Keichousaurus

[gigantoraptor]

Hello, 

A guy offered me this keichousaurus for a good price, but does it look real? The piece is already outside china so it isn't illegal. 

Size :15 cm

 

[ynot]

No shoulder bones and no pelvis either.

Looks suspicious to Me.

Wait for others to reply though.

[RJB]

It looks perty good to me except the head and neck seem to be from a different specimen? 

 

RB

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

Actually the head and neck are of another keichousaurus. But this is not fake. This is reconstitution and an excellent restoration work, which is scientifically quite valid. Even many famous museums do this. I believe that in general it is an excellent specimen!

[RJB]

Thats what I thought   @Seguidora-de-Isis, just wasnt sure. 

 

RB

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

8 minutes ago, RJB said:

Isso é o que eu pensei   @ Seguidora-de-Isis , apenas não tinha certeza. 

 

RB

 

Nice! But the restoration was excellent! But this fossil caught my attention because of another detail ... Because I was in doubt about the stomach debris, or if they are embryonic remnants ... Quite weird, some of them reminds me of rather small ribs ...

[FossilDudeCO]

@Seguidora-de-Isis

I was told on mine by several forum members that these are little cartilaginous ends of the ribs, you almost only see these on real specimens.

 

I agree. Great prep work here!

[RJB]

Wow!  Now its even better!   Makes me want to prep the one I have left. 

 

RB

[Miocene_Mason]

Do they ever have pelvises? More importantly, why don't they?

[steelhead9]

Pelvis and shoulders are only visible in ventral preps. This is prepped dorsally.

[Doctor Mud]

12 hours ago, Seguidora-de-Isis said:

Actually the head and neck are of another keichousaurus. But this is not fake. This is reconstitution and an excellent restoration work, which is scientifically quite valid. Even many famous museums do this. I believe that in general it is an excellent specimen!

What did you do to the image on the left?

Inverse the colors?

 

Im not sure if I agree that this approach would be scientifically valid.

What would be gained scientifically by combining two portions from different individuals for a specimen that has been found complete anyway?

 

This is a valid approach for incomplete specimens to figure out what the complete skeleton looked like.

But It is always clear which pieces are from different specimens, e.g bones from the opposite side scanned and reflected and 3D printed. Bones from other specimens scanned and 3D printed etc.

Maybe that's what you meant?

 

Seems like information on the joining is not obvious and maybe not recorded so not scientifically valid here.

 

But if a good looking fossil, made of genuine fossil parts is what you are after, then it is completely valid for that purpose 

[The Speeding Carno]

Looks pretty real, certainly not just painted rock

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

3 hours ago, Doctor Mud said:

O que você fez para a imagem à esquerda?

Inverter as cores?

 

Im não tem certeza se eu concordo que esta abordagem seria cientificamente válido.

O que seria obtida cientificamente pela combinação de duas porções de diferentes indivíduos para um espécime que tenha sido encontrado completa de qualquer maneira?

 

Esta é uma abordagem válida para  espécimes incompletos para descobrir o que o esqueleto completo parecia.

Mas é sempre claro que as peças são de diferentes amostras, por exemplo, os ossos do lado oposto digitalizada e reflectida e 3D impressa. Ossos de outros espécimes digitalizada e 3D impressa etc.

Talvez seja isso que você quis dizer?

 

Parece que informações sobre a união não é óbvio e talvez não gravada para não cientificamente válido aqui.

 

Mas se um bom fóssil procurando, feito de peças fósseis genuínos é o que você está depois, então é completamente válido para o efeito 

 

Thousands of keichousaurus have already been discovered complete, including I that have one here in my collection that is 100% complete. What would be gained scientifically by combining two portions from different individuals for a specimen that has been found complete anyway? Not all collectors have high sums to invest, so fossils like this are most welcome! Besides, what do you do with two incomplete specimens if you're a great fossil preparer with skill and expertise, and can it help collectors with less financial support? I do not disdain a great job like this, not really, quite the contrary, drudgery like this make me think there are great fossil preparer out there, and like I said, Museums do this all the time.
By the way, instead of citing me, you could do what others do, that is, give your own opinion to help those who made this post.

[Andrewc]

I would love a genuine one of these... I'm scared of buying from eBay. 

[gigantoraptor]

Thanks for your opinions, it's really Appreciated .

 

I don't think I'm gonna buy it, because I'm looking for a complete skeleton from 1 animal.

Maybe I find a better one later.

 

Greetings

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

7 hours ago, Andrewc said:

Eu adoraria um verdadeiro um destes ... Estou com medo de comprar de eBay. 

 

Choose one you like and post photos (preferably good quality photos), which here at the Forum we will be very pleased to be able to help with opinions if it may or may not be real. Huge hug!

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

On 04/07/2017 at 7:05 PM, FossilDudeCO said:

@ Seguidora-de-Isis

I was told on mine by several forum members that these are little cartilaginous ends of the ribs, you almost only see these on real specimens.

 

I agree. Great prep work here!

 

 

Thank you my friend! I did not know that either. Every day I teach, but I also learn something new here at the Forum ... Magic Moment! Thank you, I really enjoyed knowing about this!

[Doctor Mud]

8 hours ago, Seguidora-de-Isis said:

 

Thousands of keichousaurus have already been discovered complete, including I that have one here in my collection that is 100% complete. What would be gained scientifically by combining two portions from different individuals for a specimen that has been found complete anyway? Not all collectors have high sums to invest, so fossils like this are most welcome! Besides, what do you do with two incomplete specimens if you're a great fossil preparer with skill and expertise, and can it help collectors with less financial support? I do not disdain a great job like this, not really, quite the contrary, drudgery like this make me think there are great fossil preparer out there, and like I said, Museums do this all the time.
By the way, instead of citing me, you could do what others do, that is, give your own opinion to help those who made this post.

Not sure what you mean by the last bit about citing you?

its called quoting and it's a way to show a linkage in the discussion and a direct reply to a statement.

You seem to imply that I repeat what you said and don't contribute anything new or helpful. I think this is a little offensive as my post was not aggressive.

kind of funny as you basically repeated a huge chunk of what I said.

I also said that there are many specimens that are complete and there is nothing wrong with a restoration.

The key word here is science. You said it is scientifically valid to do this, I elaborated (and provided some additional info imho) on when such a restoration is scientifically legitimate. This one is not.

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

2 hours ago, Doctor Mud said:

Not sure what you mean by the last bit about citing you?

its called quoting and it's a way to show a linkage in the discussion and a direct reply to a statement.

You seem to imply that I repeat what you said and don't contribute anything new or helpful. I think this is a little offensive as my post was not aggressive.

kind of funny as you basically repeated a huge chunk of what I said.

I also said that there are many specimens that are complete and there is nothing wrong with a restoration.

The key word here is science. You said it is scientifically valid to do this, I elaborated (and provided some additional info imho) on when such a restoration is scientifically legitimate. This one is not.

 

I do not think you've offended me and I do not think I've offended you either. Only my compliments to the preparer who bothered to count the exact number of cervical vertebrae... Get another specimen whose neck was turned to the right side, to obtain the mechanical prodigy of a perfect fit, and a supernatural finishing of the piece as a whole. So if there was no science here, and if it is not a scientific fossil specimen, then so little must I believe that someday the man has already gone to the moon. At this moment my fingers are swollen, because I spent all day mechanically preparing a dendrolithic-type egg fossil, even knowing that someday someone can say that I have not used scientific methods in preparation, and therefore, my egg will not be scientific, so I am quite tired, and sorry for not wanting to take this discussion forward ... Be it a moderation to think that I made any kind of mistake, please, you can delete my message ... Hugs!

[Aurelius]

12 hours ago, Andrewc said:

I would love a genuine one of these... I'm scared of buying from eBay. 

 

I wouldn't be too scared. They are basically all genuine (except for the really terrible fakes that wouldn't fool anybody), you just have to watch out for things like carved and painted-in bones in otherwise-genuine examples. But you can ask here for an opinion.

[Doctor Mud]

7 hours ago, Seguidora-de-Isis said:

 

I do not think you've offended me and I do not think I've offended you either. Only my compliments to the preparer who bothered to count the exact number of cervical vertebrae... Get another specimen whose neck was turned to the right side, to obtain the mechanical prodigy of a perfect fit, and a supernatural finishing of the piece as a whole. So if there was no science here, and if it is not a scientific fossil specimen, then so little must I believe that someday the man has already gone to the moon. At this moment my fingers are swollen, because I spent all day mechanically preparing a dendrolithic-type egg fossil, even knowing that someday someone can say that I have not used scientific methods in preparation, and therefore, my egg will not be scientific, so I am quite tired, and sorry for not wanting to take this discussion forward ... Be it a moderation to think that I made any kind of mistake, please, you can delete my message ... Hugs!

Actually I was a bit offended, I think you cant speak for whether or not I am offended.

Maybe it is a language barrier but I felt like you were saying that I didn't contribute anything new to the conversation.

If anyone has seen the move "Arrival" - I'm thinking of it as I just watched it. Amazing how a discussion could escalate because of a misunderstanding. The Alien visitors ask mankind to "use weapon" or at least that's how it is interpreted.... Not what they meant but it almost starts a global war.....

 

Anyway I digress....

 

I think what you were actually saying is that you think my point was tangential to the post and that it was not useful to the original poster.

You might get a feeling from the forum that discussions and responses to posts are rather fluid. There is the core content, but also some slightly tangential discussions to the core question.

The forum is also a learning resource and source of information and the remit seems to be that we would like information to be as accurate as possible. I think when someone makes a statement and another member sees a different perspective, then it is fine for them to add a comment. Especially if it might be for the greater learning experience. You said this restoration is scientifically valid, I thought not, I expressed my opinion.

 

I'm not saying that all restoration is bad or non-scientific. What I did say was that in certain circumstances restoration is not scientifically valid. Especially when there is no record of the restoration. The egg you are working on (for example) could well have a scientific contribution, so don't worry about that!

 

 

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

7 hours ago, Doctor Mud said:

Actually I was a bit offended, I think you cant speak for whether or not I am offended.

Maybe it is a language barrier but I felt like you were saying that I didn't contribute anything new to the conversation.

If anyone has seen the move "Arrival" - I'm thinking of it as I just watched it. Amazing how a discussion could escalate because of a misunderstanding. The Alien visitors ask mankind to "use weapon" or at least that's how it is interpreted.... Not what they meant but it almost starts a global war.....

 

Anyway I digress....

 

I think what you were actually saying is that you think my point was tangential to the post and that it was not useful to the original poster.

You might get a feeling from the forum that discussions and responses to posts are rather fluid. There is the core content, but also some slightly tangential discussions to the core question.

The forum is also a learning resource and source of information and the remit seems to be that we would like information to be as accurate as possible. I think when someone makes a statement and another member sees a different perspective, then it is fine for them to add a comment. Especially if it might be for the greater learning experience. You said this restoration is scientifically valid, I thought not, I expressed my opinion.

 

I'm not saying that all restoration is bad or non-scientific. What I did say was that in certain circumstances restoration is not scientifically valid. Especially when there is no record of the restoration. The egg you are working on (for example) could well have a scientific contribution, so don't worry about that!

 

 

 

Hello my friend. Good Morning! Reading your comment, I realized that there was a misunderstanding, maybe because of the language barrier that separates us, so I also had no intention of offending you in any moment. This fossil, even having no record of its preparation, is what it is, leaving no room for another interpretation. So let's assume you buy it. Just an assumption. Then you study the bone structure under the microscope, then realize that it was prepared with two legitimate specimens (reconstitution), and this reconstitution is accurate, with the same number of vertebrae and postmortem position. And you record this in your collection, so if the specimen that was restored was studied in your collection and you recorded and studied, then the specimen is scientific. In my opinion, the mere fact that we collect fossils, and record what we have in our collection, we are already doing science. Even when we discover that a fossil is a complete fraud, we are already doing science ... Recalling that even among major internationally renowned museums that must follow a strict scientific criteria, international scandals often occur, as has been the case with Pterosaurus Anhanguera piscator. Hugs!

[Fossildude19]

7 hours ago, Doctor Mud said:

Actually I was a bit offended, I think you cant speak for whether or not I am offended.

Maybe it is a language barrier but I felt like you were saying that I didn't contribute anything new to the conversation.

If anyone has seen the move "Arrival" - I'm thinking of it as I just watched it. Amazing how a discussion could escalate because of a misunderstanding. The Alien visitors ask mankind to "use weapon" or at least that's how it is interpreted.... Not what they meant but it almost starts a global war.....

 

Anyway I digress....

 

I think what you were actually saying is that you think my point was tangential to the post and that it was not useful to the original poster.

You might get a feeling from the forum that discussions and responses to posts are rather fluid. There is the core content, but also some slightly tangential discussions to the core question.

The forum is also a learning resource and source of information and the remit seems to be that we would like information to be as accurate as possible. I think when someone makes a statement and another member sees a different perspective, then it is fine for them to add a comment. Especially if it might be for the greater learning experience. You said this restoration is scientifically valid, I thought not, I expressed my opinion.

 

I'm not saying that all restoration is bad or non-scientific. What I did say was that in certain circumstances restoration is not scientifically valid. Especially when there is no record of the restoration. The egg you are working on (for example) could well have a scientific contribution, so don't worry about that!

14 hours ago, Seguidora-de-Isis said:

 

I do not think you've offended me and I do not think I've offended you either. Only my compliments to the preparer who bothered to count the exact number of cervical vertebrae... Get another specimen whose neck was turned to the right side, to obtain the mechanical prodigy of a perfect fit, and a supernatural finishing of the piece as a whole. So if there was no science here, and if it is not a scientific fossil specimen, then so little must I believe that someday the man has already gone to the moon. At this moment my fingers are swollen, because I spent all day mechanically preparing a dendrolithic-type egg fossil, even knowing that someday someone can say that I have not used scientific methods in preparation, and therefore, my egg will not be scientific, so I am quite tired, and sorry for not wanting to take this discussion forward ... Be it a moderation to think that I made any kind of mistake, please, you can delete my message ... Hugs!

 

 

 

I think there may be some language barrier here, that intent and meaning may suffer from this. 

I don't think the internet is always the best for conveying tone.  

 

You both agree there is nothing wrong with a composite fossil, if knowledge of it is made public.  

The disagreement seems to stem from the scientific value of a fossil of this nature. 

I hope you can both agree to disagree about that, with no hurt feelings on either side.  

[Doctor Mud]

7 hours ago, Seguidora-de-Isis said:

 

Hello my friend. Good Morning! Reading your comment, I realized that there was a misunderstanding, maybe because of the language barrier that separates us, so I also had no intention of offending you in any moment. This fossil, even having no record of its preparation, is what it is, leaving no room for another interpretation. So let's assume you buy it. Just an assumption. Then you study the bone structure under the microscope, then realize that it was prepared with two legitimate specimens (reconstitution), and this reconstitution is accurate, with the same number of vertebrae and postmortem position. And you record this in your collection, so if the specimen that was restored was studied in your collection and you recorded and studied, then the specimen is scientific. In my opinion, the mere fact that we collect fossils, and record what we have in our collection, we are already doing science. Even when we discover that a fossil is a complete fraud, we are already doing science ... Recalling that even among major internationally renowned museums that must follow a strict scientific criteria, international scandals often occur, as has been the case with Pterosaurus Anhanguera piscator. Hugs!

Hi there,

 

Thanks Seguidora, The forum is all about learning and developing this is the first time I felt like someone was telling me my contribution was not welcome. My issue wasn't the debate. Then I saw that I was quoted in Portugese, and thought maybe some of our intent and tone had been distorted by a possible language barrier and the Internet.

 

I agree with your point that fraud detection can be a science but I would also propose this. It is an interesting scientific endevour that uses cutting edge technology to detect fakes. Think of CT scanning of the composite Chinese feathered dinosaur specimens.

 

But also think that as scientists and particularly paleontologists we are always challenged by a lack of resources and time. I would much rather see resources and time poured into advancing our understanding of core questions like mass extinctions for example.