FossilSniper Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 I'll keep this short: Are they Spinosaurus verts? It is identified as a composite piece. (Real vertebrae, just not found associated) (Ifezouane Formation, Kem Kem Basin, Red Sandstone Beds, Aouz, South Morocco) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilSniper Posted May 15, 2018 Author Share Posted May 15, 2018 Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 Photo does not resolve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 No photo here, either. Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilSniper Posted May 15, 2018 Author Share Posted May 15, 2018 7 minutes ago, Troodon said: Photo does not resolve The seller does not provide any other perspective of the vertebrae, unfortunately. Edit: I did not realize that the photo does is not there! Sorry! Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seguidora-de-Isis Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, FossilSniper said: The seller does not provide any other perspective of the vertebrae, unfortunately. It is not a question of another perspective, but rather that the first and only photo that you have posted for us, unfortunately does not appear, that is, we are not able to see the photo you posted. Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilSniper Posted May 15, 2018 Author Share Posted May 15, 2018 Just now, Seguidora-de-Isis said: It is not a question of another perspective, but rather that the first and only photo that you have posted for us, unfortunately does not appear, that is, we are not able to see the photo you posted. I think I fixed have it, is it visible now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seguidora-de-Isis Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 Yes, we are now able to see the photo. Thanks for fixing the post! In my opinion, the extreme concavity of the bottom and side edges of these vertebrae alone is already a strong indication that they may actually be vertebrae of theropods, but I particularly doubt that all these vertebrae have been discovered associated. Besides, I could not help but notice that some of them do not have processes, so we can not be sure if they really belonged to a spinosaurid. Even more coming from this seller who is very skilled at labeling, but not very skilled at proving. And this is what worries me with this seller, for some years he has learned that a vertebra of a Spinosaurus will always be worth much more than a vertebra of an indeterminate theropod. Given the above, I would feel much more comfortable labeling these 3 vertebrae belonging to an indeterminate theropod, because these vertebrae, if they have no processes, it would be rather imprudent to label or direct them to any kind of genus in particular. Already the other 3 vertebrae actually look like spinosaurids, but what worries me is that in Morocco it is very common to fill vertebrae with glue and sand to paste processes. Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilSniper Posted May 15, 2018 Author Share Posted May 15, 2018 1 minute ago, Seguidora-de-Isis said: In my opinion, the extreme concavity of the bottom and side edges of these vertebrae alone is already a strong indication that they may actually be vertebrae of theropods, but I particularly doubt that all these vertebrae have been discovered associated. Besides, I could not help but notice that some of them do not have processes, so we can not be sure if they really belonged to a spinosaurid. I don't know if you missed it, but I said they were not associated I'm glad there are no red flags thus far (except that some of them are missing processes). Thank you for your input! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 I think the larger 3 are Spinosaurid would need a better look at the last 3 with different views Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talon22 Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 Here are a few more photos of the listing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seguidora-de-Isis Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 19 minutes ago, talon22 said: Here are a few more photos of the listing.. A huge red flag can be raised here. Composition? Maybe, but the fact is that only with better photos could we know. And to conclude, these two vertebrae may also be spinosaurids, but the fact is that there appears to be a filling around the base of the neural in both vertebrae, and this bothers me a little, as it is complicated to know if it was just a repair or whether it is a composition to make the vertebras more attractives and "completes". And to conclude, there are so many red flags, that I believe all these vertebrae together are worth only what the buyer is willing to pay for them. Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 33 minutes ago, Seguidora-de-Isis said: And to conclude, there are so many red flags, that I believe all these vertebrae together are worth only what the buyer is willing to pay for them. That’s all fossils “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.