Jump to content

Triceratops Squamosal Section I.D. Help


Stegonick23

Recommended Posts

Hello! I recently attended a show and picked up this Triceratops Squamosal Section (labeled as such). I don't have much experience when it comes to ceratopsian bones and I was hoping you guys could help either confirm the I.D. or correct it. It was found in the lance Creek Formation, Wyoming by the seller, dated between 69 to 66 Mya. I know determining the exact species is difficult, and I was thinking of using the I.D. of Chasmosaurinae indet. (Thanks @-Andy- for your helpful naming guide on the "Dromaeosaurus Teeth?" thread :) ). I tried to get appropriate angled pictures to help with I.D.ing but if another view would be helpful that I missed, I'm more than happy to get some more pictures once I get home. Thanks for your help!!

20191016_192641.jpg

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Stegonick23 changed the title to Triceratops Squamosal Section I.D. Help
9 minutes ago, jpc said:

If it is from the Lance you can call it Tirceratops or Torosaurus.  

Thanks for your help, would Triceratopsini sp. be more appropriate? Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chasmosaurinae indet. works since it could be either Trike or Toro but that assumes they are the only two large bodied Ceratopsian in the Lance/HC formations.  There are a couple of other skulls around that the owners are claiming they are new species.  Ceratopsian indet is more understood

  • I found this Informative 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Troodon said:

Chasmosaurinae indet. works since it could be either Trike or Toro but that assumes they are the only two large bodied Ceratopsian in the Lance/HC formations.  There are a couple of other skulls around that the owners are claiming they are new species.  

Thanks for your help! Is it safe to say that it is a squamosal section piece? A quick search brought up this image from the Smithsonian. I don’t know anything about Chasmosaurinae skulls, and just learned where the squamosal section actually is (there was some discrepancy when I bought it where the seller described the squamosal as being where the nasal section is and that’s why I’m inquiring on TFF). Thanks again, I really appreciate your help!

 

Image Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/triceratops-v-triceratops-38373087/

20110520083117dinoskulls.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was concerned about that since a squamosal can be pretty curvy but every skull is different.  You can see straight sections on the ones below but it could be a parietal.  One expert on these skulls is Darren Tanke at the Tyrrell in Alberta.  You might want to contact him.  Does it matter ?  Call it frill section?

 

Trike versus Toro

Screenshot_20191017-072021_Chrome.thumb.jpg.f6494787509d404be10e6a4731340e69.jpg

 

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Torosaurus-and-Triceratops-compared-A-Triceratops-prorsus-YPM-1822-and-B-Torosaurus_fig10_221890987

 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Troodon said:

I was concerned about that since a squamosal can be pretty curvy but every skull is different.  You can see straight sections on the ones below but it could be a parietal.  One expert on these skulls is Darren Tanke at the Tyrrell in Alberta.  You might want to contact him.  Does it matter ?  Call it frill section?

 

Trike versus Toro

Screenshot_20191017-072021_Chrome.thumb.jpg.f6494787509d404be10e6a4731340e69.jpg

 

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Torosaurus-and-Triceratops-compared-A-Triceratops-prorsus-YPM-1822-and-B-Torosaurus_fig10_221890987

 

Frill section sounds good to me (it’s also easier for people to identify with “frill section” than “squamosal section” anyway), I was just curious if it was easily recognizable to someone more experienced as I know next to nothing about it at the moment. I really appreciate your help with this and for taking the time to take a look! Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Stegonick23 said:

easily recognizable to someone more experienced as

I dont know if someone like Darren could say squamosal or parietal with his experience.  He's the lead person on  Facebooks Ceratopsian group.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Troodon said:

 

I dont know if someone like Darren could say squamosal or parietal with his experience.  He's the lead person on  Facebooks Ceratopsian group.

I had no idea it was this difficult to differentiate the two; I learn something new every day on this forum. Thanks again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing that bothers me about it is the rather acute angle of the edge.  All the frill pieces I have seen have more rounded edges.  troodon... any comments?

 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep not the typical frill peice I have seen but they are all different with age and species.  Why I suggest calling in a Ceratopsian expert.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Troodon said:

Yep not the typical frill peice I have seen but they are all different with age and species.  Why I suggest calling in a Ceratopsian expert.

 

20 minutes ago, jpc said:

The one thing that bothers me about it is the rather acute angle of the edge.  All the frill pieces I have seen have more rounded edges.  troodon... any comments?

 

Is it possible that it's a different part of the skull other than the frill, with the seller I.D. just being inaccurate? I've started to look into contacting a Ceratopsian expert (Darren Tanke if possible based on your previous suggestion) but I’ve never gone through this process and I’m wondering what the best method for continuing would be? Is it best to contact the museum and ask to be put in touch, or try to find any contact info online? Thanks for your help, I really appreciate it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

@Troodon @jpc I promised to reply back once I received some more info. I was able to get in contact with Mr. Darren Tanke who recommended I join his Facebook group "Ceratopsian Dinosaurs", as he said he works more with centrosaurines, and others who work on chasmosaurines and Triceratops might be able to provide more insight. From the comments, it looks like it's a pretty difficult piece to identify, even with some macro shots I added in following a request. A full consensus wasn't really made, but it was recommended that it probably was either a scapula section based on the sharp edge or a limb girdle fragment (following the macro shots which didn't really show an expected woven/long grain texture to it for an ilium). Regardless, I'm still really happy I acquired it and inquired on this forum. Just wanted to thank you guys again for helping me out with the I.D.! :)

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does look like it could be a piece of Ceratopsian frill. But the thickest part seems too thick for frill and the internal bone structure also doesn't look like typical frill. Though that might be matrix covering up details. The breaks are quite typical of Ceratopsian frill though. I've only ever seen those types of breaks in pieces of frill.

The triangular cross section does seem consistent with scapula though. Especially considering that cross section seems to show some possible spongy bone. In my experience most frill areas tend to be less tapered in cross section and more parallel with little to no spongy bone.

  • I found this Informative 2

Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...