Jump to content

New Daspletosaurus from Two Medicine Formation


Troodon

Recommended Posts

A new Tyrannosaurid has been described from the Medicine Formation.  

 

 Daspletosaurus horneri

  

For collectors of dinosaur teeth, there is nothing in the paper that I've yet seen that would distinguish these teeth from other Tyrannosaurid in the Two Medicine 

 

Article:      http://www.nature.com/articles/srep44942

 

Paper:  srep44942.pdf

 

 

C8K78UpVYAAwv6T.thumb.jpg.b9309c51edc95a030bed55cd573ebf60.jpg

 

 

srep44942-f1.jpg.f9fb77a940760ce93bbdefb17d76e560.jpg

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The supplementary files if your interested can be accessed at the end of the article.  Lots of technical mombo jumbo :)

 

The only two nice items are the photos showing the differences between D. horneri and D. torosus

 

Screenshot_20170330-105344.thumb.jpg.16d5dc6f05be700058dab44be2fa0271.jpgScreenshot_20170330-105329.thumb.jpg.9ba97c1f162c539648b6779c3957067e.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, doushantuo said:

I'm sorry,mumbo jumbo ?

"Fossils,SCIENCE and Paleontology"

 

That's an average collector jargon that implies it's to hard to decipher what is written :)  .  Best left to paleontologists

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah,Troo,so collectors have jargon too?:P.

Still ,i was initially a bit rankled by your phrasing.

Thanks for the heads up.

But mind you,you could have phrased it slighly less uh..you know  it came across as slightly condescending,but I see i misjudged your intent.

You never struck me as the type to put down honest science.

My personal feeling about cladistics and most parsimony analyses is that they are slightly divorced from biological reality,and too much weight is placed upon them.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love the material but a lot of it over my head and trying to understand it can be frustrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fun fact about the paratype MOR1130 is that it was prepped in japan.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~〇~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Warmest greetings from Kumamoto、 Japan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a tweet by Thomas Carr.  It kinds of put things into perspective with regards to this new Tyrannosaur.    

image.thumb.jpg.21a2eccf6419d2e513e1f8087ff062b1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'm having an interesting discussion with Susan from PA who raised the topic of what should I call my tyrannosaurid teeth from the Two Medicine Formation.  Carr's recent announcement describing Daspletosaurus horneri helps but there are issues with just using that name to identify isolated material that looks like its from a large Tyrannosaurid.  

 

D. horneri is described just from the very end of the Two Medicine Fm NOT  the entire deposit.  The formation is made up of several units, see chart below and different dinosaurs are described from each one.  Tyrannosaurids have been found in the Upper units 4 & 5.  You can see a sampling of this in the wiki page that attached.  Scroll down half way on that page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Medicine_Formation

 

Carr's blog clearly states that D. horneri lived at the very end of the two medicine so what tyrannosaurid's were around in units 1 to 4  (82.4 to 76.1 mya) and in the remainder of the upper unit 5  (76.1 to 75.1mya).    Gorgosaurus was around, Albertosaurus maybe, Daspletosaurus torosus, Tyrannosaurid X or is the range of D horneri wider that Carr's estimate..

 

For collectors it's a big dilemma since the only way you will know if you have a D. horneri  is to clearly understand where it was found and the age of those deposits.  A very difficult task for something that was not self collected.

 

 

Screenshot_20170421-070114.thumb.png.d7c5bf4ddf8423287f888c3fe553924f.pngTwoMed.jpg.1bfc86ca1de1fdb0f9b125d0e3c6b8ab.jpg.0735225aeebfa7a757da85ba958b701b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks so much for sharing, @Troodon!   Yes, an interesting discussion indeed!   These are the type of discussions kick my OCD into high gear!  :ighappy:      @-Andy- was also interested in these posts, so we'll tag him as well!  

 

I will send Dr. Carr a tweet or post on his blog, and see if I get an answer.  The problem is doing so without sounding like an evil collector of dinosaur fossils!  :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an example of our discussion.   I have this very large foot claw from a Tyrannosaurid from the Two Med Fm.   It's size says that it's most likely a Daspletosaurus.   I know the Quarry where it was found and it's well documented because it's the same one Bambiraptor and a Gorgosaurus skull was discovered.  Lots of teeth have come out of that quarry.  It's around 76.5 mya, older than D. horneri, so what is it ?  Tyrannosaurid indet.  :ighappy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Troodon said:

Here is an example of our discussion.   I have this very large foot claw from a Tyrannosaurid from the Two Med Fm.   It's size says that it's most likely a Daspletosaurus.   I know the Quarry where it was found and it's well documented because it's the same one Bambiraptor and a Gorgosaurus skull was discovered.  Lots of teeth have come out of that quarry.  It's around 76.5 mya, older than D. horneri, so what is it ?  Tyrannosaurid indet.  :ighappy:

In my mind, Tyrannosaurid indet. is the only ID we can give the large claw at this point, since Thomas Carr had stated that D. horneri is at the upper or younger part of the formation.  

 

I do agree that the size says "Daspletosaurus" and not Gorgosaurus.   Also, the age of the part of the Two Medicine in which it was found, falls within the boundaries of the age of Daspletosaurus torosus.   Things that make me go hmmmmm.......:headscratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...