Small dinosaur ID

[Crazyhen]

5 hours ago, zekky said:

I think the top part or the skull is carved in the rock and painted tbh. 

As far as I know, there is no carving or painting done to the fossil.

[LordTrilobite]

6 hours ago, zekky said:

I think the top part or the skull is carved in the rock and painted tbh. 

That actually might be plausible. The horrible looking part of the skull does have a slightly different colour. And looking at the closeup of the nostril there doesn't seem to be any distinction between the bone and matrix. And the bumps sticking out still have matrix colour. It seems odd that if the skull is real that it would have been brutalised this much while some of the other bones are still in quite good condition. It makes more sense that if part of the skull was missing that someone spiced up the specimen by "completing" the skull by carving and painting a little.

[Crazyhen]

I have confirmed with the fossil owner that no repair or painting has been done, 

[zekky]

I personally am always careful when the dealer says no repair or painting has occurred. Unless you have a long history with the dealer.

[zekky]

The nostrils are what truly tipped me off as lordtrilobite said. The texture looks like matrix.

[Crazyhen]

I’m pretty sure that the fossil owner is telling the truth as he’s asking for help with the identity of the fossil rather than trying to sell it to me.  It doesn’t make sense for him to tell me the fossil has no repair in this case.

[Crazyhen]

The fossil owner recovered another piece of fossil from the same site, this is about 25cm.  Look at the tooth, a dinosaur?

[steelhead9]

This is a composited machairodus tooth. If you were told this is as found, you were not told the truth. 

[Crazyhen]

13 hours ago, steelhead9 said:

This is a composited machairodus tooth. If you were told this is as found, you were not told the truth. 

The tooth is serrated, and so it doesn’t look like it’s a machairodus tooth to me.  And it’s just recovered from the digging site, no repair or any work has been done other than removing the covering matrix.  Look at the close-ups.

[steelhead9]

Machairodus teeth are very serrated. Look at the cracks in the different sections of the tooth where it has been broken and glued together. They do not line up. This is certainly a composited tooth. 

[LordTrilobite]

Honestly, I don't see really what you mean. The cracks in that tooth do line up quite nicely. I think it's merely repaired. Much too neat for a composite.

[doushantuo]

Maybe not enough juvenile/peri-/neonate dinosaurs are shown on this forum

Edit:Bolong,I think

[Troodon]

Tooth looks very much like a Theropod especially if it was found in those deposits.  I do not see any composition just reattachment of two pieces but Identification is a different story. It's an extremely nice tooth.

[steelhead9]

15 minutes ago, LordTrilobite said:

Honestly, I don't see really what you mean. The cracks in that tooth do line up quite nicely. I think it's merely repaired. Much too neat for a composite.

The middle section lines up well and is likely only repaired. I still feel the tip is a composite. The large crack on the upper left side of the middle section and the crack on the lower right of the tip section should continue across the repair line. The width of the upper crack and use of a filler is suspicious. 

[doushantuo]

If oviraptorid*:might this help? 

*Not saying it is,of course

[steelhead9]

4 minutes ago, Troodon said:

Tooth looks very much like a Theropod especially if it was found in those deposits.  I do not see any repairs but Identification is a different story. It's an extremely nice tooth.

I have never seen a white theropod tooth from China. I have prepped many machairodus and will bet the farm this is an upper canine from this species. The horizontal cracks are both repaired breaks. The claim that these two fossils were found in the same deposit casts doubt on the whole story. 

[LordTrilobite]

The matrix around the base of the tooth does seem different to the rest of the matrix. It does look like it could have been glued in. Though I don't think the tooth itself is a composite.

[Troodon]

Just now, steelhead9 said:

I have never seen a white theropod tooth from China. I have prepped many machairodus and will bet the farm this is an upper canine from this species. The horizontal cracks are both repaired breaks. The claim that these two fossils were found in the same deposit casts doubt on the whole story. 

I had edited my response when you wrote yours and stated that it's not a composite but a repair.

[steelhead9]

5 minutes ago, LordTrilobite said:

The matrix around the base of the tooth does seem different to the rest of the matrix. It does look like it could have been glued in. Though I don't think the tooth itself is a composite.

I agree about the matrix. The material immediately around the base of the tooth is very typical of the glue/matrix mix used to cover additions or composites. 

[Troodon]

I have a very different opinion if the deposit we are in is late cretaceous.  I'm inclined to believe the digger unless I see evidence to the contrary which I currently do not.  The matrix looks fine to me. The tooth appears to be undisturbed and almost fully exposed.  A bit more matrix removal to expose the base would address the concerns.   I read that the Nanxiong fauna is similar to that of the Nemegt Formation and if so, given the size of the tooth it would have affinities to that of the Tyrannosaurid Aliormaus.  

 

 

 

[Crazyhen]

Very interesting discussions on the fossil tooth.  Again, I would like to say again that, as far as I know, the fossil was dug up without anything done on it apart from removing the covering matrix.

[Carl]

4 hours ago, LordTrilobite said:

Honestly, I don't see really what you mean. The cracks in that tooth do line up quite nicely. I think it's merely repaired. Much too neat for a composite.

I completely agree. A composite tooth is something quite different from a repaired tooth.

[steelhead9]

A good discussion! Let me point out a few other things. The crisp serrations on the left side of the mid section should not end exactly at the horizontal break between it and the tip section. If you consider the width of the mid section to be the outside edge of the serrations, the tip section is just a tiny bit too narrow. Notice the cleaness of the lower horizontal crack compared to the upper. There is filler in the upper break to make the edges match smoothly. The large vertical crack on the upper left side of the mid section is simply too large to, again, end exactly at the repair line. These are tiny differences, but all clues to the cleverness of the Chinese at compositing machairodus sabers. Also, if you accept the fact that this is a mammal tooth, don’t loose sight of the fact we have a digger claiming to have found a Miocene cat fossil in the same deposit as a dinosaur. A photo of the other side of the tooth would be helpful in determining if this is a composite or not.

 

[Crazyhen]

Machairodus teeth from Gansu are shown here for comparison.

[Crazyhen]

I read that if the number of serrations per cm is less than 20, it is a tyrannosaurid tooth.  Is it true?