Jump to content
Troodon

Red Flag on Kem Kem Dinosaur Material

Recommended Posts

LordTrilobite

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still_human

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still_human

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still_human

...

IMG_6941.PNG

IMG_6942.PNG

IMG_6943.PNG

IMG_6944.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still_human

IMG_6945.PNG

IMG_6946.PNG

IMG_6947.PNG

IMG_6948.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still_human

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seguidora-de-Isis
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seguidora-de-Isis

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still_human
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still_human
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bone guy
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still_human

Aren't they also from the same place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troodon
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bone guy
2 hours ago, LordTrilobite said:

They most definitely are not

Interesting! I never knew this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still_human
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still_human

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troodon
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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still_human

Ok, ya big spoil-sport:p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still_human

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troodon

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 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still_human

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deinocheirusmaster!

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

Share this post


Link to post
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


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×