Tyrannosaurus?

[Still_human]

Ok, here's 2 pieces. I think it's clear which are which, but just to be clear, of these first 4 pics, the 2nd picture for some weird reason, is of the 2nd bone, and the other 3 are of the 1st, and the rest of its pics will have to follow in additional posts. Of course I'm still no expert, but as some of you will know Ive been doing QUITE a bit of research on trex bones recently, and I have to say that from what I can see, to ME, who again, is no expert, they look like they fit, and I haven't seen anything that discounts that. Both from hell creek.

 

 

<<As always, I very much want to hear what everyone has to say about it.....ESPECIALLY if u agree, but even if you don't too, of course:)

A lot of what Iv learned recently and been pointed in the right directions to learn, is from you guys giving me your thoughts and ideas! If I notice something to debate, or devils advocate in people's ideas, its cause I'm taking it seriously. I worry I might sometimes come off as being stubborn and just disregarding things of people who's opinion is just not what I am wanting to hear.

[Still_human]

[Still_human]

-

 

[Runner64]

Keep in mind Nanotyrannus is another tyrannosaur in the Hell Creek Formation. I know nothing on bones but if this is a tyrannosaur bone, I think it might be a shot in the dark between the two.

[Macrophyseter]

I'm no expert, but I've heard that tyrannosaur bones have a "honeycomb" shaped inner structure.

[Flx]

What makes you think it may be tyrannosaurus?

(sorry if this is a stupid question)

 

What is the size of the fossils?

[Still_human]

12 hours ago, Runner64 said:

Keep in mind Nanotyrannus is another tyrannosaur in the Hell Creek Formation. I know nothing on bones but if this is a tyrannosaur bone, I think it might be a shot in the dark between the two.

shot in the dark about what?

[Carl]

15 hours ago, Macrophyseter said:

I'm no expert, but I've heard that tyrannosaur bones have a "honeycomb" shaped inner structure.

You are right but I'm pretty sure the honeycomb feature is restricted to the vertebrae.

[Runner64]

3 hours ago, Still_human said:

shot in the dark about what?

Trying to ID an isolated bone between T-Rex and Nano

[Still_human]

16 hours ago, Macrophyseter said:

I'm no expert, but I've heard that tyrannosaur bones have a "honeycomb" shaped inner structure.

Yep, it's exactly like the center of these bones. The first one u can only see the slight edge of the spongy bone growth in the surface of the hollow inside*, but the 2nd bone is a perfect example of the medullary bone(honeycomb/spongy bone growth). BUUUUUT, the medullary bone is only there in females, and only "prior" to developing eggs(maybe just weeks, maybe many months. Dunno how long they have it building up before they use it for eggs). That means apparently males&young females have just hollow bones, and females of reproductive age can have anywhere from packed full of medullary, to none, and any amount in-between*, depending on what stage of reproduction they might be in. I can't find out if that means it starts hollowing out from the middle, or if the "strands" of bone forming the network just gets looser and thinner. 

--if anyone can help me find info on this type of thing, I would be extremely greatful 

[Still_human]

1 hour ago, Runner64 said:

Trying to ID an isolated bone between T-Rex and Nano

Oh ok, gotcha. Hmmmm....to be honest though, i don't know if I'd really mind getting something that turned out to b nano, instead. Well, at least in some cases. Afterall, nanos could be "T"s anyway.

[Still_human]

4 hours ago, Carl said:

You are right but I'm pretty sure the honeycomb feature is restricted to the vertebrae.

actually the medullary bone is within the long bones. Im not sure what, if any other bones it's in, but I don't THINK there's any in the verts. Other dinos(possibly many, I couldn't tell you how many)DO have verts with the honeycomb network of bone inside. I don't think it's called medullary bone though. I think medullary bone is strictly bone that is built up as calcium stores used by females to make eggs, so any bone in any animal, that even looks exactly the same, but is permanent/doesn't get used for eggs, its called something else. I know many sauropods have the honeycomb network of bone in their verts. For them it's so they don't get crushed under their own weight. That could be the main reason for any other animals to have the networks--weight. Pterosaurs have similar networks, although WAY less dense, for the purpose of cutting their weight down too.

[Carl]

4 hours ago, Still_human said:

actually the medullary bone is within the long bones. Im not sure what, if any other bones it's in, but I don't THINK there's any in the verts. Other dinos(possibly many, I couldn't tell you how many)DO have verts with the honeycomb network of bone inside. I don't think it's called medullary bone though. I think medullary bone is strictly bone that is built up as calcium stores used by females to make eggs, so any bone in any animal, that even looks exactly the same, but is permanent/doesn't get used for eggs, its called something else. I know many sauropods have the honeycomb network of bone in their verts. For them it's so they don't get crushed under their own weight. That could be the main reason for any other animals to have the networks--weight. Pterosaurs have similar networks, although WAY less dense, for the purpose of cutting their weight down too.

I'm not sure how to connect what you said to what I said. Medullary bone and the honeycomb texture of T. rex vertebrae are not really related. But here is a shot of the honeycomb texture:

[ynot]

I think that it is a far stretch to put any sort of an ID on such fragments. There is nothing about them that can be linked to a particular critter.

[Troodon]

Not sure you can drawn any conclusions from these fragments whatever size they are.   The second one looks like the cortex bone is covered with root etchings with some of the porous bone exposed in the center.   I know very little about medullary bones but know its very rare in the fossil record because of its short lived nature and its been found in a couple of theropods and ornithischians so it may be a dinosaurian trait.

[Still_human]

22 hours ago, Troodon said:

Not sure you can drawn any conclusions from these fragments whatever size they are.   The second one looks like the cortex bone is covered with root etchings with some of the porous bone exposed in the center.   I know very little about medullary bones but know its very rare in the fossil record because of its short lived nature and its been found in a couple of theropods and ornithischians so it may be a dinosaurian trait.

Can you elaborate on the first part? I don't understand about root etchings. 

As for the second part, that's something I was was wondering. How long it's present. but it's possible that it builds up for awhile. I just

don't know how it works:/ I do know it's been found in a number of trexes, so that must mean it's not altogether THAT uncommon. I don't know how often it's found in the other dinos it's been found in. As far as I'm aware, that's medullary bone, however rare it might be. Could that be another type of bone?

[Still_human]

23 hours ago, Carl said:

I'm not sure how to connect what you said to what I said. Medullary bone and the honeycomb texture of T. rex vertebrae are not really related. But here is a shot of the honeycomb texture:

Oh, ok, sorry, that I didn't know. I thought they were the same. But other than during medullary times, I'm pretty sure those bones are hollow. I DID wonder if the honeycomb structure you have there might have been an intermediate step in the medullary formation. Like it starts as thin strands and gets built up upon until it looks like a sponge. If they're not the same thing though, there goes that idea:/ I also don't know how many/which bones would carry medullary, other than long bones, and I don't know what the ones that don't carry it, if there are any, are like inside, or if all their bones are hollow. Could there be medullary in some, and in others the honeycomb?

[Carl]

10 minutes ago, Still_human said:

Oh, ok, sorry, that I didn't know. I thought they were the same. But other than during medullary times, I'm pretty sure those bones are hollow. I DID wonder if the honeycomb structure you have there might have been an intermediate step in the medullary formation. Like it starts as thin strands and gets built up upon until it looks like a sponge. If they're not the same thing though, there goes that idea:/ I also don't know how many/which bones would carry medullary, other than long bones, and I don't know what the ones that don't carry it, if there are any, are like inside, or if all their bones are hollow. Could there be medullary in some, and in others the honeycomb?

Here's how I understand it. Medullary bone and the honeycomb type are unrelated textures and form in different bones: long bones and vertebrae, respectively. In non-egglaying times, the long bones of females are simple, hollow tubes.

[Troodon]

Those white marks in your second bone are associated with root etchings a very common staining/etching of bones and teeth in the Hell Creek

 

http://www.academia.edu/19607959/Taphonomic_Bone_Staining_and_Color_Changes_in_Forensic_Contexts

 

 

Found this paper on Medullary Bones

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep23099

 

 

[Still_human]

Wow Tro, that was awesome, thank you so much! That answered the majority of the questions I had about MB(medullary bone)! You guys are really such a vast source of information and knowledge! I appreciate you guys taking your time to teach me, and the rest of us!

[Still_human]

1 thing that I'm confused about, and maybe it's my fault, but with all of you who are of the belief that these are NOT trex(or nano)fossils, I'm still unsurey if one of the issues is that you don't think the spongy bone growth is medullary bone? If that IS the case, what are your thoughts on what it IS? I wouldn't know because I don't know if there even ARE any other bone that's like thatrv other than in giant sauropods and pterodactyls.

[TyBoy]

chunkasaurus 

[ynot]

There is nothing diagnostic with these bones, so "chunkasaurus".

[Still_human]

That sounds like a wastebasket taxon to me

[Carl]

4 hours ago, Still_human said:

1 thing that I'm confused about, and maybe it's my fault, but with all of you who are of the belief that these are NOT trex(or nano)fossils, I'm still unsurey if one of the issues is that you don't think the spongy bone growth is medullary bone? If that IS the case, what are your thoughts on what it IS? I wouldn't know because I don't know if there even ARE any other bone that's like thatrv other than in giant sauropods and pterodactyls.

In my opinion, it doesn't seem to show the simple, hollow tube of a theropod bone in non-egglaying time PLUS the extra layer of medullary bone added to the lumen. Instead it looks like common non-theropod dinosaur bone which is like other non-theropod bones in general: And external rind of cortical bone that grades into a spongy interior. Very different. I do not see this as a theropod, in or out of egglaying condition.