Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Organizing my collection has been the tedious, but also a really fun process. I’ll probably continually posting here for assistance. When I’m feeling a little more confident about my ID’s, I’ll post it in the members collection section to share. I still have some fossils to prep, piece together, display, label, etc. and really fortunate that I have all of you helping constantly; it really speeds up the process. In another year’s time, I’ll be much more educated/ well rounded Some of my fossils are rookie purchases, so I’m just trying to make the best of it. The issue is , I think they’re pretty cool, but not sure if they are worth displaying given that they are bone fragments. I was thinking maybe in a riker...also the issue of labeling...Below are three separate purchases. Group 1: The seller sold these in fragments. Several of these pieces I glued back together neatly with Paleo bond. The seller must’ve used some kind of thick glue originally because there are some marks, but it’s no big deal... anyway these were advertised as Albertosaurus bones... when I asked the seller why he labeled it as such, he said because it’s very probable? I asked him for a coa, and when I received it, it only said Tyannosaur bones... so I’m going to leave it at that...because it’s indeterminable. Even back then I knew Coa’s were pointless, but I always like asking for one, because I feel like it could possibly put a little pressure on the seller to be a somewhat more honest like it did in this case...however in most cases sellers don’t care: Tyrannosaur bone fragments: Judith River Formation, Northern Montana The other small miscellaneous pieces I don’t think can be glued back...no fit or match, just associated bones...What would you label the fossil as, and are they worth displaying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankh8147 Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Absolutely! If you really like it then it is worth displaying! This should be a fun process for you, I reorganize my collection constantly. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 Group 2: This other seller rented out a ranch in Montana where he found these two limb chunks...selling these fossils as daspletosaurus limb bones (because he says it was a daspleotsaurus graveyard). Said also the only fossils he found there were only from that dinosaur and all together. Limb section , two medicine formation, montana Is it safe to label these as such/worth displaying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 5 minutes ago, frankh8147 said: Absolutely! If you really like it then it is worth displaying! This should be a fun process for you, I reorganize my collection constantly. Thanks for chimming in! It def is a lot of fun...also a stress reliever... the only hard part is the ID Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 I know there are a lot of pics, but they’re all of these two limb bone sections side by side. I’m sure they are theropod because both bones indicate that they were hollow as I marked here... question is, is it safe to label as Daspletosaurus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 Can’t even tell you guys how many boxes, crates, tape, etc for this stuff, but I think you all understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner64 Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 27 minutes ago, Masp said: I know there are a lot of pics, but these above pictures, but these are two limb bone sections side by side. I’m sure they are theropod because both bones indicate that they were hollow as I marked here... question is, is it safe to label as Daspletosaurus? I believe the safest bet for this bone would be to leave it as Theropod indet. Not sure where the bone is from that you have and might need to know. Could always label it as Daspletosaurus cf. meaning it shows characteristics of a Daspletosaurus but there is not enough to make a definitive call. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 5 minutes ago, Runner64 said: I believe the safest bet for this bone would be to leave it as Theropod indet. Not sure where the bone is from that you have and might need to know. Could always label it as Daspletosaurus cf. meaning it shows characteristics of a Daspletosaurus but there is not enough to make a definitive call. This was the only info provided Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 Good problems to have... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner64 Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 11 minutes ago, Masp said: This was the only info provided I believe Gorgosaurus is also present in the Two Medicine Formation so if it is a Tyrannosaurid section, I don’t think it can even be narrowed down to Daspletosaurus because it could very well also be from Gorgosaurus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 5 minutes ago, Runner64 said: I believe Gorgosaurus is also present in the Two Medicine Formation so if it is a Tyrannosaurid section, I don’t think it can even be narrowed down to Daspletosaurus because it could very well also be from Gorgosaurus. Would you take the seller’s word for it when he says at the point when he found the bones at this ranch, the only fossils he found were from dasp. and was a daspletosaurus graveyard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Group 1 If the big hollow bones were found in the Judith River Fm they are not Albertosaurus and should be labeled Tyrannosaurid indet. since no Tyrannosaur has been described from that fauna. Most likely either Gorgosaurus or Daspletosaurus 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Group 2 Daspletosaurus horneri and Gorgosaurus sp. is present in the Two Medicine fm. I don't see hollow bones in that group. What do the red markings indicate "fill"? The bones in Group 2 should look like the ones in Group 1, if they were hollow Not sure what a Daspletosaurus graveyard means a quarry? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 8 minutes ago, Troodon said: Group 1 If the big hollow bones were found in the Judith River Fm they are not Albertosaurus and should be labeled Tyrannosaurid indet. since no Tyrannosaur has been described from that fauna. Most likely either Gorgosaurus or Daspletosaurus This is the only info I have from this...”coa”....therefore it’s incorrect? Not that it matters, but group #1 bones are from the same seller of the compressed trex bone we discussed about a few days ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 5 minutes ago, Troodon said: Group 2 Daspletosaurus horneri and Gorgosaurus sp. is present in the Two Medicine fm. I don't see hollow bones in that group. What do the red markings indicate "fill"? Not sure what a Daspletosaurus graveyard means a quarry? So regarding the fossils marked red, the fossil on the left is a piece that I marked the inner curve where it’s hollow. The fossil on the right: yeah, I marked what looks like bones that were once hollow and filled in. David Parris said he believed they are theropod but didn’t tell me much more. And regarding the graveyard thing, you’re guess is as good as mine...maybe he meant a quarry with an abundance of daspletosaur fossils? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 7 minutes ago, Masp said: This is the only info I have from this...”coa”....therefore it’s incorrect? Not that it matters, but group #1 bones are from the same seller of the compressed trex bone we discussed about a few days ago. That's correct they are Tyrannosaur bones just a sellers name for Tyrannosaurid but we have no official described name 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 17 minutes ago, Troodon said: Group 2 Daspletosaurus horneri and Gorgosaurus sp. is present in the Two Medicine fm. I don't see hollow bones in that group. What do the red markings indicate "fill"? The bones in Group 2 should look like the ones in Group 1, if they were hollow Not sure what a Daspletosaurus graveyard means a quarry? In Group #2 the fossil on the left resembles the fossils in group one. It’s shaped like a curved fragment of a larger bone, like the first ones when they came to me in several pieces. For the one on the right in he pic, I’m not so sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 6 minutes ago, Troodon said: That's correct they are Tyrannosaur bones just a sellers name for Tyrannosaurid but we have no official described name The seller finally abandoned the albertosaurus title for the coa most likely because I questioned him several times. He didn’t provide good reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masp Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 I’m not saying it’s exact, but to compare, they both seem to have that same curved structure for example. I may have to take better pictures of Group #2 pics and further away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now