2017 Wyoming Microsite Finds

[PaleoNoel]

Last summer on my trip out west, I found these teeth at a Lance Formation microsite in Wyoming. Many of the fossils were found through splitting a yellowish-orange concretion filled matrix, while others were free from it. This site was on the same ranch where I found my theropod hand claw but in separate locality. It's rather late (EST) at the time I'm posting this but wanted to show some of the teeth I found and was hoping I could get some help identifying them. 

 

1. Pectinodon bakkeri 

 

2. Richardoestesia sp. (?)

 

 

3. Lizard/ Worn Herbivorous Dinosaur Tooth (?) 

 

[PaleoNoel]

4. Worn Tyrannosaurus rex tooth (?)

 

[Echinoid]

Sorry, I'm no good with dinosaurs - maybe @Troodon could help?

[Troodon]

#1 Looks like a Pectinodon maxillary tooth what size it?  Sorry coins dont work for me in determining exact size.

#2 Not sure, serrations much to big for Richardoestesia and not compressed enough..  Can you take a real closeup of serrations and do a serration count both edges 5mm wide

#3 Hard to say does not look like a herbivore.  Try a photo of other side, size?

#4 Could be rex but need size?  Premax tooth?

 

[PaleoNoel]

1. Pectinodon tooth is approx. 5 mm

 

2. Serrations are about 30 per 5 mm, total length of tooth is approx. 8 mm.

 

3. Mystery tooth is approx 6 mm. (opposite side from original picture).

 

4. T. rex tooth is approx. 17 mm or 1.5 cm.

[Troodon]

47 minutes ago, PaleoNoel said:

1. Pectinodon tooth is approx. 5 mm  Perfect.. Pectinodon maxillary 

 

2. Serrations are about 30 per 5 mm, total length of tooth is approx.  Looked much bigger in above photo good to go with Richardoestesia. Serrations density works.

 

3. Mystery tooth is approx 6 mm. (opposite side from original picture). Any chance its Avisaurus.  Compare pictures of it to yours

 

4. T. rex tooth is approx. 17 mm or 1.5 cm.  YES T rex tip

Thanks see notes by your images

 

Avisaurus teeth

https://www.google.com/search?q=Avisaurus+teeth&oq=Avisaurus+teeth&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.3404j0j8&client=tablet-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

[PaleoNoel]

5 minutes ago, Troodon said:

Avisaurus teeth

https://www.google.com/search?q=Avisaurus+teeth&oq=Avisaurus+teeth&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.3404j0j8&client=tablet-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Interesting! I was not expecting that.

[PaleoNoel]

Another question for @Troodon, is Richardoestesia a dromaeosaurid? If my memory serves me correctly they are known almost entirely from teeth with very little body material. Could it be a North American relative of the newly named Halszkaraptor from Mongolia? I've never seen a close up of the teeth but having a semi-aquatic Richardoestesia it might be a cool addition to the diversity of the Hell Creek and Lance Formation fauna.  

[Troodon]

There are two described species of Richardoestesia, R. gilmorei and R. isosceles but neither from the Hell Creek/Lance Fm and those teeth technically should have cf in from of their names:  cf Richardoestesia isosceles 

R isosceles, the one that  looks like an isosceles triangle, is a tooth taxon and the jury is out if that is actually dinosaurian, may be a Pterosaur.  R. gilmorei is the more recurved one and looks like a small Dromaeosaurid but not currently classified as one.  New discoveries will continue to change the horizon and the lack of skeleton on both really hinder what they are.

 

A good paper on these small teeth a bit outdated since it came out before Acherorapter, Dakotaraptor and Albertadromeus (in Alberta)

 

MultiAnlTeeth.pdf

[PaleoNoel]

2 minutes ago, Troodon said:

There are two described species of Richardoestesia, R. gilmorei and R. isosceles but neither from the Hell Creek/Lance Fm and those teeth technically should have cf in from of their names:  cf Richardoestesia isosceles 

R isosceles, the one that  looks like an isosceles triangle, is a tooth taxon and the jury is out if that is actually dinosaurian, may be a Pterosaur.  R. gilmorei is the more recurved one and looks like a small Dromaeosaurid but not currently classified as one.  New discoveries will continue to change the horizon and the lack of skeleton on both really hinder what they are.

 

A good paper on these small teeth a bit outdated since it came out before Acherorapter, Dakotaraptor and Albertadromeus (in Alberta)

 

MultiAnlTeeth.pdf

Interesting, the guide I was with said the same thing about it being possibly from an unknown pterosaur. 

[Troodon]

7 minutes ago, PaleoNoel said:

Interesting, the guide I was with said the same thing about it being possibly from an unknown pterosaur. 

I provided the ROM a small jaw section with those teeth and a Paronychodon tooth was in the anterior position.  Not conclusive enough to make a determination on what it is, need more specimens 

[Masp]

8 hours ago, Troodon said:

There are two described species of Richardoestesia, R. gilmorei and R. isosceles but neither from the Hell Creek/Lance Fm and those teeth technically should have cf in from of their names:  cf Richardoestesia isosceles 

R isosceles, the one that  looks like an isosceles triangle, is a tooth taxon and the jury is out if that is actually dinosaurian, may be a Pterosaur.  R. gilmorei is the more recurved one and looks like a small Dromaeosaurid but not currently classified as one.  New discoveries will continue to change the horizon and the lack of skeleton on both really hinder what they are.

 

A good paper on these small teeth a bit outdated since it came out before Acherorapter, Dakotaraptor and Albertadromeus (in Alberta)

 

MultiAnlTeeth.pdf

Frank, speaking of which, could you please explain to me what cf. exactly means? One of my dino teeth I purchased had it included in the title. 

[Troodon]

32 minutes ago, Masp said:

Frank, speaking of which, could you please explain to me what cf. exactly means? One of my dino teeth I purchased had it included in the title. 

cf means to compare against.

When a specimen, like a tooth, is not described from a specific formation, take the Hell Creek Fm,  you look at teeth that are described in other localities like the Judith River Fm, that you can compare against.  So if they are similar you can put a real name to it instead of a vague family name.

[Masp]

7 minutes ago, Troodon said:

cf means to compare against.

When a specimen, like a tooth, is not described from a specific formation, take the Hell Creek Fm,  you look at teeth that are described in other localities like the Judith River Fm, that you can compare against.  So if they are similar you can put a real name to it instead of a vague family name.

Makes total sense now thank you. 

[BonuFrailman]

On 7/7/2018 at 8:50 PM, PaleoNoel said:

Last summer on my trip out west, I found these teeth at a Lance Formation microsite in Wyoming. Many of the fossils were found through splitting a yellowish-orange concretion filled matrix, while others were free from it. This site was on the same ranch where I found my theropod hand claw but in separate locality. It's rather late (EST) at the time I'm posting this but wanted to show some of the teeth I found and was hoping I could get some help identifying them. 

 

1. Pectinodon bakkeri 

 

2. Richardoestesia sp. (?)

 

 

3. Lizard/ Worn Herbivorous Dinosaur Tooth (?) 

 

If you don’t mind me asking, where did you go in Wyoming to dig these up? Is it a public place? And if so how much does it cost? And can you keep what you find?

[PaleoNoel]

9 hours ago, BonuFrailman said:

If you don’t mind me asking, where did you go in Wyoming to dig these up? Is it a public place? And if so how much does it cost? And can you keep what you find?

These were found on a private ranch outside of Newcastle Wyoming with the fossil hunting group PaleoProspectors, which makes deals with the land owners to allow people to keep the fossils they find if they are not of major scientific value. I would highly recommend this group as they allow you to keep almost everything you find and do not limit you to just common fossils like of the formation like turtle shell and herbivorous dinosaur bones and teeth like paleoadventures or the baisch ranch does. Its rather expensive but if you are really passionate about fossil hunting its well worth the money. Paleoprospectors takes you out for a week in a certain area, provides guidance in what to look for and provides breakfast, lunch and dinner to its guests all while staying in hotels and motels in towns nearby the ranches.