2019 Alberta dinosaur fossils and more

[MedicineHat]

26 minutes ago, MedicineHat said:

I have drawn a better illustration of the big bone here - it's clearly a large phalange but hard to photo and very rough.

 

4 hours ago, Runner64 said:

In the first picture, the middle one looks like hadrosaur ungual.

Here another perspective of the big phalange (an attempt to reconstruct using unrelated material)

Third picture showing it is hollow inside. Interesting...

[MedicineHat]

Just now, MedicineHat said:

 

Here another perspective of the big phalange (an attempt to reconstruct using unrelated material)

Third picture showing it is hollow inside. Interesting...

 

[MedicineHat]

4 hours ago, Runner64 said:

Ankylosaurid tooth but so many species of ankylosaurids from the formation I think you’d have trouble specifying genus.

Very front are a bunch of Tyrannosaurid teeth. Don’t think you can narrow down to species. A few look to be premaxillary teeth. The row behind them all appear to be ankylosaurid teeth. But like stated above, don’t think it may be narrowed down.  Third from the right does not look ankylosaurid however, looks more hadrosaurid.  Perhaps take some pictures of that one?

I'm confused about how to tell pachy teeth apart from ankylosaurs. I've looked at this one I highlighted in the pictures. Its cusp is subtle and it has the convex "ridge" running just off centre on one side...obviously worn on the other but showing sign that it curves outwards as well. 

I agree that 3rd one is probably hadrosaur...however a strange one compared to my many others.

Other teeth in front- Yes probably daspletasaurus or gorgosaurus premax's...unsure if smaller ones are dromeasaurus?

[MedicineHat]

4 hours ago, Praefectus said:

Nice fossil finds. I like the Lego guy for scale. 

Approx. 1.5 in or 4 cm.

Haha thanks. I think he's from the Jurassic world set too

[MedicineHat]

3 hours ago, fossilsonwheels said:

Fantastic finds and I too dig the lego guy for scale. nice touch

Wheres a tape or ruler when you need one! Hey there's lego!

[Runner64]

5 minutes ago, MedicineHat said:

I'm confused about how to tell pachy teeth apart from ankylosaurs. I've looked at this one I highlighted in the pictures. Its cusp is subtle and it has the convex "ridge" running just off centre on one side...obviously worn on the other but showing sign that it curves outwards as well. 

I agree that 3rd one is probably hadrosaur...however a strange one compared to my many others.

Other teeth in front- Yes probably daspletasaurus or gorgosaurus premax's...unsure if smaller ones are dromeasaurus?

This thread should help with ID pachysephalosaurid teeth.  These teeth are rare in comparison to most other dinosaur teeth you will find.  They were not very abundant at the time.  They should have a ridge running up the middle of the tooth.  Meanwhile, if you look at your teeth, specifically the first one, they have very large, rounded cusps.  The other ones you posted lined up do not have these large rounded cusps and is more typical of nodosaurid teeth.

The reason that hadrosaur tooth may look so odd is because it is not a worn shed tooth.  If it is a hadrosaur tooth, has characteristics of a more basal hadrosaur.

 

If you post pictures of your tyrannosaur teeth, can try and see if any appear to dromaeosaurid.

[MedicineHat]

2 hours ago, Runner64 said:

This thread should help with ID pachysephalosaurid teeth.  These teeth are rare in comparison to most other dinosaur teeth you will find.  They were not very abundant at the time.  They should have a ridge running up the middle of the tooth.  Meanwhile, if you look at your teeth, specifically the first one, they have very large, rounded cusps.  The other ones you posted lined up do not have these large rounded cusps and is more typical of nodosaurid teeth.

The reason that hadrosaur tooth may look so odd is because it is not a worn shed tooth.  If it is a hadrosaur tooth, has characteristics of a more basal hadrosaur.

 

If you post pictures of your tyrannosaur teeth, can try and see if any appear to dromaeosaurid.

This may be slightly helpful. I'm unsure what is sourornitholes dromeasaur and tyrannosaurid...doubtful it is anything else. 

 

I looked at troodons report and I'm stumped because the tooth in question does have the characteristics...as far as my brain understands...not saying I get it but perhaps @Troodon can help explain the identify of the ankylosaur/pachy? Tooth? (Posted page 1)?

 

[MedicineHat]

Or was that lord trillobite who posted the rex foot...

[Runner64]

16 minutes ago, MedicineHat said:

 

 

 

 

 

Going off this photo^^, The fifth from the left (smallest of all of them in the middle) looks to be raptor.  The one three to the right of it may also be raptor.  However, I am not too familiar with the fauna to be comfortable narrowing down to a genus.  Perhaps I will leave that to @Troodon

 

Dromeosaurid teeth are typically small and the Mesial (interior) serrations are much more pronounced and larger than the distal ones.  This is the most distinguishing trait from tyrannosauridae.

 

Some very nice teeth you have collected by the way!

[MedicineHat]

2 minutes ago, Runner64 said:

Going off this photo^^, The fifth from the left (smallest of all of them in the middle) looks to be raptor.  The one three to the right of it may also be raptor.  However, I am not too familiar with the fauna to be comfortable narrowing down to a genus.  Perhaps I will leave that to @Troodon

 

Dromeosaurid teeth are typically small and the Mesial (interior) serrations are much more pronounced and larger than the distal ones.  This is the most distinguishing trait from tyrannosauridae.

 

Some very nice teeth you have collected by the way!

Thanks!

I've read lots, including dinosaur systematics - brinkman.

Lots of descriptions and such for identifying. Most of the teeth I have that are under 2 cm have smaller anterior denticals than the posterior, so it throws me for a loop because I think others have id the 2cm+ longer and fatter ones as tyrann. Indet. Should the denticals be same size? I know there are lots more Id criterion so perhaps I need a microscope. Troodon says I shouldn't need one. My eyes are 20/20 so I'm missing something in the understanding or details.

[Runner64]

16 minutes ago, MedicineHat said:

Thanks!

I've read lots, including dinosaur systematics - brinkman.

Lots of descriptions and such for identifying. Most of the teeth I have that are under 2 cm have smaller anterior denticals than the posterior, so it throws me for a loop because I think others have id the 2cm+ longer and fatter ones as tyrann. Indet. Should the denticals be same size? I know there are lots more Id criterion so perhaps I need a microscope. Troodon says I shouldn't need one. My eyes are 20/20 so I'm missing something in the understanding or details.

If the serrations are noticeably different on the posterior and anterior edges, then it is most likely dromeosaurid.  Small tyrannosaur teeth vs. large dromeosaurid teeth can be a bit problematic and can become a little fuzzy.  On tyrannosaurids, denticles should be the same size or relatively close to the same size.  However, on dromeosaurids, they should not be the same size.  The posterior denticles should be noticeably larger than the anterior.  Troodontids also have some very extreme denticles and should be easier to tell apart from other theropods.  If you have any more you are particularly curious about, please post!

 

I don't know much about Dromaeosaurus but perhaps Troodon can help there.  Dakotaraptor in the Hell Creek Formation has teeth that bare resemblance to Nanotyrannus and can be difficult to positively ID.

 

 

[ynot]

Dear @MedicineHat,

Please do not quote Your own pictures, We only need to see a picture once.

 

Thank You.

Tony

 

PS Nice finds.

[MedicineHat]

5 minutes ago, ynot said:

Dear @MedicineHat,

Please do not quote Your own pictures, We only need to see a picture once.

 

Thank You.

Tony

 

PS Nice finds.

I understand this might be disruptive however 1). Im not tech savvy.

2). How else shall I provide reference to update info if I have several photos in discussion?

I dont know every rule here, but with respect to my skill on computer forums, I'm hosting the best I can. 

I'm open to tips

I might have to keep pressing buttons till  figure it out.

Thanks 

Rod

[ynot]

5 minutes ago, MedicineHat said:

I understand this might be disruptive however 1). Im not tech savvy.

2). How else shall I provide reference to update info if I have several photos in discussion?

I dont know every rule here, but with respect to my skill on computer forums, I'm hosting the best I can. 

I'm open to tips

I might have to keep pressing buttons till  figure it out.

Thanks 

Rod

In several replies on this thread You quoted Your previous post (including the already posted pictures).

This is not "breaking the rules", but is not necessary for the context of the thread.

You do not need to quote a post to make a reply and add other pictures.

You can number the items or starting separate threads for each item needing ID works too. You can start as many threads as You want to.

 

Please do not take offence at this, I am just trying to help.

The fossil forum is a very friendly place . If You have any questions or problems -just ask and someone will help You figure it out.

 

Regards,

Tony

[MedicineHat]

1 hour ago, Runner64 said:

If the serrations are noticeably different on the posterior and anterior edges, then it is most likely dromeosaurid.  Small tyrannosaur teeth vs. large dromeosaurid teeth can be a bit problematic and can become a little fuzzy.  On tyrannosaurids, denticles should be the same size or relatively close to the same size.  However, on dromeosaurids, they should not be the same size.  The posterior denticles should be noticeably larger than the anterior.  Troodontids also have some very extreme denticles and should be easier to tell apart from other theropods.  If you have any more you are particularly curious about, please post!

 

I don't know much about Dromaeosaurus but perhaps Troodon can help there.  Dakotaraptor in the Hell Creek Formation has teeth that bare resemblance to Nanotyrannus and can be difficult to positively ID.

 

 

Thanks, your info is a good refresher.

It's so typical that most of the teeth I find are smaller 1/4" to 1" tall and laterally probably 1/3" or less. 

Just my luck. Probably the overlap between small tyrannosaurs and large raptors!

 

[MedicineHat]

49 minutes ago, ynot said:

In several replies on this thread You quoted Your previous post (including the already posted pictures).

This is not "breaking the rules", but is not necessary for the context of the thread.

You do not need to quote a post to make a reply and add other pictures.

You can number the items or starting separate threads for each item needing ID works too. You can start as many threads as You want to.

 

Please do not take offence at this, I am just trying to help.

The fossil forum is a very friendly place . If You have any questions or problems -just ask and someone will help You figure it out.

 

Regards,

Tony

Honestly, I appreciate the advice and your tips. No offense taken. thanks Tony. Good to meet you. Glad you like the finds!

[Troodon]

I find it very confusing with all these repetitive photos so I will address a few.

 

This is an ankylosaurine ankylosaurid tooth

 

This is an ankylosaurid scute either nodosaurid or ankylosaurine

 

This is not a hollow theropod bone, theropod walls are thin walled

 

 

 

This might be the distal end of a hadrosaur metatarsal 

 

 

This could be a hadrosaur digit II, phalanx 2 a bit weathered so its hard to be sure but I do not see a theropod bone

 

[MedicineHat]

57 minutes ago, Troodon said:

I find it very confusing with all these repetitive photos so I will address a few.

 

This is an ankylosaurine ankylosaurid tooth

 

This is an ankylosaurid scute either nodosaurid or ankylosaurine

 

This is not a hollow theropod bone, theropod walls are thin walled

 

 

 

This might be the distal end of a hadrosaur metatarsal 

 

 

This could be a hadrosaur digit II, phalanx 2 a bit weathered so its hard to be sure but I do not see a theropod bone

 

Sorry for the confusion. I didn't organize this post well. Anyhow, thanks for your id's.

BTW, Whats the main giveaway to id it as an ankylosaur tooth rather than pachy?

I'm struggling to get the diff. Is it the cusps?

Rod

[Troodon]

Thescelosaurus and Pachycephalosaurid crowns are more leaf shaped than the bulbous like ankylosaurine ankylosaurid.  

[MedicineHat]

3 hours ago, Troodon said:

Thescelosaurus and Pachycephalosaurid crowns are more leaf shaped than the bulbous like ankylosaurine ankylosaurid.  

Oh I see. I found this possible armor spike very near the tooth so perhaps it is related material? 

Might you ID this specimen?

Laterally it's slightly flatter on one side and more rounded on the other. It's about 2" long. It comes to a perfect point and it looks like the consistency of the armor plate material.

[Troodon]

Would like to hold it but might be a pachy skull nodule "spike"

[MedicineHat]

18 hours ago, Troodon said:

Would like to hold it but might be a pachy skull nodule "spike"

Thanks for the response.

That sure would be cool if it was!

This potential Id gives me a direction to research for sure. photographs are a poor consolation to having the material in your hand, but anyhow, the journey and discoveries continue!

 

Rod

 

[hxmendoza]

On 5/5/2019 at 12:28 PM, LordTrilobite said:

Whoa that's a lot all at once. The Lego figure is a nice addition for scale.

 

 

Yeah, that ungual does indeed look like a Hadrosaur toe/hoof. Here is some reference of an Edmontosaurus foot.

 

The vertebra does look like possible Theropod. Looks like dorsal or caudal vertebra, probably caudal.

The other two bones, I dunno, they might be too fragmentary or perhaps better closeups might help with a possible ID.

Hm, I'd say it's a bit fat and short for most Tyrannosaurid toe bones. But the 4th phalange of the second toe shows some resemblance to that of T. rex.

 

Here's some reference of T. rex feet. Left foot on the left, and right foot on the right. Toe 2 is the one with the most phalanges on it (the toe that theropods have lost on the inner side of the foot is still counted as the first toe).

Right foot.

I think you have your toes mixed up. The toe with the most phalanxes is the fourth toe. Digit IV, not Digit 2 (Toe 2). Unless I’ve misinterpreted what you wrote. 

 

The Phalanx in question is very worn but does seem to resemble the third phalanx of Digit IV

(D-IV-3). It has a distinctive collateral ligament fossa. Hadrosaur distal phalanxes tend to lack this. 

 

D-IV-3 tyrannosaurid phalanxes have the lateral (outside) collateral ligament fossa much more pronounced then the medial (inside facing) fossa. Though this can be very variable from specimen to specimen.

[hxmendoza]

By the way. I envy the access to Canadian fossils that you have. 

 

Great finds. Thanks for sharing them with all of us!

[Manticocerasman]

 what a collection