Dromaeosaurid Vs Oviraptorid

[Birdman]

Who thinks this Wealden claw (my fossil) is Oviraptorid? What are the diagnostic features, anyone know....Henry?? Looks like it could be either to me - Dromaeosaurid/Oviraptorid. It is interesting that we also have maniraptoran confirmed at this locality, so this is another one to consider when identifying small elements like this. I am finding very small theropod dinosaur bones and claws that could belong to these animals. Currently Oviraptorids are only known from the late Cretaceous! And only in Asia. Yet some forum members have identified this as Oviraptorid...a big deal if they are correct....but are they?!

 

The Wealden claw

 

Dromaeosaurid claw

 

Oviraptorid claw

[PaleoNoel]

Closer to the age of your material are the basal Chinese species and Microvenator celer from the cloverly formation of the Western US (however that's believed to belong to the caenagnathidae so it was more closely related to Gigantoraptor, Anzu and Chirostenotes than to the more basal forms that were present in Liaoning). Additionally, there have apparently been fossils found in the Wadhurst clay in England which seem to suggest they inhabited the area during the very early Cretaceous. All that's to say that Oviraptorosaurs have a wide distribution that we don't fully comprehend yet as more specimens need to be found and studied. That's part of the reason why I love seeing the fossils you find from your area, aside from the fact that it's just plain cool.

I'm no expert in identifying and distinguishing claws but yours does look somewhat similar to oviraptorosaur claws that i've seen. Take that  ID with a grain of salt as more knowledgeable people will probably provide a more definitive answer.

Once again, congratulations on finding such an awesome piece!

[Thecosmilia Trichitoma]

@Troodon

[JohnBrewer]

@hxmendoza 

[Al Tahan]

[Randyw]

I’m not an expert but it looks more dromaeosaurid. The deeper groove and the more “bulbous or robust” (not sure just how to put it)  top side point me that way.....

[Birdman]

 

8 hours ago, PaleoNoel said:

Closer to the age of your material are the basal Chinese species and Microvenator celer from the cloverly formation of the Western US (however that's believed to belong to the caenagnathidae so it was more closely related to Gigantoraptor, Anzu and Chirostenotes than to the more basal forms that were present in Liaoning). Additionally, there have apparently been fossils found in the Wadhurst clay in England which seem to suggest they inhabited the area during the very early Cretaceous. All that's to say that Oviraptorosaurs have a wide distribution that we don't fully comprehend yet as more specimens need to be found and studied. That's part of the reason why I love seeing the fossils you find from your area, aside from the fact that it's just plain cool.

I'm no expert in identifying and distinguishing claws but yours does look somewhat similar to oviraptorosaur claws that i've seen. Take that  ID with a grain of salt as more knowledgeable people will probably provide a more definitive answer.

Once again, congratulations on finding such an awesome piece!

Interesting analysis. Thanks PaleoNoel. No one is sure. So around in circles we go  

[Birdman]

1 hour ago, Randyw said:

I’m not an expert but it looks more dromaeosaurid. The deeper groove and the more “bulbous or robust” (not sure just how to put it)  top side point me that way.....

Yes, I noticed those features too which is why I am still leaning dromaeosaurid. I still would like to hear from the person who apparently confidently identified it as Oviraptorid and what they based that knowledge on. Are they an expert on theropod ungual morphology? Would be interesting to find out. Hoping they will see this post at some point and comment, it's an interesting one. Oviraptorid/Dromaeosaurid, to me it doesn't matter. I know most with an interest in natural history will appreciate what it is and its beauty.

[Birdman]

6 hours ago, JohnBrewer said:

@hxmendoza 

Is this the expert on theropod manus unguals? Great. I am interested in what they base their identification on.

[Birdman]

[TyBoy]

You might want to consider contacting the authors of the paper that identified the maniraptoran in this fauna.  When it comes down to it these paleontologists are the real experts.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257303864_A_tiny_maniraptoran_dinosaur_in_the_Lower_Cretaceous_Hastings_Group_Evidence_from_a_new_vertebrate-bearing_locality_in_south-east_England

[LordTrilobite]

It's like that blue and gold dress all over again.

[Birdman]

6 hours ago, TyBoy said:

You might want to consider contacting the authors of the paper that identified the maniraptoran in this fauna.  When it comes down to it these paleontologists are the real experts.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257303864_A_tiny_maniraptoran_dinosaur_in_the_Lower_Cretaceous_Hastings_Group_Evidence_from_a_new_vertebrate-bearing_locality_in_south-east_England

 

So we don't have any 'real' experts or qualified palaeontologists posting here on the forum then? Why is that? You would think they would be enthusiastic about this sort of thing. Shame.

 

Addendum: Palaeontologists can and do get rusty, it happens. It's a minefield this sort of thing, even for 'qualified' palaeontologists. I bet we could never get a clear consensus on this one between them!   But that is the way it is.

[bcfossilcollector]

Hi Birdman. There are members on the forum that do have a substantial knowledge of dinosaur fauna. Some may be professional palaeontologists others are very talented and well informed collectors. I look forward to any observations they may have as regards your fascinating acquisition. I think a few more photos might be helpful?  Great thread, very interesting!

[Birdman]

Thanks bcfossilcollector. My comments were meant with a touch of added sarcasm following TyBoy's comments regarding there being no 'real' experts here on the forum unless you are a qualified palaeontologist of which I respectfully have to disagree. But I agree with you. I think there are some very knowledgeable expert collectors on here. I am very familiar with the Wealden Group. I have made the Wealden fauna my area of expertise for two decades acquiring much knowledge along the way.

 

I should have mentioned the fact regarding images that more can be found here (bottom of this page) on one of my other threads and also pics can be found in my Vertebrate Fossil Of The Month entry. Hope this helps.

 

 

[Birdman]

If only those experts would care to comment as we know they are probably following this new thread. It would be nice to see if indeed this find could actually be Oviraptorid (fingers crossed!!). I would love this to go to scientific research. If not then I have done my bit in my efforts to alert the scientific community. I have tweeted this find to known academic experts as well and they have commented on how it is such a nice find, but none are wanting to go any further than this which just mystifies me as I think others will agree is a very intriguing discovery.

 

So let's see what happens. I am afraid TyBoy that my brother tried to contact one of the authors you mention but only had an acknowledgement response of receiving email from one of them and this was after prompting them for a response. This was a while ago and it was concerning another major find - the Potential Spino dentary bone, so I doubt they would need any further prompting! I know they are busy, but this doesn't explain the lack of follow up response to such a potentially important find, it just doesn't make any sense. It's no good, and our time is very precious too, we can't keep wasting our time with multiple follow up requests and keep receiving no response. However, the good news is that the London Natural History Museum seems much more promising regarding my brother's find as they have offered to take look at the specimen if we take it up there which is great news because we will want to take them up on their kind offer - bravo LNHM(!!), for taking the opportunity to work with us and lead by example. Only good will come of this. It's an opportunity to take the claw along with me, they can look at it and assess it if they want to, it's entirely up to them, but I will try. Then if it's not important all good as well. My private collection has always been open to academia.

 

Cheers.

[TyBoy]

48 minutes ago, Birdman said:

 My comments were meant with a touch of added sarcasm following TyBoy's comments regarding there being no 'real' experts here on the forum unless you are a qualified palaeontologist of which I

You are unfortunately putting words in my mouth that were not said.  If you read my comments I indicated that the paleontologist who identified  maniraptorans in this fauna are the real experts to comment on it.  We have excellent collector experts in this forum which you seem want to disparage with your comments.

[Birdman]

34 minutes ago, TyBoy said:

You are unfortunately putting words in my mouth that were not said.  If you read my comments I indicated that the paleontologist who identified  maniraptorans in this fauna are the real experts to comment on it.  We have excellent collector experts in this forum which you seem want to disparage with your comments.

Not at all and I was very respectful in my response. I respectfully disagreed. I  stated the following:

"I think there are some very knowledgeable expert collectors on here.", before you accused me of disparaging comments, so there was no need for you to say that as I had already clarified. How can this be disparaging towards experts, about others and my own self???!! I actually agree with the previous poster. 

 

Did you read my next follow up post regarding the maniraptoran authors? Please take a look, then get back to me and please be respectfull. I'm sorry if you took my words the wrong way, wasn't meant at all the way you took it. I was responding to your comments that no experts on the forum and I merely disagreed with you, I think there are. My original comment was tongue-in-cheek as I pointed out in my next post. Ok, so you do believe there are experts on here. Good, we are actually in agreement :).

 

I am very familiar with Wealden fauna as you can see, thus it makes sense that I would be aware of the scientific paper and of its authors. We tried to contact one of them but there was no follow up after a long time had past. Regarding a potentially important find we had to move on and we are going to accept an invitation from the LNHM to look at the spino jaw, which is fantastic news, don't you think? Hope this clears things up. My apologies again fi you thought I was putting words in your mouth. Ahhhh….the beauty of forums and texting! Ever had a text message with girlfriend/wife and when things can get easily taken the wrong way..... Best wishes.

 

 

[Jonwealden]

A great find Birdman. So rare.

I consider into the equation, that the dromaeosaurs are known from about 167 MYA, As opposed to a generally accepted 125 MYA approx  with Oviraptorosaurs .  I haven't looked into it in detail,. But if this is the fossil record of evidence thus far, then Dromaeosaur would be more likely, given your find is 135 MYA.  

 

Re the Baryonchid jaw section,  my initial email to the academic was 19/3/19.     With no reply in nearly 3 weeks, i mentioned on the forum that i had no reply as yet,.     A forum member then kindly gave me an alternate email , to which i re-sent the fossil info on 11/4/19.      

I then had an acknowledgment to my email  2 weeks later, on 26/4/19,  where the academic apologized for the delay and not yet had chance in evaluating it. Fair enough of course, but not had an email since. The NHM are interested and i will take the fossil up for them to take a look at.

 

 

[Birdman]

1 hour ago, Jonwealden said:

then had a reply  2 weeks later, on 26/4/19,  where the academic apologized for the delay and the lack of chance in evaluating it. Fair enough of course, but not had an email since. The NHM are interested and i will take the fossil up for them to take a look at.

 

A great find Birdman. So rare.

I consider into the equation, that the dromaeosaurs are known from about 167 MYA, As opposed to a generally accepted 125 MYA approx  with Oviraptorosaurs .  I haven't looked into it in detail,. But if this is the fossil record of evidence thus far, then Dromaeosaur would be more likely, given your find is 135 MYA.  

 

Thank you for your comments, JonWealden. 135-140 MYA Valanginian-Berriasian. Dromaeo, that is the way I am leaning. Nuthetes is known from the early Cretaceous, the same age roughly as the newly discovered Wealden claw. So I think we can safely conclude the claw is Dromaeosaurid given all the evidence in support of this and, unfortunately, with absolutely no evidence offered to support an Oviraptorid, this is case closed! This is a really cool find, but moving on now to my next major find! 

[Jonwealden]

 

Just a blog post and a nice ( fanciful) reconstruction.

 

http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2011/05/ashdown-maniraptoran.html

''

Naish and Sweetman note several characteristics of the vertebra that are similar to oviraptorosaurs. However, it is from the early Valenginian age, about 140 million years ago. This is nearly 20 million years earlier than the oldest known definitive oviraptorosaurs, Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopterx. ''

 

Any opinion that your find is Oviraptorid is hanging on the isolated cervical stretching that Oviraptorid fossil record gap of some 20 MYA..  If your claw has Oviraptorid signatures, then i hope there is some added expertise to aid at some point.   I am sure such small well preserved Theropod claws aren't being found  in the Wealden (or anywhere else for that matter) with any great frequency,, so it would be odd if this fails to capture interest with those researching this fauna.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Birdman]

Thanks for that Jonwealden. It's not Oviraptorid  

[TheClawGuy]

On 8/14/2019 at 3:54 AM, Birdman said:

Thanks for that Jonwealden. It's not Oviraptorid  

It actually is Oviraptorid  . Attached are two different Oviraptorid hand claws (both Hell Creek) that I overlaid with a photo I got from you awhile back that was more straight on. I used different filters so you can see that even thousand of miles and millions of years apart, the morphology is consistent. The bulbous bottom half of the blade, central vein groove instead of high groove (Dromaeosauroids’ groove raises much higher), and the extension at the top of the articulating end all point to Oviraptorid. There is several other small indicators but this very much Oviraptorid.

[Birdman]

Thank you for your comments. I really don't mind what it is. Oviraptorid would be pretty cool. Look, if this were Oviraptorid I think word would get around pretty quick as it would be such an exciting find and deemed significant by British and other palaeontologists and the fact it is easily available for research - they know where to find me . Someone ought to get in contact. Let's see what happens. I won't hold my breath.