Troodon Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 22 minutes ago, Runner64 said: Interestingly the following claim is made: "currently all tyrannosauroid material from this area is now regarded as A. montgomeriensis (D. Schwimmer, pers. comm.)." Here is a more current paper on Appalachian dinosaurs. I dont think it different than Schimmers claim https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2018/2123-appalachia-biogeography 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner64 Posted January 5, 2020 Author Share Posted January 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Troodon said: Here is a more current paper on Appalachian dinosaurs. I dont think it different than Schimmers claim https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2018/2123-appalachia-biogeography Thanks Frank nice paper. Do you think it’s reasonable that Campanian-aged sites throughout the eastern US could have Appalachiosaurus then? For example, Tar Heel Formation is Campanian however am not sure if Appalachiosaurus is described from there yet. The option of multiple tyrannosaurs is also relevant as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 I think we need to wait on NC. Call it indeterminate 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner64 Posted January 6, 2020 Author Share Posted January 6, 2020 Old tooth but still in collection. Left adaptor for my computer at school so cannot get better photos with a microscope but will add them when I get to it. Doubt I can identify this to a genus level. Pachysephalosauridae indet. Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) Hell Creek Formation Garfield County, Montana 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner64 Posted January 6, 2020 Author Share Posted January 6, 2020 Here is another new tooth: Archaeodontosaurus descouensi (Sauropoda) Jurassic (Bathonian) Sakaraha Formation Ambondromamy, Madagascar I believe this morphotype is referred to as Archaeodontosaurus sp. A recent paper on sauropod teeth from the Jurassic Sakahara Formation which assigns these sauropod teeth to 8 morphotypes. "the eight morphotypes recognized herein are tentatively referred to four sauropod taxa: Archaeodontosaurus descouensi, ‘Bothriospondylus madagascariensis’, Lapparentosaurus madagascariensis and an indeterminate specialized eusauropod, which may represent a new species and provides the first evidence of a Bathonian diplodocoid in Madagascar." Bindellini, Gabriele, and Cristiano Dal Sasso. “Sauropod Teeth from the Middle Jurassic of Madagascar, and the Oldest Record of Titanosauriformes.” Wiley Online Library, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 6 Sept. 2019, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/spp2.1282. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapsalis Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 Where do you purchase these beauties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner64 Posted January 22, 2020 Author Share Posted January 22, 2020 1 hour ago, Zapsalis said: Where do you purchase these beauties? Thank you for the kind words. I’ve been very fortunate to make friends with members and collectors around the world who have been collecting far longer than I have. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner64 Posted February 27, 2020 Author Share Posted February 27, 2020 Have been aiming for the more common species that are missing in my collection: A rough example but was too cheap not to get! Leptoceratops gracilis (Leptoceratopsidae) Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) Lance Formation Lusk, Wyoming 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner64 Posted February 27, 2020 Author Share Posted February 27, 2020 Despite not being the rarest tooth in my collection, it is still one of my favorites because of the size and quality. Any help with ID is welcomed. Theropod indet. Cretaceous Kem Kem Beds Taouz, Morocco Size: ~3 cm from base to tip 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner64 Posted February 29, 2020 Author Share Posted February 29, 2020 Dromaeosaurus albertensis (Dromaeosauridae) Cretaceous (Campanian) Judith River Formation Fergus County, Montana What helped with ID is mesial serrations should taper off while Saurorniothelestes should not. Also, serrations do not point towards the tip which I believe Saurorniothelestes does. @Troodon please correct me if I’m mistaken on this. And I also assume serration density also assists with ID which I am currently working on measuring. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 38 minutes ago, Runner64 said: Also, serrations do not point towards the tip which I believe Saurorniothelestes does. @Troodon please correct me if I’m mistaken on this. Not exactly...its very subtle but its the very very tip of the distal denticles point toward the tip. Also I dont see, with these photos, a twist to the mesial carina which would identify it as a cf Dromaeosaurus. Get that density count done and a closer photo of those distal denticles and that that should help. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner64 Posted February 29, 2020 Author Share Posted February 29, 2020 13 minutes ago, Troodon said: Not exactly...its very subtle but its the very very tip of the distal denticles point toward the tip. Also I dont see, with these photos, a twist to the mesial carina which would identify it as a cf Dromaeosaurus. Get that density count done and a closer photo of those distal denticles and that that should help. These photos should help show the mesial carinae twist. A lot more visible in person and difficult to photograph for a small tooth. Forgot to mention but it is 0.52”. I thought I brought my microscope to school with me but must have left it at home. Will get the serration density and those photos in next few weeks. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 Much better. Couldn't be a Saurornitholestes they and very compressed with a straight-ish mesial carina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner64 Posted March 1, 2020 Author Share Posted March 1, 2020 24 minutes ago, Troodon said: Much better. Couldn't be a Saurornitholestes they and very compressed with a straight-ish mesial carina. Thanks @Troodon I am not sure if this is true, but I have been told that Dromaeosaurus is much more rare than Saurorniothelestes in terms of faunal makeup when they are both present. Is this something you have noticed when looking at teeth in your own collection? I'll also get those measurements in coming weeks just to ensure the ID lines up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 Dromie teeth anywhere are harder to find than most others. Saurornitholestes are pretty common in the JRF. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner64 Posted March 1, 2020 Author Share Posted March 1, 2020 42 minutes ago, Troodon said: Dromie teeth anywhere are harder to find than most others. Saurornitholestes are pretty common in the JRF. Any idea how to ID a Bambiraptor tooth from Saurorniothelestes (if you think they’re distinct species)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 9 hours ago, Runner64 said: Any idea how to ID a Bambiraptor tooth from Saurorniothelestes (if you think they’re distinct species)? Lets first understand the playing field both are in the subfamily of Saurornitholestinae and Saurornitholestes has not been described from the TMF. Material discovered has been described as " S. indeterminate " so if both are valid they are very similar. I have not seen a paper that compares isolated Saurornitholestinae teeth from the TMF. The paper below does DFA on small teeth but with Saurornitholestinae from the TMF it uses the Holotype Bambiraptor teeth and no isolated ones. It does not present enough detail for collectors to compare against. So to answer your question I have no idea but are probably very hard to unambiguously separate the two. The paper makes the following statement: Teeth from the type specimen of Bambiraptor feinbergi are distinct from all other categories in both DFA and MANOVA analyses and are regarded as a distinct quantitative morphotype. Three categories have hit ratios of less than 90% (Milk River Dromaeosaurinae, Oldman Saurornitholestinae, and Oldman cf.R. gilmorei), but all ratios are higher than 85%. This result may be questionable, however, based on the somewhat ambiguous results of the other holotype comparisons and the immature nature of the holotype of Bambiraptor feinbergi Multivariate Analyses of Small Theropod Dinosaur Teeth and Implications for Paleoecological Turnover through Time By Derek W. Larson, Philip J. Currie 2013 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner64 Posted March 1, 2020 Author Share Posted March 1, 2020 2 hours ago, Troodon said: Lets first understand the playing field both are in the subfamily of Saurornitholestinae and Saurornitholestes has not been described from the TMF. Material discovered has been described as " S. indeterminate " so if both are valid they are very similar. I have not seen a paper that compares isolated Saurornitholestinae teeth from the TMF. The paper below does DFA on small teeth but with Saurornitholestinae from the TMF it uses the Holotype Bambiraptor teeth and no isolated ones. It does not present enough detail for collectors to compare against. So to answer your question I have no idea but are probably very hard to unambiguously separate the two. The paper makes the following statement: Teeth from the type specimen of Bambiraptor feinbergi are distinct from all other categories in both DFA and MANOVA analyses and are regarded as a distinct quantitative morphotype. Three categories have hit ratios of less than 90% (Milk River Dromaeosaurinae, Oldman Saurornitholestinae, and Oldman cf.R. gilmorei), but all ratios are higher than 85%. This result may be questionable, however, based on the somewhat ambiguous results of the other holotype comparisons and the immature nature of the holotype of Bambiraptor feinbergi Multivariate Analyses of Small Theropod Dinosaur Teeth and Implications for Paleoecological Turnover through Time By Derek W. Larson, Philip J. Currie 2013 Very well put thank you. For now, it appears close to impossible but I’ll stay-tuned in case a new paper is published Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner64 Posted March 21, 2020 Author Share Posted March 21, 2020 Updated display: I plan to number each tooth in the rikers with a label and correspond these to a sheet on the back of the riker box and an excel spreadsheet. If anyone has suggestions on how to get the labels to stick without moving (too thin to stay in place) they are much welcome! In the meantime, some other neat dino fossils I have but never posted: Juvenile raptor claw Hell Creek Formation Montana Sonorasaurus thompsoni gastroliths Turney Ranch Formation Wetstone Mountains, Arizona These pieces have an interesting story and were gifted to me by the paleontologist whom described Sonorosaurus 20-30 years ago. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossilsonwheels Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Runner64 said: Updated display: I plan to number each tooth in the rikers with a label and correspond these to a sheet on the back of the riker box and an excel spreadsheet. If anyone has suggestions on how to get the labels to stick without moving (too thin to stay in place) they are much welcome! In the meantime, some other neat dino fossils I have but never posted: Juvenile raptor claw Hell Creek Formation Montana Sonorasaurus thompsoni gastroliths Turney Ranch Formation Wetstone Mountains, Arizona These pieces have an interesting story and were gifted to me by the paleontologist whom described Sonorosaurus 20-30 years ago. Two sided tape might work for labels if you can’t do sticker labels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner64 Posted March 22, 2020 Author Share Posted March 22, 2020 35 minutes ago, fossilsonwheels said: Two sided tape might work for labels if you can’t do sticker labels. I think I thought about just about everything besides that thanks for the idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner64 Posted March 29, 2020 Author Share Posted March 29, 2020 On 12/15/2018 at 11:10 AM, Runner64 said: Afrovenator abakensis Jurassic (Bathonian-Oxfordian) Tiourarén Formation Marraba, Agadez Region, Niger Size: 1.2” Now that I have a microscope, I have been able to confirm that this tooth is from Afrovenator abakensis given these parameters supplied by @TyBoy and @Troodon in a post about a year ago: Afrovenator abakensis CBR: .42 for Lateral Teeth Mesial Density: 2 per 1 mm. E7 in photo Distal Density : 3 per 1 mm E8 in photo Mesial Carina extends down from the apex half to 2/3 of the crown. Mesial denticles apically inclined. E7 in photo My measurements: Mesial Density: 2-2.25/mm (varies across carina) Distal Density: 3/mm CBR: 0.37 (Width = 1.0 cm and Length = 2.7 cm) Mesial Carina extends 2/3 of tooth 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner64 Posted March 29, 2020 Author Share Posted March 29, 2020 On 1/3/2020 at 3:53 PM, Runner64 said: Suchomimus tenerensis Cretaceous (Aptian-Albion) Elrhaz Formation Gadoufaoua, Tenere Desert, Niger Suchomimus tenerensis serrations for those who haven't seen them before: Very very fine. Almost need a microscope to see them as they can be quite difficult to see with the naked eye if worn. @Troodon I also have theropod tooth fragment from Elrhaz Formation...might be difficult to ID, but has a mesial density of 2.5/mm (12.5/5 mm) and distal density of 4/mm (20/5mm). It is way too thick to be a Kryptops tooth if Kryptops is suppose to be quite compressed. Using these measurements from one of your posts: Tooth: CBR: .46 , CHR: 2.0 Mesial Density : 13 per 10 mm Distal Density : 15 per 10 mm Carinae on both edges extend to the base Note: Variations can occur across the dentition Is Eocarcharia even a contendor? That distal density is quite high and unfortunately cannot get CBR or CHR with a fragment. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted March 29, 2020 Share Posted March 29, 2020 Sorry not willing to guess. Its hard enough to deal with complete teeth from this region fragments are guesswork 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner64 Posted March 29, 2020 Author Share Posted March 29, 2020 5 minutes ago, Troodon said: Sorry not willing to guess. Its hard enough to deal with complete teeth from this region fragments are guesswork That's what I thought but wanted to double check now with measurements. Will leave as Theropod indet. 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