Mystery bone

[PrehistoricNick]

So, this is my first post here, and I have what I imagine might be an unusual case for this forum.

 

I work for a travelling dinosaur exhibit, setting up a display of real fossils. Within the last year, our owners purchased a number of dinosaur fossils from a dealer (ie, an acquaintance of theirs) and shipped them to our CEO's home, who later sent them to our company's repair shop to have travel cases built, before shipping them to our show on the road. Somewhere in all of that, some of the fossils' original information was lost. I reached out to our executives who promised to look into it and get back to me, but naturally, they would forget, I would remind them, they would never get back to me, and I spent multiple months in that cycle.

 

So, here's everything I know:

I originally assumed it was a Triceratops scapula, because it had been offhandedly mentioned to me that was one of the purchases. However, I learned that the scapula was sent to our second show, and after comparing it to images of skeletons, I ruled that out. I changed my guess to Triceratops Ulna. A very well known paleontologist (whose name I won't reveal here) visited our show as part of a media promotion this summer, and when asked, took a look. He initially didn't disagree with my assessment, but a few days later emailed me, saying that after additional analysis of the pictures he took, he had changed his mind to Triceratops tibia, and later, after consulting a colleague who specializes in Ceratopsians, he asserted it was a Triceratops Fibula. Some time later, I finally talked to someone in accounting, who was able to get me the various invoices, which was somehow less helpful than you'd think it would be. But it did let me get in touch with our dealer, who is notoriously secretive and doesn't share much in terms of sourcing. She did reply to me, however, telling me it is an... Edmontosaurus humerus. Or at least that was the highlighted bone in the diagram she sent me, which is the closest piece of "official" documentation that I've seen since it was purchased. However, this looks different to the same bone on mounted skeletons of Edmontosaurus as well, at least to my eyes.

 

tl;dr: I no longer trust anybody. Multiple conflicting identifications, I don't know where it came from, other than a mention in the dealer's email that it's from the Hell Creek formation. Company is restructuring, so getting responses from anyone is a miracle. I can upload better pictures of the fossil later if necessary. I no longer put this piece on display because I simply don't know what to call it. Help.

[fossil_sea_urchin]

@Troodon

[PrehistoricNick]

I realize that I shared an older pic from a now defunct phone. Here are some better images that I just took, with a scale. I'll add more from additional angles as internet connection/file size allows.

 

[JohnBrewer]

@LordTrilobite

[Bobby Rico]

Welcome to the forum maybe @Troodon will be able to help.

[LordTrilobite]

Okay so, I don't think these photos are sufficient to judge. If it's a scapula one would expect it to be quite thin on one end. So I'd like to see a photo of the sides of the long end to see how thin it is. The preservation does look like it could be from the Hell Creek formation.

 

I've worked quite a bit on Triceratops bones myself in the museum where I volunteer. I don't think it matches very well with any of the bones you mentioned.

 

It does have a vague resemblance to a Trike scapula. But it doesn't quite match up. For one, both flat sides of the "shaft" look too rounded. For it to be a scapula I'd want to see a ridge on one side so that it would make a triangular cross section when broken through the middle. Then again, it might be pathologic and that could be why it looks weird.

 

Trike ulna. No. I don't think this looks anything like a trike ulna. It's too slender and doesn't have angled articular facet for the humerus.

 

Tibia, again a vague resemblance. The one end seems a bit flat and doesn't look like it has much of an articular facet. Though I could be misjudging based on the photos. Photos of both ends might help with this. I don't think it is one though. But I am not familiar enough with the trike tibia to say anything conclusive.

 

Trike fibula? Absolutely not. Much too fat. It would need to be at least half the width.

 

 

 

Edmontosaurus humerus? Nope. It looks nothing like any humerus, let alone one from a hadrosaur.

For reference, a hadrosaur humerus from my collection. Hadrosaur humeri generally look very similar. So it's a fine stand in for Edmontosaurus.

 

Some reference for Triceratops. I don't have any closeups of the limbs handy. But I can take some more next Friday.

 

 

I can't really find a match yet. But I think it most resembles a scapula of some large dinosaur, except that it doesn't seem to have the typical triangular cross section. The proportions seem roughly right for trike but the details do not. It doesn't look like hadrosaur or T. rex scapula either as it's too wide. If it is indeed from Hell Creek, perhaps look at Ankylosaurs maybe. I'm not that familiar with them but they do seem to have more stout scapulae.

[PrehistoricNick]

I was stymied by the file size limit, until I remembered that I have a Google Drive.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=12vAYxTew2koI2lE8IyQs4Z98eMMTn_Sc

Hopefully that helps.

@LordTrilobite

[PrehistoricNick]

This was the image the dealer sent me after I asked about the bone, with only the words:

"That’s from Edmontosaurus, Hell Creek Formation, upper Cretaceous."

I agree, it doesn't look like Edmontosaurus at all, but that's literally all I have from the seller.

 

The only reason I assumed Triceratops was because it had been mentioned to me that the company had purchased Triceratops bones, and this may have influenced the paleontologist's perception when I asked his opinion.

 

It feels like fossilized bone, so I don't *think* it's fake. I will be happy to take any other measurements that could help identify it.

[LordTrilobite]

 

18 hours ago, PrehistoricNick said:

This was the image the dealer sent me after I asked about the bone, with only the words:

"That’s from Edmontosaurus, Hell Creek Formation, upper Cretaceous."

I agree, it doesn't look like Edmontosaurus at all, but that's literally all I have from the seller.

 

The only reason I assumed Triceratops was because it had been mentioned to me that the company had purchased Triceratops bones, and this may have influenced the paleontologist's perception when I asked his opinion.

 

It feels like fossilized bone, so I don't *think* it's fake. I will be happy to take any other measurements that could help identify it.

 

It doesn't look like a fake in the photos. It all looks like real bone. I don't see any reason to assume it's fake.

 

 

19 hours ago, PrehistoricNick said:

I was stymied by the file size limit, until I remembered that I have a Google Drive.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=12vAYxTew2koI2lE8IyQs4Z98eMMTn_Sc

Hopefully that helps.

@LordTrilobite

 

That definitely helps yes. So the bone looks very thin and like one end has an unfused suture. I do think this is some type of scapula. The suture would then be where the coracoid attaches.

 

[PrehistoricNick]

After looking at pictures of some Ankylosaur scapula yesterday, I agree, that looks much closer. This might be a stretch, but maybe the seller got her hands on a bone identified as Edmontonia that was misread as Edmontosaurus?

[dinosaur man]

Yeah looks like a ankylosaur scapula