Albertosaurus?

[Spinosaurus]

Hello everybody,

 

i just bought this beautifull tooth of (what they say) an albertosaurus. but the tooth has some simalarities with nanotyrranus. 

so i thought: maybe the people from the fossils forum could say something about it. 

[Spinosaurus]

now with pictures! 

[Spinosaurus]

i'm curious because i read the topic about tyranosaur teeth on TFF. there were some things about the Nanotyrranus that fit with this tooth. specialy the last picture.

[Fossildude19]

I haven't seen @Troodon on in a while,... but he would be the one to ask. 

He will probably want a serrations per millimeter count.

Regards,

[Spinosaurus]

yes, i know. but i don't have this tooth yet. i bought it on an online auction. i will get it today.

[Spinosaurus]

Got it! serrations per mm are around 2,5. one side of the tooth has some nice serrations so it isn't that hard!

[-Andy-]

Hello, welcome to TFF!

 

What's the locality info of this tooth? We will start with that.

 

Do note that Albertosaurus, Gorgosaurus and Daspletosaurus shared the same range, and their teeth at smaller sizes are virtually indistinguishable from one another. Dealers often label them as one of the species to give the tooth more "credential" in hopes of selling better, but if even museums can't tell them apart, how can dealers?

[Ridgehiker]

3 hours ago, Spinosaurus said:

Hello everybody,

 

i just bought this beautifull tooth of (what they say) an albertosaurus. but the tooth has some simalarities with nanotyrranus. 

so i thought: maybe the people from the fossils forum could say something about it. 

 

 

For this tooth to have any identification it needs to have collecting provenance.

 

Who found it?

Where specifically was it found. ( not something vague like a county in Montana, etc)

 

Without his info its just another 'ornament'.

 

 

[Spinosaurus]

i have some answers on these questions.

i don't know who found it and the formation where its found is hell creek.

i hope i could help. but, i see the discusion, so it isn't sure right?

i realy hope it is a nanotyranus, because than i paid almost half of the normal price.

[LordTrilobite]

Albertosaurus is not present in Hell Creek formation. Over there it's just T. rex and Nanotyrannus.

[Susan from PA]

I would say that if it was found in Hell Creek, that is a Nanotyrannus tooth.  The root end is much too rectangular in shape to belong to a T.rex. 

 

Be be careful when purchasing Tyrannosaurid fossils on line.  If the specimen is found in Hell Creek Formation, then Nanotyrannus and T.rex are your only two suspects.  If the specimen is found in Judith River or Two Medicine Formations, then the suspects are Gorgosaurus, Albertosaurus, and Daspletosaurus.  Of the latter 3, most is those teeth are indistinguishable from one another, so I usually describe them as Tyrannosaurid indet.  Hope that helps!  

[-Andy-]

6 hours ago, Spinosaurus said:

i have some answers on these questions.

i don't know who found it and the formation where its found is hell creek.

i hope i could help. but, i see the discusion, so it isn't sure right?

i realy hope it is a nanotyranus, because than i paid almost half of the normal price.

 

Hell Creek formation as said, only has two tyrannosaurids - T. rex and Nanotyrannus.

 

It's surprisingly squat for a nanotyrannus, but yes the narrow cross section and cutting form of the tooth indicates nanotyrannus.

[Susan from PA]

32 minutes ago, -Andy- said:

 

Hell Creek formation as said, only has two tyrannosaurids - T. rex and Nanotyrannus.

 

It's surprisingly squat for a nanotyrannus, but yes the narrow cross section and cutting form of the tooth indicates nanotyrannus.

I have quite a few squat Nanotyrannus teeth in my collection.  You'd be surprised!   

[Troodon]

19 hours ago, -Andy- said:

Hello, welcome to TFF!

 

What's the locality info of this tooth? We will start with that.

 

Do note that Albertosaurus, Gorgosaurus and Daspletosaurus shared the same range, and their teeth at smaller sizes are virtually indistinguishable from one another. Dealers often label them as one of the species to give the tooth more "credential" in hopes of selling better, but if even museums can't tell them apart, how can dealers?

 

Although the statement that Tyrannosaurid teeth from the Judith River are indistinguishable from one another is correct I'm not sure the one that says they share the same range is accurate due to recent research.   Evidence continues to mount that these tyrannosaurs may be stratigraphically separate.  A recent paper published by Phil Currie's et al compared shed teeth from the Danek Bonebed (Horseshoe Canyon Formation) to confirmed Albertosaurus and Daspletosaurus teeth that were found with articulated skeletons.  They came to the conclusion that Albertosaurus teeth were found in very late Campanian/early Maastrichtian deposits (Horseshoe Canyon Fm) and Daspletosaurus in mid Campanian deposits (Oldman & Dinosaur Park Formations).   The study also supported the notion that they were indistinguishable from one another.   Further studies will be needed to support this theory.   Gorgosaurus has only been described from mid Campanian deposits from those mentioned above and those of the Two Medicine Fm..   I may be wrong but I do not think any tyrannosaurid has been officially been described from the Judith River of Montana. 

 

 

Spinosaurus

I would get back to the seller of that tooth and confirm the locality of where it was found.   If the seller sold it has an Albertosaurus tooth it's possible it came from the Judith River of Montana,  color and shape supports that locality.  The compression that you see at the base, that you mention may have similiar characteristics of a Nanotyrannus is due to the fact it's a maxillary tooth.  These teeth typically are compressed because the jaw is much narrower than dentary teeth.   It's a very nice tooth and a cool pickup, nice addition to any collection.

[Spinosaurus]

ok i would sent an e-mail about this, thanks guys.

[Spinosaurus]

he responded. he said that he mixed up the information on two teeth, this one and another. so this one come from judith river.

ow, and thankss troodon, now i know where this tooth realy comes from! and where it was located in the skull.

 

[Ridgehiker]

6 hours ago, Spinosaurus said:

he responded. he said that he mixed up the information on two teeth, this one and another. so this one come from judith river.

ow, and thankss troodon, now i know where this tooth realy comes from! and where it was located in the skull.

 

Judith river?  Where precisely?

 

how does he know it is Judith River? What literature did he tell you he is basing this on?

 

 What member of this formation? Where precisely in what county?

 

Until you have this info, your specimen is an 'ornament'.

 

hopefully you didnt actually pay money for it based on zero verifiable provenance.

 

 

[aerogrower]

Id be happy to have that "Ornament". @Canadawest sounds like in your book if you weren't standing next to the person who found it you wouldnt believe were it was found? Must limit your collection some.

[jpc]

4 minutes ago, aerogrower said:

Id be happy to have that "Ornament". @Canadawest sounds like in your book if you weren't standing next to the person who found it you wouldnt believe were it was found? Must limit your collection some.

Limited to self-collected...  ? 

[Fossildude19]

@Canadawest

Not everyone is into fossils for the science of it,... and some people just like to own a cool looking tooth.  

Not everyone needs to be held to strict standards of identification and provenance.

You can't make people care about that.  It's silly to even think about trying to do that.  

[Ridgehiker]

43 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

@Canadawest

Not everyone is into fossils for the science of it,... and some people just like to own a cool looking tooth.  

Not everyone needs to be held to strict standards of identification and provenance.

You can't make people care about that.  It's silly to even think about trying to do that.  

 

Agree.

 

...and thus why it is an ornament and not a scientific specimen.

[Ridgehiker]

53 minutes ago, aerogrower said:

Id be happy to have that "Ornament". @Canadawest sounds like in your book if you weren't standing next to the person who found it you wouldnt believe were it was found? Must limit your collection some.

 

 

Why?  

 

What is so difficult about  knowing who found a specimen and where a specimen is found?  

 

 

[JohnJ]

3 minutes ago, Canadawest said:

 

 

Why?  

 

What is so difficult about  knowing who found a specimen and where a specimen is found?  

 

 

 

As you know, unfortunately, the detailed specific information is often lost, or never recorded.  However, many of our members have a long history, on TFF, of encouraging basic documentation of finds in hundreds of posts and examples.  I'd like to think many thousands more finds have this basic documentation as a result of these efforts. 

[Fossildude19]

I think we can all agree, we all have different standards that we try to adhere to when it comes to collecting fossils. 

 

Those who just start out by buying fossils are not always lucky enough to have the provenance of that fossils. 

Some fossils come from estate sales where info was lost, or never put down to paper.

Some are handed down over time, with little background info given. 

And if they like their fossils, despite the fact that they have little to no scientific value, more power to them.  

Regards,

 

 

[Ridgehiker]

14 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

I think we can all agree, we all have different standards that we try to adhere to when it comes to collecting fossils. 

 

Those who just start out by buying fossils are not always lucky enough to have the provenance of that fossils. 

Some fossils come from estate sales where info was lost, or never put down to paper.

Some are handed down over time, with little background info given. 

And if they like their fossils, despite the fact that they have little to no scientific value, more power to them.  

Regards,

 

 

That's fine until the specimens are misidentified and passed on with bad information. Best to call them ornaments and keep them from polluting legitimate collections.

 

Nobody says that members shouldnt collect general fossils.  They just need to be identified as such.

 

A fossil without collecting info has no scientific value.  Its a nice keepsake like a teacup or a polished  rock.

 

Thus why the  'Collection' segment of this Forum has zero credibility and would have a room of paleontologists shaking their head.  Not making the provenance of a fossil mandatory is like having a Passport without a photo and date of birth.