fossil_sea_urchin Posted January 1, 2019 Share Posted January 1, 2019 Please look at these pictures of a dinosaur bone I bought not so long ago. Seller says it's from Duriatitan humerochristatus(a british Titanosaur),but it is from a different location to the other Duriatian remains and is not a very well preserved bone. It's from Abington, Oxon, UK Kimmeridge clay. Please write your opinions Thanks! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted January 1, 2019 Share Posted January 1, 2019 Could you post the photos directly here for us to see? Some of us are not as keen on downloading files to view images, or do not have iCloud access. ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil_sea_urchin Posted January 1, 2019 Author Share Posted January 1, 2019 Ok I will try that it might take some time though. Sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted January 1, 2019 Share Posted January 1, 2019 1 minute ago, fossil_sea_urchin said: Ok I will try that it might take some time though. Sorry No apologies necessary... We're not in any hurry, as the possible vert has gone unidentified for likely millions of years, so what's a few more hours or days? ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyBoy Posted January 1, 2019 Share Posted January 1, 2019 In looking at was described from a Duriatitan I only can find a humerus as part of the holotype so its hard to understand how a seller would be able to describe it to that species unless it's a humerus. Other sauropods are known from those deposits. Photos might help. This was recently posted, similiar subject of the ID of isolated bones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil_sea_urchin Posted January 1, 2019 Author Share Posted January 1, 2019 42 minutes ago, TyBoy said: In looking at was described from a Duriatitan I only can find a humerus as part of the holotype so its hard to understand how a seller would be able to describe it to that species unless it's a humerus. Other sauropods are known from those deposits. Photos might help. This was recently posted, similiar subject of the ID of isolated bones Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil_sea_urchin Posted January 2, 2019 Author Share Posted January 2, 2019 Here are the photos at last! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil_sea_urchin Posted January 2, 2019 Author Share Posted January 2, 2019 And some more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil_sea_urchin Posted January 2, 2019 Author Share Posted January 2, 2019 As TYBOY said Duriatitan is known from a 1.4 meter long humerus found at Smallmouth sands, Dorset, UK. Duriatitan humerochristatus means Dorset's Titan with a crested humerus, ironically the seller claims it was from Oxfordshire. I was thinking it was from Duriatitan but now I think it could even be Cetiosaurus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyBoy Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 This might help but from what Im reading other sauropod including indeterminate ones look like are present in that deposit. Most likely need someone knowledgeable on sauropods to ID yours if possible given it's condition. UpchurchMartin2003-cetiosaurus.pdf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil_sea_urchin Posted January 2, 2019 Author Share Posted January 2, 2019 2 hours ago, TyBoy said: This might help but from what Im reading other sauropod including indeterminate ones look like are present in that deposit. Most likely need someone knowledgeable on sauropods to ID yours if possible given it's condition. UpchurchMartin2003-cetiosaurus.pdf Thank You! It really does look quite similar to the first diagram.In fact it seems more likley Cetiosaurus than Duriatitan. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil_sea_urchin Posted January 2, 2019 Author Share Posted January 2, 2019 Does anyone know an expert for oxforshire dinosaur fossils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DE&i Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 Looks more Pliosaur to me, especially the find being from Abingdon, Kimmeridge Clay. 2 Regards.....D&E&i The only certainty with fossil hunting is the uncertainty. https://lnk.bio/Darren.Withers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike from North Queensland Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 I tend to agree with DE&i with the two nutrient holes in the bottom that are typical with some Pliosaurs Unsure if nutrient holes are seen in sauropods as could not find an image of the underside of a sauropod vertebra Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyBoy Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 It would be good to obtain some straight in photos of the vertebra from all sides that are not from obtuse angles. Difficult to tell much with such closeup photos where the specimen is not completely in the frame. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DE&i Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 That is good advice @TyBoywith some scale bar. @Mike from North Queenslandspotted the foramina which I missed. It is normal for sauropods to have nutrient foramina; the transverse processes look a little weird to me though, and is that a ventral keel in this photo. 1 Regards.....D&E&i The only certainty with fossil hunting is the uncertainty. https://lnk.bio/Darren.Withers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil_sea_urchin Posted January 3, 2019 Author Share Posted January 3, 2019 The measurements are 14 by 7cm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil_sea_urchin Posted January 3, 2019 Author Share Posted January 3, 2019 13 hours ago, TyBoy said: It would be good to obtain some straight in photos of the vertebra from all sides that are not from obtuse angles. Difficult to tell much with such closeup photos where the specimen is not completely in the frame. Here are some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil_sea_urchin Posted January 3, 2019 Author Share Posted January 3, 2019 And more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DE&i Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 @paulgdls may be able to help. Regards.....D&E&i The only certainty with fossil hunting is the uncertainty. https://lnk.bio/Darren.Withers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pemphix Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 Sure that it is from dinosaur not from marine reptile ? On the very first view i would tend more to marine reptile.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DE&i Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 19 minutes ago, Pemphix said: Sure that it is from dinosaur not from marine reptile ? I agree at the moment, if so this would be quite an significant find. 1 Regards.....D&E&i The only certainty with fossil hunting is the uncertainty. https://lnk.bio/Darren.Withers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulgdls Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 Hi Thanks Darren. Everything about this says pliosaur to me but I wouldn't rule out dinosaur. After all the argument about whether some of the huge Peterborough centra are pliosaur or sauropod has been raging for decades, as Darren knows. The find location, the total absence of the neural arch, the perfectly symmetrical paired sub central foramina, the large cell open bone structure and slightly concave articular surfaces all give the same indication. It looks as though there are (or were) chevron facets and the rib articulations are not divided and seem relatively small, so I think it may be an early caudal. Its certainly very big so probably Pliosaurus macromerus. Paul Here's a Pliosaurus macromerus cervical from Westbury, Wiltshire (Kimmeridgian) for comparison (13 x 12 x 5 cm): 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DE&i Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Thank you @paulgdlsfor your opinion. I too think Pliosaur but as you say difficult to rule out dinosaur until seen up close. It's the ventral keel you can see I think looks interesting. I've read that this is missing from S.macromerus but present in P. brachydeirus. by L. B Tarlo a giant Pliosaur from the Kimmeridge Clay vol2_part1_pp39-55 (1).pdf Regards.....D&E&i The only certainty with fossil hunting is the uncertainty. https://lnk.bio/Darren.Withers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil_sea_urchin Posted January 4, 2019 Author Share Posted January 4, 2019 13 hours ago, paulgdls said: Hi Thanks Darren. Everything about this says pliosaur to me but I wouldn't rule out dinosaur. After all the argument about whether some of the huge Peterborough centra are pliosaur or sauropod has been raging for decades, as Darren knows. The find location, the total absence of the neural arch, the perfectly symmetrical paired sub central foramina, the large cell open bone structure and slightly concave articular surfaces all give the same indication. It looks as though there are (or were) chevron facets and the rib articulations are not divided and seem relatively small, so I think it may be an early caudal. Its certainly very big so probably Pliosaurus macromerus. Paul Here's a Pliosaurus macromerus cervical from Westbury, Wiltshire (Kimmeridgian) for comparison (13 x 12 x 5 cm): So if it is a pliosaur does that mean it is worth less? 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