely a composite.   The colors in this fauna are light brown, tan, oranges to red

 

 

[LordTrilobite]

2 hours ago, Still_human said:

 Can I assume anything from kem kem that has more than just tan sandy/orange-red colors, is likely more than 1 fossil?

There is quite a wide range of colours in the Kem Kem beds. Generally, the fake sediment used to fill and hide stuff is mostly the typical reddish brown colour.

Bones and sediment from the Kem Kem beds can range from white, light grey to beige, reddish brown, to dark red and even greyish purple.

[Still_human]

These are all classic examples of using sand to hide problems?

[Still_human]

If any of these DONT look like sand hidden problemsy

[LordTrilobite]

5 minutes ago, Still_human said:

If any of these DONT look like sand hidden problems

Looks completely real this one, at least from this angle. The redish orangy stuff is natural sediment.

[Still_human]

Ah cool, that's good to know. The red does look very different than the cover-up sand on these, but I think Ive seen the red stuff like that being used as cover too, but for some, including most of these, it easy to see what's being covered, by very specific spots/areas being covered, in very unnatural ways. Otherwise i guess it's just experience picking out the scams.

[palochris68]

Hello, I bought this spinosaur vertebra (presented as such) 70 dollars. What do you think? is it a good piece for its price? I think there are areas repaired by sand. Finally, can you tell me if it is indeed about spinosaure?

 

 

[palochris68]

[palochris68]

[LordTrilobite]

Yeah that looks pretty good.

Looks like a Spinosaurid caudal vert from near the end of the tail. I don't see any major red flags. Though it's not entirely clear if the area under that label just has some matrix on it or if there is some reconstruction there.

 

Overall a pretty good vertebra.

[palochris68]

Hello, I saw this piece presented as spinosaurus on the 2019 Ste Marie aux Mines stock exchange. According to my some knowledges (on this thread in particular) it seems to me that it presents many red flags and is a frankenstein with in particular this very strange process, no?

 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2019 by JohnJ
Photos edited to remove seller info

[Troodon]

Wow pretty bad.  Centrum might be Spinosaurid but those processes are definitely Frankenstein.  Thanks for posting.

[Haravex]

Also the centrum of that vertbrae looks to be dorsal and not caudal.

[Abstraktum]

That's one of the worst fabricated verts I have seen to date.

Looks like someone rammed a rib or a similar long bone into the vert.

[SReed]

I came across this thread and I would like some input on this.  I didn't see much work done.  Here is the seller's specs and description:

• Sigilmassasaurus
• Cretaceous Age
• Tegana Formation
• Kem-Kem, North Africa
• Specimen measures approx. 5 9/16″ x 3 11/16″ and comes on the custom made stand with ID label as shown.

I am quite interested in the cretaceous age theropod ecosystem of the Kem-Kem due to its yield large dinosaurs.  I came across this for sale, but I would like other opinions on its authenticity.  Coloration has me skeptical, but I do not see any large areas of matrix covering repairs.  I am still trying to tune my knowledge here.

 Thanks.

 

[Troodon]

It looks like a Spinosaurid cervical vertebra.  Diagnostic to a Sigilmassasaurus is a ventral triangular plateau on the posterior side but I cannot be sure its present.  Like to get @LordTrilobite  opinion.

 

Also its not the Tegana Fm that name is incorrect its the Kem Kem beds and the dinosaur formations are shown below.

[LordTrilobite]

Yup that does indeed look like a Spinosaurid cervical vertebra. It seems like a pretty nice specimen too. More complete than most example and no red flags at all. The colouration is fine. Kem Kem beds fossils can vary quite a bit in colouration. They can range from white, beige, light grey, dark red and even purple. This greyish fossil with red matrix is pretty typical.

 

There's no scale but there seems to be an unfused suture. So we're dealing with an animal that is still growing. The vertebra is not particularly slender and not particularly short. So I would say that this is from roughly the middle of the neck.

 

As to the species of Sigilmassasaurus brevicollis. Troodon is correct that Sigilmassasaurus can be recognised by this rugose/rough triangular plateau on the posterior of the ventral side of the centrum. It's not entirely clear if this feature is present judging from these photos. Another feature most, but not all, Sigilmassasaurus cervical vertebrae have is a ventral keel that runs along the midline. I do not see such a keel here.

But from just these photos I would lean towards is having that plateau. In which case, it would indeed be Sigilmassasaurus brevicollis.

Here is an example of a fairly similar Spinosaur vertebra from my collection. It does not have the triangular plateau on the bottom, so mine is not Sigilmassasaurus. Press 3 to get a different render mode to more clearly see the shape. Also note that my vertebra here is slightly crushed, so it looks more slender than it should. So my vertebra is either Spinosauridae indet., or if you consider Spinosaurus aegyptiacus in Morocco to be valid that's a pretty good possibility as well.

 

Here is an example from Sigilmassasaurus brevicollis. Judging from the shape and length. All three vertebrae shown here likely come from a similar position in the neck

 

 

And as Troodon has already pointed out, Tegana formation is not really a thing. The Kem Kem beds consist of the Aoufous and Ifezouane formations.

 

@Haravex Knows more about the specific formations in the Kem Kem beds and which types of finds are more common in the two formations.

 

 

 

So yeah, to conclude. It's definitely a Spinosaurid mid cervical vert. And it looks like it might indeed be Sigilmassasaurus brevicollis. But it's not certain judging from just these photos.

[Troodon]

Olof I would expect to see a flat area for that platform.  It looks tapered like your 3D specimen so now I'm leaning toward it not being a Sigilmassasaurus 

@LordTrilobite