Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi all, I have here what was claimed to be an Alioramus tooth with jaw fragment from the Nemegt Formation. The entire fossil measures 2.6 inches tall, and the crown section is 1.4 inches tall.

 

I haven't had much cause to suspect its authenticity as I knew the dealer obtained a stock of Nemegt Formation fossils, and another expert I trust examined the pictures and determined it is authentic, but was broken and re-attached.

 

Recently however, another expert I trust claimed that this is in fact a Kem Kem crocodile based off the pitting of the jaw, the thinness of the jaw which matches a croc rather than theropod profile, and the coarse red gravel seen underneath the fossil (as I am aware, Nemegt fossils are covered in red sand too), and the so-called crown isn't even a tooth.

 

What are your thoughts on this?

 

58f22028cc73f_Alioramus1.thumb.jpg.7f581ee6ed447316729601d3148fa941.jpgAlioramus-2.thumb.jpg.ccf1a25898a952c31d017231a766dd18.jpgAlioramus-3.thumb.jpg.497e1219021968e7e42b55240926f83f.jpg

Looking forward to meeting my fellow Singaporean collectors! Do PM me if you are a Singaporean, or an overseas fossil-collector coming here for a holiday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it all depends who the initial seller was.  Most top end dealers that I knew selling Mongolian material were pretty solid and I would believe the locality of where it was from but not necessarily the ID.   In looking at just the color and matrix of your specimen it appears to very typical of what I've seen from that region of Mongolia and it's different than the Kem Kem.  The deep reds are classic Mongolian.  Kem Kem preservation is more towards oranges but would like a closer look.

 

 Can you retake this picture with the matrix in focus.

 

Alioramus-3.jpg.8923a7157d7b09c16c2b85a6e4acb44f.thumb.jpg.d2964c189a9e8b4334654480cfd4e59e.jpg

 

Now the ID on your tooth is something completely different.   Do you have any evidence with your specimen that it's a Tyrannosaur tooth?   Any serrations visible.  Unfortunately the preservation of your tooth makes obtaining an answer very problematic.  Are there any species of croc in the Kem Kem that have similiar morphology?.  Can you take a picture of the bottom of the jaw.  If there are serrations closeup pictures please and where are they on the tooth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shape of the tooth resembles that of a pre-max tooth of a tyrannosaur however the tooth is pretty beat up and worn down so it's difficult to tell. I also see the resemblance of croc as well however just doing a couple quick Google searches I didn't find any crocs from the Nemegt Formation, might need to look further into that. I can't tell from pictures but are there serrations on the tooth that you can see in person?

 

i could see how some of the reddish tint of the rock could make some people lean towards Kem Kem. However, Mongolian fossils also have this so I don't think going off color would be a very reliable way of identifying this tooth. 

 

Hope me to see some more pictures as well!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Troodon said:

Well it all depends who the initial seller was.  Most top end dealers that I knew selling Mongolian material were pretty solid and I would believe the locality of where it was from but not necessarily the ID.   In looking at just the color and matrix of your specimen it appears to very typical of what I've seen from that region of Mongolia and it's different than the Kem Kem.  The deep reds are classic Mongolian.  Kem Kem preservation is more towards oranges but would like a closer look.

 

 Can you retake this picture with the matrix in focus.

 

Now the ID on your tooth is something completely different.   Do you have any evidence with your specimen that it's a Tyrannosaur tooth?   Any serrations visible.  Unfortunately the preservation of your tooth makes obtaining an answer very problematic.  Are there any species of croc in the Kem Kem that have similiar morphology?.  Can you take a picture of the bottom of the jaw.  If there are serrations closeup pictures please and where are they on the tooth.

 

It's late night here, so this is the best I can do at the moment.

The dealer I got from is bad at IDs, but reliable at carrying Mongolian material.

I have no evidence that it's a tyrannosaur beyond "feeling that it looks like one". The tooth is poorly preserved and there are no serrations that I can see. The only croc I am aware of from there is Shamosuchus, but the morphology seems quite different from mine.

 

P1110322.thumb.jpg.17734a4c71002439a8ee5651752a28cd.jpg

 

Shamosuchus.thumb.jpg.248896d28858f0d5a23185e3b5051224.jpg

Shamosuchus, credits to: Alan H. Turner

Looking forward to meeting my fellow Singaporean collectors! Do PM me if you are a Singaporean, or an overseas fossil-collector coming here for a holiday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy, based on your feelings about the source and the color and type of matrix I'm seeing I would lean towards this being of Mongolian orgin.  However I am really concerned about the ID.    If theropod, it appears to be a premaxillary tooth based on the location of both carinae and D shaped cross section, would you agree, the preservation and photos make it hard to read ?   If it is a premaxillary tooth then the morphology does not fit theropod, they have blunt tips not pointed, very stocky and a very different height to width ratio.   Not seeing any serrations might be a result of preservation or its something else in those Maastrichtian deposits.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Troodon said:

Andy, based on your feelings about the source and the color and type of matrix I'm seeing I would lean towards this being of Mongolian orgin.  However I am really concerned about the ID.    If theropod, it appears to be a premaxillary tooth based on the location of both carinae and D shaped cross section, would you agree, the preservation and photos make it hard to read ?   If it is a premaxillary tooth then the morphology does not fit theropod, they have blunt tips not pointed, very stocky and a very different height to width ratio.   Not seeing any serrations might be a result of preservation or its something else in those Maastrichtian deposits.  

 

Hi Frank, speaking objectively, I believe it is from the Nemegt Formation too. The matrix and preservation doesn't strike me as Kem Kem.

 

The preservation and photos make it hard to read indeed. I cannot tell if there were serrations originally or not because of how poorly preserved the tooth is. It seems as if much of the outer enamel of the tooth is lost, eroding its shape and losing us possible diagnostic features. I do not think it is premaxillary due to how pointed it is. But to be honest - I don't have any theropod premax tooth to compare it against.

 

Looking forward to meeting my fellow Singaporean collectors! Do PM me if you are a Singaporean, or an overseas fossil-collector coming here for a holiday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is something to compare against.  If you look at where the carinae are located aren't they similiar to this tooth.  A flatish lingual surface.

 

post-10935-0-49100700-1441638587.thumb.jpg.beee577b5ac1073f712bc5698c6b647f.jpgpost-10935-0-45186100-1441638991.thumb.jpg.513d44f8ce7ad955b7f036e432856fd0.jpg

 

I may be rethinking this.   Checkout the Pre-Maxillary teeth on these pictures that were previously posted here on the forum.  A privately sold alioramus specimen.  The Premaxillary teeth appear different than other tyrannosaurids.  More slender and thin.  I Checked out the paper on the holotype and of course the only item missing in the skull was the premaxillary teeth.

post-5076-0-96532100-1383642832.png.5efef748600ca6d92cdeaabdf223937c.png232b0c40bede39e802f6ca5858eb425a.jpg.9228686a8fdc6497b492fa5579444bd0.jpg

 

Compare this to yours

 

post-5076-0-96532100-1383642832.jpg.f357534fcc048545d01ea0d49d169e49.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly I'm not that familiar with the Kem Kem crocodiles, yet. From such a small piece of jaw I think most would be hard pressed to give more info on that.

 

But some more closeups of the matrix might help to settle if this is from Kem Kem or not. to me this doesn't seem as red as most of the Kem Kem material. Though that can range from white, grey, beige, red and everything in between.

 

I am seeing some parts that look repaired. But are there areas where the tooth crown and jaw fragment actually meet?

Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks @LordTrilobite.  At the end of the day the preservation is so poor and with no serrations visible it's going to be hard to make a call that is not a pure guess.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the pictures @Troodon

 

My tooth is weird. I compared it to your premax tooth, and while I can see a carina on the flat surface, the other side of the tooth has nothing. I would expect a premax tooth to have carina on both ends of the flat surface. In short, my tooth has 3 carinas...

 

58f2e64f8c3db_Alioramus5.thumb.jpg.0b69e8c1f47b3951cb6cc7b4b69d1a89.jpg

 

I would like to think it's an Alioramus based off the pictures of that jaw, but at the end of the day, you are right - the preservation is so poor that we can't really tell anyway. Hopefully more Alioramus jaw pictures appears in time and I can compare them. There seems to be a lack of pics on Alioramus jaw and teeth.

Looking forward to meeting my fellow Singaporean collectors! Do PM me if you are a Singaporean, or an overseas fossil-collector coming here for a holiday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LordTrilobite said:

Sadly I'm not that familiar with the Kem Kem crocodiles, yet. From such a small piece of jaw I think most would be hard pressed to give more info on that.

 

But some more closeups of the matrix might help to settle if this is from Kem Kem or not. to me this doesn't seem as red as most of the Kem Kem material. Though that can range from white, grey, beige, red and everything in between.

 

I am seeing some parts that look repaired. But are there areas where the tooth crown and jaw fragment actually meet?

 

I agree. Hopefully the jaw fragment can tell us something still.

 

Yes parts of the tooth crown and jaw fragment do meet. All in all though, it's hard to tell as the matrix seem to blend right into the crown as well.

Looking forward to meeting my fellow Singaporean collectors! Do PM me if you are a Singaporean, or an overseas fossil-collector coming here for a holiday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, -Andy- said:

Thanks for the pictures @Troodon

 

My tooth is weird. I compared it to your premax tooth, and while I can see a carina on the flat surface, the other side of the tooth has nothing. I would expect a premax tooth to have carina on both ends of the flat surface. In short, my tooth has 3 carinas...

 

58f2e64f8c3db_Alioramus5.thumb.jpg.0b69e8c1f47b3951cb6cc7b4b69d1a89.jpg

 

I would like to think it's an Alioramus based off the pictures of that jaw, but at the end of the day, you are right - the preservation is so poor that we can't really tell anyway. Hopefully more Alioramus jaw pictures appears in time and I can compare them. There seems to be a lack of pics on Alioramus jaw and teeth.

 

Never did see that weak carina, so what is the lingual side.  The labial side should be the right image.  Now I'm very confused what this is since teeth are not three sided.   Could the weak carina just be very worn to that shape or is it sadly not a tooth and something resemblance one.  I still think it's Mongolian 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Troodon said:

 

Never did see that weak carina, so what is the lingual side.  The labial side should be the right image.  Now I'm very confused what this is since teeth are not three sided.   Could the weak carina just be very worn to that shape or is it sadly not a tooth and something resemblance one.  I still think it's Mongolian 

 

The right picture is in my opinion, the lingual side. And the left picture with the "weak carina" the labial side.

 

How do we know what is or isn't a carina? It does feel like there's a slight ridge on the left picture, hence I call it a weak carina.

Looking forward to meeting my fellow Singaporean collectors! Do PM me if you are a Singaporean, or an overseas fossil-collector coming here for a holiday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are guessing with a poorly preserved specimen.  Not sure you will get any answers that can be confirmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Troodon said:

We are guessing with a poorly preserved specimen.  Not sure you will get any answers that can be confirmed.

 

You are right. This was the risk I took when I purchased this specimen. Thanks for your help Frank.

 

This does raise the question of whether you should call out questionable IDs on a friend's fossils, eh? I've seen some unlikely IDs in my friends' collections, and given how happy they are with their specimens, I don't have the heart to tell them sometimes. Still, if you ever see a wrong ID or outright fake in my collection, don't hesitate to tell me; it's the only way we can improve the quality of our curios.

Looking forward to meeting my fellow Singaporean collectors! Do PM me if you are a Singaporean, or an overseas fossil-collector coming here for a holiday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is definitely a dilemma I face much too often even with sellers.  A seller that I know very well was listing a theropod jaw and expected big bucks and needed the money.   I hated to break the news that it was reptilian and they changed the ID.  The last thing I want to tell a collector is that their precious item is not what they think it is.  I believe it's collector dependent and if you feel that they will accept your opinion and you're certain of the ID, do it.  It's also how you deliver the news and sometimes it's better to suggest it than being forward.  I am guessing some of my information topics have done that.  This works both ways,  I've had collectors make comments on my items and that's okay I don't have all the answers and welcome it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Troodon said:

That is definitely a dilemma I face much too often even with sellers.  A seller that I know very well was listing a theropod jaw and expected big bucks and needed the money.   I hated to break the news that it was reptilian and they changed the ID.  The last thing I want to tell a collector is that their precious item is not what they think it is.  I believe it's collector dependent and if you feel that they will accept your opinion and you're certain of the ID, do it.  It's also how you deliver the news and sometimes it's better to suggest it than being forward.  I am guessing some of my information topics have done that.  This works both ways,  I've had collectors make comments on my items and that's okay I don't have all the answers and welcome it. 

 

You raise a fine point with selling of fossils.

 

Case in point: I knew a friend who had a tooth he thought to be T-Rex, and he was immensely proud of it. I couldn't bear to tell him it isn't Rex. I regret that decision. I found out recently he sold the Rex tooth to another collector for a Rex's premium price. Now someone else has a misidentified tooth that costs a bomb, and if he gets it verified as a non-Rex, he'd probably get angry with my friend who didn't know better.

Looking forward to meeting my fellow Singaporean collectors! Do PM me if you are a Singaporean, or an overseas fossil-collector coming here for a holiday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@-Andy-, from a collectorr's standpoint, I'll try to give the best advice that I can.  To me, the most important thing to know, is that what I have in my collection is labeled as accurately as the science behind it will allow.  Believe me when I tell you that there are specimens in my collection that were very expensive, and much more expensive than they should have been, because they were sold to me with improper ID's.  You have to decide in your mind what is important to you.  As much as I enjoy my fossils, I love the science behind it even more.  I try to read as much as I can, even if I can't understand  all of the scientific information in every monograph.  The science is what makes me tick, but it didn't used to me that way for me.  There was a time when it was more important to believe whatever I wanted to, just to have a more coveted piece in my collection.  Who was going to see it but me and my family?   All that changed when I found this forum.  

 

  @Troodon can tell you how hard it was for me to hear the truth, as he was the one that helped me go through my entire collection and fix everything that was misidentified.  He taught me how to find scientific papers to help identify my material and enjoy the science behind it.  It was very painful at first, but I know I'm a better collector for having learned the truth.  Others that are told that specimens are not what they think might not take things the same way as I did, but I think it's important to tell them and let the chips fall where they may.  There are some things in my collection that are not even identified beyond family level because there just isn't the scientific evidence present to be more specific.    Now, I collect differently.  I scrutinize every specimen, and more often than not, I ask for a second opinion before purchase.  

 

You have to decide for yourself what type of collector you want to be, and there's no right or wrong answer.   Do you want to be the type of collector who must identify everything down to species level, or one that identifies specimens based on the science provided to you at the time, knowing that it is always evolving?   As long as the specimens remain in your care, it matters not.  It's when one goes to sell a specimen or pass it onto another that it really matters.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

While there is a fair amount of illegal fossils making their way into the market, many collectors acquire their fossils from old collections and receive fossils being handed down to them.  I am not trying to make light of illegally imported fossils (as it is a problem), but am just informing you that there is also a fair share of legal fossils from these countries that have now banned exports.  Years ago countries like Mongolia, China, Argentina, and Thailand use to allow the export of fossils and because of this there are still some legally collected fossils floating in the market even though it is hard to prove this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize for the bad information. I went to check again, and there's no mention of Nemegt Formation so it could really be from any part of Mongolia, assuming he was honest about its identification.

 

This specimen will remain a mystery unless I can find definitive proof of any other fossil having this morphology and color.

Looking forward to meeting my fellow Singaporean collectors! Do PM me if you are a Singaporean, or an overseas fossil-collector coming here for a holiday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...