Jump to content

Red Flag on Kem Kem Material


Recommended Posts

Offered these two toe bones from a Spinosaurus. 

Claw appears to be from a Spinosaurid but identifying the phalanx to one is very problematic.  Not a lot of comparative material out there.  Regardless that phalanx location does not have a claw next to it..

s-l400.jpg.0b2c646596df4613e786095e0d78c166.jpg

 

Offered these two Spinosaurus toe finger bones

Both belong to a Spinosaurid but one is a foot claw the other is a hand carpal

5b0156b565238_s-l1600(2).thumb.jpg.68a796ec0f3e00c24edb0fcecebea07e.jpg

 

Offered these three Spinosaurus toe finger bones.

Dont believe the claw belongs to a Spinosaurus and like before identifying the two phalanx to a species is very difficult 

5b0157b0d53ba_s-l1600(3).thumb.jpg.dfa7d04cc79687228c8667bbafbe846d.jpg

 

Offered are a Spinosaurus hand bone and claw

Very cool pair great addition to any collection.   The bone looks like a phalanx not a hand bone indeterminate species but the claw is not like anything I've seen before.  No idea whats its from but very nice.

5b0158e751f80_s-l1600(4).thumb.jpg.c5f0d9c13104edc1ac6e113a87a59096.jpg

5b015a0045037_s-l1600(6).thumb.jpg.406b2784c35b65938b468e5880c4617b.jpg

 

Offered are these two unidentified theropod bones and claw.

What you have here is an Abelsaurid claw and two unknown bones one of which may not be dinosaurian.   What you are buying here is that claw its very nice.

5b015a9e0a58b_s-l1600(8).thumb.jpg.5c6cbb632f374634c205941b860a1eb7.jpg5b015aa33f09c_s-l1600(7).thumb.jpg.d9990001a64c51b3e4a759d5f32e4c11.jpg

 

There are other other digits, claws offered.  If you are interested please post them here and we will give them a look before you buy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Offered Pterosaur claw

We had lots of discussion here on the forum on these type of claws before.  The consensus was that these do not belong to pterosaurs but possibly theropod

5b0160aeb15b0_s-l1600(10).thumb.jpg.dc61b1f2dd0b74922f411f7bf180373b.jpg

 

 

Another Pterosaur claw offered.

Dont believe its one too wide.  Possibly a partial theropod

5b0161ced93c1_s-l1600(11).thumb.jpg.8f6f680749d3beacd4219d62f20597cd.jpg

 

Offered is an unidentified toe finger with claw.

Not sure that claw is dinosaurian, hard to say one way or another but very skeptical.  But what is very cool about this listing is the phalanx.  It looks very similar to a Dromaeosaurid Digit IV probably phalanx 4.  More proof that Dromaeosaurids exist in the KemKem?  That is if we needed more proof with all the teeth that are out there.

5b016318088e4_s-l400(3).jpg.575cf57fbc89011aa4d9b00471a87eaf.jpg

s-l1600 (12).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That phalanx looks quite a bit bigger than I'd expect from a raptor. So far the specimens I've seen from Kem Kem that seem to be Dromaeosaurid point to small bodied animals of 1 or 2 meters.

Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LordTrilobite said:

That phalanx looks quite a bit bigger than I'd expect from a raptor. So far the specimens I've seen from Kem Kem that seem to be Dromaeosaurid point to small bodied animals of 1 or 2 meters.

Yes its big and I may be from a different animal but its the first Ive seen of that morphological and very cool.

 

Edit think it would fit Dakotaraptor.  When it comes to the Kem Kem anything is possible.  The Dromaeosaurid like teeth we are seeing are pretty big.

 

Screenshot_20180520-064913.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that when it comes to Kem Kem beds, we must keep our minds open... There are tons of things in Kem Kem beds that for the moment we do not even dream...

 

image.thumb.png.60eda6868353ab0af56af5c875d645bf.png

 

image.thumb.png.81595e52b6f9bdbd5d95d842a3eec094.png

 

Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question!

03.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bone guy said:

@Seguidora-de-Isis that looks like a jaw bone...

 

These beak jaws are but a small part of the many mysteries that surround Kem Kem. There are still tons of things at Kem Kem that will still be discovered.

Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question!

03.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bone guy said:

@Seguidora-de-Isis that looks like a jaw bone, I remember seeing a topic on something similar to what you have there. 

Both Seguidora-de-Isis and me have specimens like that. There was indeed an ID thread on it. We didn't come to a 100% conclusion. But apparently a knowledgable seller said they were Coelacanth gill arches.

 

I'm personally still not completely sure but I would lean towards fish. It does not match any known reptile beak in any case.

Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seguidora-de-Isis said:

 

These beak jaws are but a small part of the many mysteries that surround Kem Kem. There are still tons of things at Kem Kem that will still be discovered.

I love mysteries, and Kem Kem is exciting!

Similar morphology?

~~.jpg

 

 

"There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant

“Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley

>Paleontology is an evolving science.

>May your wonders never cease!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Auspex said:

I love mysteries, and Kem Kem is exciting!

Similar morphology?

~~.jpg

 

 

 

It really is awesome! Thanks for sharing my friend @Auspex! :o

 

image.png.785d4c0045c0e3a9348d02e7a7ecc854.png

 

image.png.bba708f3e92c038ea5ca5b23f7c9afd8.png

 

Maybe it is, it might not be, but everything about Kem Kem, I try to keep my mind open, after all, we know almost nothing about Kem Kem...

Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question!

03.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were quite a few of these jaw pieces being sold by Moroccan tent dealers at the Tucson show so they appear common.   One knowledgeable dealer identified them as Coelacanth gill arches but no one can support that with reference material.   Skull material from a fish is reasonable but not certain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LordTrilobite said:

Both Seguidora-de-Isis and me have specimens like that. There was indeed an ID thread on it. We didn't come to a 100% conclusion. But apparently a knowledgable seller said they were Coelacanth gill arches.

 

I'm personally still not completely sure but I would lean towards fish. It does not match any known reptile beak in any case.

 

1 hour ago, Troodon said:

There were quite a few of these jaw pieces being sold by Moroccan tent dealers at the Tucson show so they appear common.   One knowledgeable dealer identified them as Coelacanth gill arches but no one can support that with reference material.   Skull material from a fish is a reasonable but not certain.

 

 

Particularly I continue to doubt that this is Coelacanth gill arches, because there really is no comparative material to support this hypothesis. I also doubt it is any kind of fish material. But as I said earlier, in order to avoid disappointment, I try to keep my mind open, after all, cranial kinesis (powerful bite and great mobility of the skull) allied with a jaw slide is something one might expect in the fish world, as in the example below:

 

image.png.2bc65d5f44b014d160c3de7392e77b50.png

 

I do not know what it is, but I believe it to be a reptile. Who knows if in the future, new excavations will prove that I am completely wrong, or right? To paraphrase our friend Auspex, I love mysteries, and Kem Kem is exciting! :D

 

@LordTrilobite was kind enough to do the initial sketches for the study, I tried to steady the features a bit, but it still was not so good...

 

image.png.42b1f8f6725a8ff9bac194f4e49d82de.png

 

The only certainty I have here is that it's definitely not a premaxilla. It's definitely a maxilla!

 

The fact is that this fossil is something completely new in the beds of Kem Kem, in Morocco. Many people often think that Kem Kem region does not have much research due to a supposed lack of paleontologists, but this is only a half-truth, because what is lacking are fossils associated, that is, articulated, but unfortunately fossils are discovered completely fragmented by local residents. And these fossils, which are not associated and are still too fragmented, constitute the great disadvantage of a deposit which in the past was a river, for it was precisely the waters of the past that provoked the disorder that we see today in Kem Kem, and which we are trying so hard to understand so slow.

Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question!

03.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Seguidora-de-Isis said:

I believe that when it comes to Kem Kem beds, we must keep our minds open... There are tons of things in Kem Kem beds that for the moment we do not even dream...

 

image.thumb.png.60eda6868353ab0af56af5c875d645bf.png

 

image.thumb.png.81595e52b6f9bdbd5d95d842a3eec094.png

 

If i recall correctly, that was offered as part of a turtle skull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Troodon said:

Offered Pterosaur claw

We had lots of discussion here on the forum on these type of claws before.  The consensus was that these do not belong to pterosaurs but possibly theropod...

 

 

Even if a Pterosaur was cloned by InGen and landed on the shoulder of this seller, he still would not understand anything about Pterosaurs!

 

image.png.8e85141f0cb19832ca2ddb562db3d145.png

 

:hearty-laugh:

 

Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question!

03.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, talon22 said:

If i recall correctly, that was offered as part of a turtle skull.

 

Yes, it was!

 

:hearty-laugh:

 

image.png.85621260e7cccd9b2e78935ae37fd137.png

Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question!

03.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's any kind of reptile. for now I think fish is most plausible. The bone structure also fits with fish better than it does reptile. It's fairly dense and a little flaky.

Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, LordTrilobite said:

I don't think it's any kind of reptile. for now I think fish is most plausible. The bone structure also fits with fish better than it does reptile. It's fairly dense and a little flaky.

 

Particularly I doubt it, because there is a tremendous possibility Theropod here! However I must confess that I will not play outside this possibility of fish... The little I've understood about Kem Kem beds so far is that everything is possible there!

 

Note: Bone flaky may be due to poor conservation of the fossil, because one of the maxilla I have is completely smooth!

 

image.png.ce9e5a1ffcae29ba880baa502ab84414.png

Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question!

03.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Tremendous"  is a pretty high in a scale of something being definitive and without supporting information, a bit overstated.   Lets look at this from a different point of view.   At the Tucson show similar elements were seen at every venue where Morocco dealers were selling trays of mixed specimens.  If this skull element was from a theropod I doubt it would be so common and why only this particular skull element.   Fish elements from different parts of the skull were everywhere.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seguidora-de-Isis said:

 

Particularly I doubt it, because there is a tremendous possibility Theropod here! However I must confess that I will not play outside this possibility of fish... The little I've understood about Kem Kem beds so far is that everything is possible there!

 

Note: Bone flaky may be due to poor conservation of the fossil, because one of the maxilla I have is completely smooth!

 

image.png.ce9e5a1ffcae29ba880baa502ab84414.png

Preservation can sometimes affect bone structure. But fish bones also have a different structure compared to most reptiles and are often flaky. Though pterosaurs also seem to have such flaky bone, that doesn't match this bone either. The structure is consistent with other fish specimens from the Kem Kem beds.

 

And I highly doubt it's any sort of theropod. Beaked theropods are not widely spread to begin with, and they are completely unknown in the Kem Kem beds. Nor does this type of bone match any known beaked theropod as far as I know. It doesn't match Oviraptorosaurs, Ornithomimids, Therizinosaurids or birds.

 

A weird fish bone is just much more likely.

Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have a few of these bones. I'd love for them to be something amazing, but I'm assuming they are fish in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary.

 

P_PC8566-Edit.jpg.976600faf0dec44594eaa540454508f9.thumb.jpg.ea2a4ad9c8ce6d73990414f37f5da11d.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use the word "Tremendous" because of the fact that tons of bones of small and large theropods are excavated annually in Morocco, being labeled by the sellers of "unidentified", "unknown", and even "unpublished" by some  sellers more greedy ... And the skull is usually very fragile, and if the chances of finding an entire skull of a large theropod are small, then imagine what are the chances of finding an entire skull of a small theropod in the Kem Kem beds... That is why I prefer to be optimistic, after all, I repeat that we do not know anything about the Kem Kem. But even if future excavations reveal that it is a simple jaw of some fish's beak, I will still be happy, after all, it is very beautiful for exhibition and certainly deserves a good place on the shelf of any collection!... :wub:

 

image.png.3fa69a7451c26cd41f0fea7abd834732.png

 

image.png.210b75e912a1b88303e117605b9725da.png

Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question!

03.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can i get an opinion on this claw. It is listed as a Dromaeosaur claw (though i doubt it) and is 1.7 inches long. 

 

s-l1600.jpg

s-l1600.jpg

s-l1600.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The claw is from an indeterminate theropod.  It is a partial claw missing the entire proximal end.    We have very limited knowledge of claws from the Kem Kem, just like teeth, and only a couple can be identified to a family level, NONE to a genus or species.

 

In addition to missing the back end there is Fill in what is shown  below.  There is also some repair and fill to the tip area if not completely reconstructed 

s-l1600_20180524040751178.thumb.jpg.1433db4a5eb531b9913c29b46f9ddbd6.jpg5b069e1760226_s-l1600(1).thumb.jpg.b1f3b0b333fbbbcdedb3f8535244e6e3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...