Unknown tyrannosaur

[dinosaur man]

Hi guys they have research staff studying the dinosaur park formation the ones in there collection are unlikely a new species but they said they like my opinion and they said there might be a new species but they haven’t found it yet so hopefully they find it if I am right

[Jaimin013]

 

A tyrannosaur tooth from Dinosaur Park formation in my collection (middle of second pic next to my Scollard Rex - left & Appalachiosaurus - right). Labelled as tyrannosaurid indet. and it will always be like that with isolated teeth. No way to tell them apart from the two species of tyrannosaurs described from the location. If there is a new species who knows but one can only hope!

[dinosaur man]

Yeah I am can’t wait to here hopefully I don’t know when but again hopefully

[hxmendoza]

This tooth is the 264th specimen found at TMP site 36 in 1993. Hence the catalogue number:

TMP 1993.036.0264

 

Prior to Currie’s 2003 synonymization of Albertosaurus libratus with Gorgosaurus libratus. Any “Albertosaurus libratus” specimen’s were catalogued as Albertosaurus. 

 

I don't know where you got the info that this particular tooth is from a maxilla, as it is not described as such in the catalogue entry, and the picture itself is of little diagnostic use. Any “Albertosaurus” maxillae and skeletons found prior to 2003. Were catalogued as Albertosaurus, if from the DPP,  because prior to that all species libratus specimens were then known as Albertosaurus libratus. 

 

Albertosaurus sarcophagus is specific to the Horseshoe Canyon Formation. 

 

Synonymization of Albertosaurus libratus with Gorgosaurus libratus by Phil Currie sunk the Albertosaurus libratus name, and all DPP libratus specimens are now known as Gorgosaurus libratus, at least with the majority of paleontologists (Thomas Carr is an exception, at least as of a few years ago).

 

Believe me, it’s a simple issue of the catalogue not being updated. The TMP has many specimens and updating of identification catalogues is a very slow process in any museum. Whoever posted the picture and catalogue info very likely is someone just setting up the page for the TMP catalogue and they transcribed what they read off the catalogue information card. 

 

So no need to continue haggling over the name. It’s an unfortunate result of the slowness of catalogue updating. 

 

I’m in agreement with @Troodon, and others here, the tooth is a shed tooth that is NOT from a known maxilla, and therefore likely best considered as  tyrannosauridae sp. indet., post Currie’s 2003 Tyrannosaur skull morphology paper. 

[dinosaur man]

But also albertosaurus sp. is known from the Judith River formation and given the similarities between the dinosaur park formation and Judith River formation fauna wise if that’s not a new species there’s a possibility of a new tyrannosaur species from the dinosaur park formation 

[hxmendoza]

5 hours ago, dinosaur man said:

But also albertosaurus sp. is known from the Judith River formation and given the similarities between the dinosaur park formation and Judith River formation fauna wise if that’s not a new species there’s a possibility of a new tyrannosaur species from the dinosaur park formation 

 

You're jumping the gun on this with no real substantiating evidence. 

 

Just because JRF in Montana has Albertosaurus or it may be a new species there doesn’t necessarily mean there would be a third species in the DPP. 

 

Plus JRF in Montana encompasses different strata that also includes strata that is younger than the DPP in Canada. As in early Maastrichtian, which would likely have Albertosaurus anyway. There is likely a new species of Daspletosaurus in the higher levels of Maastrichtian Montana JRF. But that in no way means there is therefore a new species of Daspletosaur in the DPP in Canada. Again different strata layers. 

 

You seem to be pushing for a new species for no reason. And all based on one tooth that looks like any other Tyrannosaur tooth from Canada. Just sit back and let the evidence speak for itself. There may or may not be. And right now there likely isn’t. As they've told you. 

[Troodon]

The JRF Strata in Montana youngest is upper campanian 76.8ish.   Horseshoe  Canyon oldest is 76.9 ish..which would argue against Albertosaurus sp. in the JRF. since its specific to the HCF.   Agree with hxmendoza let science do its thing and lets see what the real evidence brings outside an isolated tooth. 

 

Montana 

 

Alberta

 

Illustrations are from D Fowlers 2017 revisions on the strat..of North America

[hxmendoza]

8 hours ago, Troodon said:

The JRF Strata in Montana youngest is upper campanian 76.8ish.   Horseshoe  Canyon oldest is 76.9 ish..which would argue against Albertosaurus sp. in the JRF. since its specific to the HCF.   Agree with hxmendoza let science do its thing and lets see what the real evidence brings outside an isolated tooth. 

 

Montana 

 

Alberta

 

Illustrations are from D Fowlers 2017 revisions on the strat of North America

Even better info on there not being any Albertosaurus. I didn’t know the new date info. Last I had heard, the latest start dating was still being debated. Nice to know it appears to be better refined. 

 

Thanks for the clarifying info @Troodon.

[dinosaur man]

I recently got to see a speciman from the RTMP that might provide proof one was a tooth the other a rib from TMP site 071 got it from the head of collections management  and he said the rib was a Albertosaurus rib

[Pemphix]

I think the topic has been discussed as far as it could be right now - without any scientific paper which may let to a new conclusion, the current view (scientists an experienced collectors) has been discussed here.

 

[dinosaur man]

I've just found out that this is a new species. But it was known to be a new species for a while now by Currie, its a new species of Daspletosaurus. 

[dinosaur man]

I have been learning a lot about this subject!! Here is a photo of the “new species” the Daspletosaurus sp.