Fake Fossil or not i like to buy

[Tomtomtom]

Hi, definitivly need help with this 

opinions welcome! Is this fake or different from what it is claimed to be: Part of Skull Plate or vertebra pachycephalosaurus. I can Not identify such a bone on fotos from Fossils from this genus 

Thanks to all 

[SailingAlongToo]

Nice looking vertebrae. What are the deminsions?

[LordTrilobite]

That's definitely a real caudal vertebra. Definitely not any part of a skull. Looks like hadrosaur.

 

The lines you're seeing is where it was likely repaired.

 

Here's an example of an Edmontosaurus caudal vertebra from my collection.

 

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

Cranial fragment definitely is not! As already said, this bone resembles more a caudal vertebra.

 

Please, where was this fossil discovered? It's easier to help if I know the origin.

 

[Tomtomtom]

Thanks to all for your contributions.

This is definitively helpful.

Unfortunately, I´m not familiar with / cannot find the individual "Reply" Options in the Chat, so I Reply to all

 

It was found in Montana (Hell Creek Formation), 

Masstrichtium 66-72 mio

dimensions 5,5 x 6 x 7,2

claimed to be Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis vertebra, but same content Claims it to be nice part of the thickened skull (which is nonsense, I suppose this was added by a seller assistant later to make it more interesting or due to a misunderstanding, perhaps he saw the bipartite processes which remembered him of thorned skull parts)

I do not know the main differences in anatomy of the vertebrae of the different regions (e.g. caudal cervical dorsal...)

But the two processes: Are they near the prezygapophysis? and the broken one on the other side near the postzygapophysis?

Are the 2  the "transverse processes"? I assume the foramen is buried below the 2 processes and filled with material?
 

So you rather assume another dino, Hadrosaur.

May it be Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis despite the additional claimed thorned-skull nonsense ?

May the length and shape of the 2 processes suitable for identification of the correct species?

I mean: could an expert of caudal transverse processes in sauropod dinosaurs tell which species it is?

Thanks!

 

 

[Kane]

1 minute ago, Tomtomtom said:

Thanks to all for your contributions.

This is definitively helpful.

Unfortunately, I´m not familiar with / cannot find the individual "Reply" Options in the Chat, so I Reply to all

 

As a forum, this is an open posting area. We all learn something from being participants in the discussion.  

If you need to discuss something more privately with a member, you can message them (roll over the avatar image of the member you'd like to contact, and you'll see a pop-up box with "message" at the very bottom left of that box).

If you'd like to signal the attention of a particular member so that they will be notified that you have responded, use the ampersand + screen name like this: @Tomtomtom

[LordTrilobite]

2 hours ago, Tomtomtom said:

It was found in Montana (Hell Creek Formation), 

Masstrichtium 66-72 mio

dimensions 5,5 x 6 x 7,2

claimed to be Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis vertebra, but same content Claims it to be nice part of the thickened skull (which is nonsense, I suppose this was added by a seller assistant later to make it more interesting or due to a misunderstanding, perhaps he saw the bipartite processes which remembered him of thorned skull parts)

I do not know the main differences in anatomy of the vertebrae of the different regions (e.g. caudal cervical dorsal...)

But the two processes: Are they near the prezygapophysis? and the broken one on the other side near the postzygapophysis?

Are the 2  the "transverse processes"? I assume the foramen is buried below the 2 processes and filled with material?
 

So you rather assume another dino, Hadrosaur.

May it be Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis despite the additional claimed thorned-skull nonsense ?

May the length and shape of the 2 processes suitable for identification of the correct species?

I mean: could an expert of caudal transverse processes in sauropod dinosaurs tell which species it is?

Thanks!

So yeah, the whole part about it being skull is complete nonsense. This is definitely a caudal or tail vertebra of a dinosaur.

 

It's also definitely from the back half of the tail. You are correct that the broken part on the posterior side is where the postzygapophyses would be. On this broken end the neural spine would also attach. The prezygapophyses are the two little nubbins that point forward and are still intact. This vertebra does not have transverse processes. In most dinosaurs only caudal vertebrae that are situated more towards the front of the tail have these. The transverse processes are the "wings/flanges" that protrude from the side and are horizontal in most dinosaurs. The neural arch is partially preserved here, which is the archway that goes over the neural canal. The prezygapophyses, postzygapophyses, lateral processes and neural spine all attach to this neural arch.

 

I don't think sauropod experts are very relevant here since this is definitely not a sauropod vertebra.

 

The location of Hell Creek does contain Pachycephalosaur remains as well as the Hadrosaurid Edmontosaurus. Though I am not that familiar with Pachycephalosaurs I do have some photos I took when I was at the Black Hills Institute. Here is the best photo I took of the Pachy they had on display. Looking at the tail, it does not match very well. The neural spines are located more forward than in the vertebra you posted. Even though the neural spine is broken off in your example, we can see that it was attached to the broken off part instead of in the middle of the neural arch which is partially preserved. This pretty much rules out Pachycephalosaurus alltogether. Which leaves Hadrosaurs as an option, which I am a bit more familiar with.

 

Just like the example I posted earlier from my collection, your example shows the same smooth hexagonal shape on the vertebra centrum, which is quite typical of hadrosaurs. The neural spine being situated more towards the back also fits. The whole shape in general just fits with a Hadrosaur caudal vertebra from somewhere in the back half of the tail. It's also not from the very tip of the tail as it's much too fat for that.

 

And since there is only one Hadrosaur described from the Hell Creek formation, we can fairly safely say that this is the caudal vertebra of an Edmontosaurus annectens.

 

[Tomtomtom]

wow, this is more than I expected and it sounds completely plausible to me.

Thanks for all this valuable Information and your time!

When I´m in Frankfurt next time, I will go to the Museum of the Senckenberg foundation and "inspect" their Edmontosaurus there, they have a well preserved Edmontosaurus "Mummy"

embedded in Skin prints there, found in 1910

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmontosaurus-Mumie_im_Senckenberg_Naturmuseum

Thomas

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

Very cool and would be a great addition in any collection! I had already imagined it was Hell Creek formation! Powder River County?

 

You had incredible luck that this vertebra is not from Judith River, so we can drastically reduce the possibilities!

 

It's a beautiful vertebra! A small part of the lateral process is broken, but even so I agree, that is, it is definitely a caudal vertebra of Hadrosaur:

 

 

And for the reasons already mentioned, a Sauropod is completely out of the question, and Pachycephalosaurus quite improbable.

 

In the world of vertebrate fossils, unfortunately the most common is to find the processes of the vertebrae broken, and most of the time, all that can be observed is only the centrum, but it is not your case because most of the processes can still be observed in your specimen, but I see cracks in the processes:

 

 

 In the not too distant future, these cracks could cause even bigger problems, so I strongly recommend a stabilization with Paraloid B-72.

 

 The bones of Hadrosaur are the most collected and at the same time are the least coveted of the Hell Creek formation, and Edmontosaurus caudal vertebrae are relatively common, although the few available outcrops where collection is permitted are difficult to access.
So as already said, Edmontosaurus annectens is an excellent bet, although that in the Hell Creek there are some hints that there might have been some Lambeosaurines, but are extremely rare, and I also think it improbable here.  

 

[Tomtomtom]

Hi, thanks once again, dont know if powder river County,

perhaps I´ll figure this out later.

Yesterday I managed to buy it in an auction

great!

[jpc]

Definitely a hadrosaur caudal with missing neural spine, but as mentioned above, the neural spine would have been leaning way back, as in S-des-I's purple/pink drawing.  That, and the heart shape make it a hadrosaur.  Edmontosaurus is the common one in the Hell creek but Anatotitan also exists.  (I think some folks think they are the same).  

 

S-d-I... did I miss something?  Why do you assume it is form Powder River County?  

[TyBoy]

21 hours ago, Seguidora-de-Isis said:

 

 The bones of Hadrosaur are the most collected and at the same time are the least coveted of the Hell Creek formation, and Edmontosaurus caudal vertebrae are relatively common, although the few available outcrops where collection is permitted are difficult to access.
So as already said, Edmontosaurus annectens is an excellent bet, although that in the Hell Creek there are some hints that there might have been some Lambeosaurines, but are extremely rare, and I also think it improbable here.  

 

Have not seen any papers about any Lambeosaurines in the HC.  The only hadrosaur described is Edmontosaurus.  One other fact is that Ceratopsians like Triceratops are the most commonly collected dinosaur in the HC not Hadrosaurs and by a huge difference.

 

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

22 hours ago, TyBoy said:

Have not seen any papers about any Lambeosaurines in the HC.  The only hadrosaur described is Edmontosaurus.  One other fact is that Ceratopsians like Triceratops are the most commonly collected dinosaur in the HC not Hadrosaurs and by a huge difference.

 

 

In my post I talked about Hadrosaurs, and the caudal vertebrae are the most common collected in HC. But in general terms, of course Ceratopsians are the most abundant fossils. There is no role to speak of the existence of Lambeosaurines in HC, but there are rare isolated fossils that give us clues to Lambeosaurines in HC, and I will not be scared if in the not too distant future, a Lambeosaurine is described scientifically from the HC.

 

Scientific papers are very important, but we can never underestimate the value of the evidences before new papers can be published.

 

Maybe this misunderstanding came out thanks to the Google translator, since I typed in evidence from Lambeosaurines, but the translation came out: "there are some hints that there might have been some Lambeosaurines." Unfortunately I do not speak English.

 

[Haravex]

Everyone is forgetting the possibility of thescelosaurus?

[LordTrilobite]

35 minutes ago, Haravex said:

Everyone is forgetting the possibility of thescelosaurus?

Nope, didn't forget. I just didn't think it was plausible as an option.

In the photo I posted earlier, though I did not mention it, the tail in front of the Pachycephalosaurus is that of Thescelosaurus.

On 1/6/2019 at 3:53 PM, LordTrilobite said:

The location of Hell Creek does contain Pachycephalosaur remains as well as the Hadrosaurid Edmontosaurus. Though I am not that familiar with Pachycephalosaurs I do have some photos I took when I was at the Black Hills Institute. Here is the best photo I took of the Pachy they had on display. Looking at the tail, it does not match very well. The neural spines are located more forward than in the vertebra you posted. Even though the neural spine is broken off in your example, we can see that it was attached to the broken off part instead of in the middle of the neural arch which is partially preserved. This pretty much rules out Pachycephalosaurus alltogether. Which leaves Hadrosaurs as an option, which I am a bit more familiar with.

 

The centra of the more anterior caudal vertebrae seem a little similar. But those do not match due to the lack of lateral processes on the vertebra in this thread. And the more posterior caudal vertebrae do match more in the shape of the neural arch, but the centra are different in this case. Though there's a strong ridge running along the side of the centrum that resembles the hexagonal centrum shape on that of Hadrosaurs, the centra are much less fat than the typical Hadro caudal vert. The Thescelosaurus verts we see in my photo are much more slender.

 

Thescelosaurus also didn't get too big. OP provided a scale, that I assume is in cm due to OP being in Germany, the vertebra is 7 cm high, which isn't that big for a Hadrosaur. But it's already pushing the size if it were to be a Thescelosaurus.

 

In short, I just think the vert is generally much to fat and stumpy to be Thescelosaurus. Therefore, Edmontosaurus, which is quite a good fit in terms of morphology.

 

 

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

4 hours ago, Haravex said:

Everyone is forgetting the possibility of thescelosaurus?

 

It's true my dear friend Haravex! I confess that I completely forgot about Thescelosaurus. But I agree. If compared to the size of the vertebra of this post (5.5 x 6 x 7.2) and the morphology compared, it is not a good fit.

 

For comparison, see here some Thescelosaurus vertebrae:

 

 

 

Edmontosaurus annectens remains an excellent candidate.