Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'juvenile'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
    Tags should be keywords or key phrases. e.g. otodus, megalodon, shark tooth, miocene, bone valley formation, usa, florida.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Fossil Discussion
    • Fossil ID
    • Fossil Hunting Trips
    • General Fossil Discussion
    • Partners in Paleontology - Member Contributions to Science
    • Fossil of the Month
    • Questions & Answers
    • Member Collections
    • A Trip to the Museum
    • Paleo Re-creations
    • Collecting Gear
    • Fossil Preparation
    • Is It Real? How to Recognize Fossil Fabrications
    • Member-to-Member Fossil Trades
    • Fossil News
  • Community News
    • Member Introductions
    • Member of the Month
    • Members' News & Diversions
  • General Category
    • Rocks & Minerals
    • Geology

Categories

  • Annelids
  • Arthropods
    • Crustaceans
    • Insects
    • Trilobites
    • Other Arthropods
  • Brachiopods
  • Cnidarians (Corals, Jellyfish, Conulariids )
    • Corals
    • Jellyfish, Conulariids, etc.
  • Echinoderms
    • Crinoids & Blastoids
    • Echinoids
    • Other Echinoderms
    • Starfish and Brittlestars
  • Forams
  • Graptolites
  • Molluscs
    • Bivalves
    • Cephalopods (Ammonites, Belemnites, Nautiloids)
    • Gastropods
    • Other Molluscs
  • Sponges
  • Bryozoans
  • Other Invertebrates
  • Ichnofossils
  • Plants
  • Chordata
    • Amphibians & Reptiles
    • Birds
    • Dinosaurs
    • Fishes
    • Mammals
    • Sharks & Rays
    • Other Chordates
  • *Pseudofossils ( Inorganic objects , markings, or impressions that resemble fossils.)

Blogs

  • Anson's Blog
  • Mudding Around
  • Nicholas' Blog
  • dinosaur50's Blog
  • Traviscounty's Blog
  • Seldom's Blog
  • tracer's tidbits
  • Sacredsin's Blog
  • fossilfacetheprospector's Blog
  • jax world
  • echinoman's Blog
  • Ammonoidea
  • Traviscounty's Blog
  • brsr0131's Blog
  • brsr0131's Blog
  • Adventures with a Paddle
  • Caveat emptor
  • -------
  • Fig Rocks' Blog
  • placoderms
  • mosasaurs
  • ozzyrules244's Blog
  • Terry Dactyll's Blog
  • Sir Knightia's Blog
  • MaHa's Blog
  • shakinchevy2008's Blog
  • Stratio's Blog
  • ROOKMANDON's Blog
  • Phoenixflood's Blog
  • Brett Breakin' Rocks' Blog
  • Seattleguy's Blog
  • jkfoam's Blog
  • Erwan's Blog
  • Erwan's Blog
  • marksfossils' Blog
  • ibanda89's Blog
  • Liberty's Blog
  • Liberty's Blog
  • Lindsey's Blog
  • Back of Beyond
  • Ameenah's Blog
  • St. Johns River Shark Teeth/Florida
  • gordon's Blog
  • West4me's Blog
  • West4me's Blog
  • Pennsylvania Perspectives
  • michigantim's Blog
  • michigantim's Blog
  • lauraharp's Blog
  • lauraharp's Blog
  • micropterus101's Blog
  • micropterus101's Blog
  • GPeach129's Blog
  • Olenellus' Blog
  • nicciann's Blog
  • nicciann's Blog
  • Deep-Thinker's Blog
  • Deep-Thinker's Blog
  • bear-dog's Blog
  • javidal's Blog
  • Digging America
  • John Sun's Blog
  • John Sun's Blog
  • Ravsiden's Blog
  • Jurassic park
  • The Hunt for Fossils
  • The Fury's Grand Blog
  • julie's ??
  • Hunt'n 'odonts!
  • falcondob's Blog
  • Monkeyfuss' Blog
  • cyndy's Blog
  • pattyf's Blog
  • pattyf's Blog
  • chrisf's Blog
  • chrisf's Blog
  • nola's Blog
  • mercyrcfans88's Blog
  • Emily's PRI Adventure
  • trilobite guy's Blog
  • barnes' Blog
  • xenacanthus' Blog
  • myfossiltrips.blogspot.com
  • HeritageFossils' Blog
  • Fossilefinder's Blog
  • Fossilefinder's Blog
  • maybe a nest fossil?
  • farfarawy's Blog
  • Microfossil Mania!
  • blogs_blog_99
  • Southern Comfort
  • Emily's MotE Adventure
  • Eli's Blog
  • andreas' Blog
  • Recent Collecting Trips
  • retired blog
  • andreas' Blog test
  • fossilman7's Blog
  • Piranha Blog
  • xonenine's blog
  • xonenine's Blog
  • Fossil collecting and SAFETY
  • Detrius
  • pangeaman's Blog
  • pangeaman's Blog
  • pangeaman's Blog
  • Jocky's Blog
  • Jocky's Blog
  • Kehbe's Kwips
  • RomanK's Blog
  • Prehistoric Planet Trilogy
  • mikeymig's Blog
  • Western NY Explorer's Blog
  • Regg Cato's Blog
  • VisionXray23's Blog
  • Carcharodontosaurus' Blog
  • What is the largest dragonfly fossil? What are the top contenders?
  • Test Blog
  • jsnrice's blog
  • Lise MacFadden's Poetry Blog
  • BluffCountryFossils Adventure Blog
  • meadow's Blog
  • Makeing The Unlikley Happen
  • KansasFossilHunter's Blog
  • DarrenElliot's Blog
  • Hihimanu Hale
  • jesus' Blog
  • A Mesozoic Mosaic
  • Dinosaur comic
  • Zookeeperfossils
  • Cameronballislife31's Blog
  • My Blog
  • TomKoss' Blog
  • A guide to calcanea and astragali
  • Group Blog Test
  • Paleo Rantings of a Blockhead
  • Dead Dino is Art
  • The Amber Blog
  • Stocksdale's Blog
  • PaleoWilliam's Blog
  • TyrannosaurusRex's Facts
  • The Community Post
  • The Paleo-Tourist
  • Lyndon D Agate Johnson's Blog
  • BRobinson7's Blog
  • Eastern NC Trip Reports
  • Toofuntahh's Blog
  • Pterodactyl's Blog
  • A Beginner's Foray into Fossiling
  • Micropaleontology blog
  • Pondering on Dinosaurs
  • Fossil Preparation Blog
  • On Dinosaurs and Media
  • cheney416's fossil story
  • jpc
  • A Novice Geologist
  • Red-Headed Red-Neck Rock-Hound w/ My Trusty HellHound Cerberus
  • Red Headed
  • Paleo-Profiles
  • Walt's Blog
  • Between A Rock And A Hard Place
  • Rudist digging at "Point 25", St. Bartholomä, Styria, Austria (Campanian, Gosau-group)
  • Prognathodon saturator 101
  • Books I have enjoyed
  • Ladonia Texas Fossil Park
  • Trip Reports
  • Glendive Montana dinosaur bone Hell’s Creek
  • Test
  • Stratigraphic Succession of Chesapecten

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

  1. dries85

    Hexanchid tooth ID

    Hey, going through some finds of last year i came across this tiny Hexanchid tooth. 0,9cm x 0,5cm, Miocene/Pliocene, Antwerp area, Belgium I've seen Hexanchid posterior teeth before and they look quite different.. (from the book 'Neogene Sharks of Antwerp' by Stephane Knoll) Could mine be juvenile Notorynchus or Hexanchus? Thx, Dries
  2. oilshale

    Notogoneus osculus Cope, 1885

    Very young fish (27mm) in which the scales have not yet ossified. Juvenile specimens of Diplomystus dentatus can easily be mistaken for juvenile specimens of Notogoneus osculus. But juvenile Notagoneus can be easily recognized by the larger skull and the position of the anal fin, which is set far back. For comparison a specimen of a juvenile Diplomystus dentatus preserved on the same slab: Taxonomy from Fossilworks.org. Revised generic diagnosis from Grande and Grande 2008, p. 10. "†Notogoneus differs from all other genera in the family Gonorynchidae by the following characters: (1) the subopercle bears a series of deep clefts along its posterior margin; (2) the first and second hypurals are not fused to each other; (3) the parhypural is not fused to the vertebral column; (4) the first and second hypurals are not fused to the vertebral column; and (5) scales in adults are nearly the length of a centrum. Also, the frontal is a paired element in †Notogoneus (vs. median in Gonorynchus)." Line drawing from Grande & Grande 2008, p. 4: References: Cope, E. D. (1885) Eocene paddle-fish and Gonorhynchidae. American Naturalist, 19:1090–1091. Woodward, A. S. (1901) Catalogue of Fossil Fishes in the British Museum (Natural History), Part IV 1-63. Hay, O. P. (1902) Bibliography and Catalogue of the Fossil Vertebrata of North America. Bulletin of the United States Geological Survey 179:1-868. Grande, L. and Grande, T. (2008) Redescription of the type species for the genus Notogeneus (Teleostei: Gonorhynchidae) based on new, well-preserved material. The Paleontological Society Memoir 70:1-31 [M. Uhen/M. Uhen]
  3. Fullux

    Juvenile Deinosuchus?

    Howdy all, Recently purchased this little crocodilian tooth from the Bladen Formation of North Carolina. The seller says it's Deinosuchus and I feel pretty confident with that ID, considering the faint ridges, but I'd like a second opinion as I'm not yet an expert on the Campanian of Appalachia. 0.2 inches, perhaps a juvenile?
  4. Alvrr.0

    Juvenile Ammonite?

    I found this in a place where I find many others Ammonites and this is particulary small and have this little sworl
  5. Steven Joseph

    Tooth or no tooth?

    Just acquired this “tooth” from an antique store… showed it to a rock hound here in Utah.. he said it looked like a Sauropod juvenile’s tooth.. can you comment and help?
  6. My first post on the forum was to see if anybody could show me an adult specimen of “Nanotyrannus.” I was more forceful in that approach because, from what I’ve seen on Twitter, “Nano” fans like to argue with paleontologists on the validity of the genus, even though these scientists have been studying dinosaurs for years and have degrees and Ph.Ds in different scientific fields. The evidence points them in a different conclusion compared to the public, and the fact that they are being so heavily resisted against with regards to this topic is baffling. I decided to play the “Nano” fans at their own game, and wrote a question in a cocky manner to see if anybody could give me something of value regarding an adult “Nanotyrannus” specimen. I expected a hostile reaction akin to what you find on Twitter, but the feedback was mostly positive. I was told a couple of things regarding how I worded my post, which was to be expected, among other things, but there was a comment that sent me to a post written by a person with the username "Troodon." Titled "The Case for Nanotyrannus," which I think was inspired by Larson's paper of the same name, goes over some traits that seem to be unique to "Nanotyrannus." With all due respect to Troodon, the points that they made have been debunked by multiple paleontologists who have studied "Nanotyrannus" fossils for years. Troodon also wrote a comment in response to my question, and they fell for my cocky persona and decided not to respond to the critiques that I had regarding not having an adult “Nano.” So now, I will try a different approach. I am going to list the biggest reasons why “Nano” does not exist, and see where this gets me next. These critiques, I believe, truly hinder any conclusive argument to support “Nano’s” identity, and some of these arguments come from other professional paleontologist who argue against “Nano’s” validity. Therefore, I am curious to see what the responses would be this time. My points: 1. No adult “Nano” specimen, only juveniles. It's truly baffling to me that only juvenile Nano species have been found, and yet it's okay to make it a separate genus. Yes, there are other dinosaurs known by juvenile, or subadult, specimens, but they are considered valid genera because of the circumstances thats surround them. Let's use Alioramus. Alioramus is known from two, maybe three if you count Qiazhousaurus, specimens that are not fully grown. So naturally, Alioramus could be a juvenile of another larger tyrannosauroid that coexisted with Alioramus and Qiazhousaurus: Tarbosaurus. However, we DO have a growth series for Tarbosaurus, with very young and mature individuals. Therefore, Alioramus (and/or Qiazhousaurus) is a valid genus. Same goes for Bagaraatan. The same cannot be said for "Nanotyrannus." We only have juvenile specimens of "Nano." Maybe this wouldn't be so bad if it coexist with T. rex, but here's the problem: we do not have a growth series for T. rex. I'll talk more about this later. Woodward et al., (2020), and Carr (1999), have proven that "Nanotyrannus" has no fully-grown individuals, contra Bakker et al., (1988) and Larson (2013). Since we do not have any fully grown "Nano" specimens, and we only have fully grown T. rex specimens, then the most logical conclusion is that "Nano" is a juvenile T. rex. If an adult Nano is ever discovered, then the case would be closed. However, that never seems to be the case when a supposed "Nano" skeleton is discovered. 2. All juvenile T. rex specimens are labeled as “Nano.” How the heck can a small tyrannosauroid that coexisted with a larger tyrannosauroid be considered a valid genus when we have no juvenile specimens of the latter? When no conclusive juvie rex has been named, and all young tyrannosaurids that coexisted with T. rex are named “Nano,” then the most logical conclusion to go with is that all “Nano” specimens are juvenile T. rex specimens. 3. “Baby Bob”. And this is where I'm sure people will tell me about "Baby Bob." There are two problems with "Baby Bob": it's fragmentary, and it's in private hands. A privately owned specimen cannot be studied by multiple scientists who can verify its authenticity. It needs to be in a museum so that other scientists can have access to it. Second, the specimen is fragmentary. The right side of the dentary may be almost complete, but it's in private hands so we cannot tell. However, based on comparisons with other "Nano"/juvie rex specimens, you can bet that "Baby Bob" had a higher tooth counts than the adults. Or, individual variation explains why "Baby Bob" had a smaller tooth count than a typical juvenile rex. Aside from the dentary, the rest of "Baby Bob" only consists of a pubis, a femur, and a tibia. The rest of the skeleton seems to be missing. However, this cannot be verified because "Baby Bob" is a private specimen. If it wasn't, we would know how complete the specimen is. Therefore, using "Baby Bob" to validate "Nano" is detrimental. 4. No complete adult T. rex hands. Another point that is usually brought up is "Bloody Mary's" ("Dueling Dinosaurs" juvenile T. rex specimen) large hands. However, we do not have a single complete T. rex hand. "Wyrex's" hands are incomplete, and "Sue's" hands were not found with the rest of the skeleton. A manual ungual (hand claw) was found AFTER the skeleton was already dug up (Brochu, 2003, p. 103) (Dr. Thomas Holtz on Twitter). It's inconclusive if this is a T. rex hand claw, or something else. Therefore, "Bloody Mary's" hand is the first complete T. rex hand to be discovered, and it's not an autopomorphic trait of "Nanotyrannus." But wait, what about UCRC-PV 1's arm? Pic from Larson's Instagram. UCRC's hand is smaller than "Bloody Mary's," which would make it a younger individual than "Bloody Mary." Unfortunately, UCRC has not been described in a paper, nor has an histological analysis been done on the skeleton, so it being a "subadult" is a subjective claim. Therefore, using UCRC to prove "Nano's" validity is worthless until a scientist(s) studies the skeleton, and gives a description of the specimen in a peer-reviewed paper. Dr. Holtz provided a drawing of the complete arm bones of "Wyrex" on Twitter. The hand is INCOMPLETE: Pic link here. Therefore, "Bloody Mary's" hand is evidence for what a complete T. rex hand would have looked like towards the animal's mature age. "Wyrex's" COMPLETE hand would have looked identical if the hand was complete. UCRC's hand would have grown to look like "Bloody Mary's" if it matured to the same age. It's also worth noting that all other ”complete” T. rex hands have been copied from Albertosaurus or Daspletosaurus. “Sue’s” hand is incomplete, but it was reconstructed using Albertosaurus' hand (Brochu, 2003, p. 100), and so is “Wyrex’s” (Larson and Carpenter, 2008, p. 46). 5. Carr (2020). Dr. Carr's 2020 paper is one of the best papers on T. rex that I have seen. It describes the physical changes that T. rex went through during ontogeny. CMNH 7541, the "Nano" holotype, "Jane," and "Petey," all fell within the T. rex growth chart, which makes ALL "Nano" specimens juvenile T. rex specimens. This paper even made the CMNH museum recatalogue CMNH 7541 as a juvenile T. rex. The case is closed now. There is officially NO HOLOTYPE SPECIMEN for "Nano." "Nanotyrannus" is a dead genus name. If you want to prove that "Nanotyrannus" is a valid genus, then you'd have to disprove Carr's 2020 paper, and that is near impossible now. Multiple paleontologists who study tyrannosauroids have backed up Carr's paper, so the authority figures have spoken. The burden of proof now lies on the "Nano" fans. You need an adult "Nanotyrannus" specimen. 6. “Nano” is not an albertosaurine. Larson tries to lump “Nano” into the albertosaurine (Larson, 2013). However, all albertosaurine died out before “Nano” evolved (73-68 Ma) (Eberth, 2020). Yun (2015) stated that all apparent albertosaurine traits that "Nano" has are seen in other juvenile tyrannosaurs. This renders this hypothesis mute. All of "Nano's" traits can be explained away due to ontogeny. 7. T. rex lost teeth as it matured. Why is it so hard to imagine T. rex losing teeth as it matured? People compare T. rex to Tarbosaurus when it comes to tooth count, and they use Tsuihiji et al., (2011) for this, but T. rex is more derived than Tarbosaurus, and more derived dinosaurs experienced greater morphological changes as they matured. Other examples are Pachycephalosaurus and Triceratops, two other dinosaurs that coexisted with T. rex. It seems that the dinosaurs of North America 66 Ma experienced amazing transformations when they grew up. Check out Horner's 2011 Ted Talk on the matter. I don't agree with everything that guy says and does, but I have to admit that he's right about "Nano" being a juvenile T. rex. Besides, "Nano" only has two more teeth than the adult T. rex specimen “Samson.” What's the problem with losing two teeth as T. rex matured? And yes, I do know about BHI 6439. What’s to have stopped BHI 6439 from losing teeth as it matured? We also don’t know the age of that animal. I've seen pics of this dentary being compared with "Jane." However, it could be older than “Jane.” Tooth loss could have occurred for that specimen, which is why it has fewer teeth than "Jane" does. Second, BHI 6439 is a private specimen so it doesn’t count. It can’t be verified by other scientists for scrutiny. Carr (1999), (2005), and (2020) has proven that T. rex lost teeth during its growth, so this is an established fact now. Dr. Holtz, and Brusatte, support Carr on this as well. 8. “Nanotyrannus’” brain. The skull of CMNH 7541 was damaged (Carr’s blog, Summary, number 2), which seems have given the appearance of it having a different shape than T. rex’s. Somehow, if the brain case wasn’t damaged, then the brain would have changed shaped as “Nano” matured into a grown T. rex (Kawabe et al., 2015). 9. Pneumatopore on quadrujugal is present in Daspletosaurus horneri. Larson (2013) said that this is an automorphic trait, but once again, Carr proved this to be wrong. Carr et al., (2017) found a pneumatopore on Daspletosaurus horneri's quadrujugal. This is not a trait unique to "Nanotyrannus." 10. “Jane’s” teeth fit perfectly with a juvenile T. rex’s bite marks on a vertebra. It has been said that "Nano's" teeth are too thin to belong to T. rex, but Peterson (2019) showed that "Jane's" teeth matched perfectly with the tooth marks of a juvenile T. rex's. It seems that "Nano's" teeth are stronger than what people claim, and this supports "Nano" as a juvenile T. rex. 11. It’s been hinted that “Nano” was a juvenile T. rex before Carr (1999). Carpenter (1992) hinted that "Nanotyrannus" was a juvenile T. rex before Carr did in 1999. Carr (1999) only helped to solidify Nano as a juvenile T. rex, and his 2020 paper helped to end the debate. Conclusion: When the majority of scientists state that something does not exist, then that is the best conclusion supported by the evidence. These experts set the standards as to how to conduct science properly. If we do not listen to them, then science, like paleontology, ha no standards and anybody can do as they please. That leads to chaos, which is what this whole “Nano” situation is. Nobody is listening to the experts online, but the scientists are doing a great job so far in spreading the truth based on the latest research. CMNH 7541 has been relabeled as a juvenile T. rex in the CMNH museum, so we are on the right track to correcting the mistakes of the past. There are only THREE ways that could bring “Nano” back: 1. An ADULT “Nano” specimen. No teeth, no claws, no bits and pieces of bone. We need an adult specimen that is NOT IN PRIVATE HANDS BUT IN A MUSEUM, has an EFS that shows it has stopped growing and has reached adulthood, and is heavily studied by scientific experts (mainly by the “Nano” deniers, like Carr, Holtz, Brusatte, etc.). Then, it needs to be published in a scientific paper than is peer-reviewed, and open to the public to be verified, or denied, by other scientists. “Nano” will never be verified using privately-owned specimens, or fragments of bones and teeth. 2. We need complete juvenile T. rex specimens that are not in private hands, and show traits that are not seen in “Nano.” This would be near impossible because all “Nano” specimens show T. rex traits. 3. We need a complete adult T. rex hand that shows differences from "BHI 6437 ("Bloody Mary"), which is what we do not have. Not even “Sue,” or “Wyrex,” have a complete hand. This is why “Nano” does not exist. On the bright side, we finally have a growth series of T. rex that shows how this awesome animal transformed as it grew. We should be happy that we have any juvenile T. rex specimens at all. Second, I do understand what the “Nano” fans are going through. My favorite sauropod used to be “Seismosaurus.” Later on, I learned that multiple scientists have proven that it is actually Diplodocus. I was in denial for a while, but I came to the conclusion that I was wrong. Now, my favorite sauropod is Diplodocus. That’s how science works. There are plenty of other small-medium-sized tyrannosauroids that the “Nano” fans could gravitate towards to: Alioramus, Qiazhousaurus (or Alioramus sinensis, depending on who you talk to), Nanuqsaurus, Albertosaurus, Gorgosaurus, Bagaraatan, Raptorrex, or any of the other earlier tyrannosauroids (Guanlong, etc.). All of these dinosaurs have been backed up by scientists for decades as being valid genera. Alioramus is a valid genus because we have a growth serious of Tarbosaurus that shows that Alioramus’ traits are distinctive from Tarbosaurus’. This has been stated mainly by Steven Brusatte, an expert on tyrannosauroids. He also states that “Nano” does not exist, and since he is an expert, his research bears more weight on “Nano” being an invalid taxon (Brusatte et al., 2016). On the other hand, I highly doubt that anyone can argue against Carr’s 2020 paper. With so much detail in it, it would be near impossible to prove Carr wrong on “Nanotyrannus’” invalidity. Unless there is a secret adult fossil of “Nanotyrannus” hidden somewhere, and it is in the process of being placed in a museum, then the most scientifically based conclusion is that “Nanotyrannus” does not exist. The ONLY tyrannosauroid present in North America 68-66 Ma is Tyrannosaurus rex. With regards to the scientists, or scientific advocates, that support “Nano” as valid, I have no ill will against them. For example, Peter Larson. I really do like the guy. He’s passionate about dinosaurs, and helped to discover numerous T. rex fossils. Dr. Bakker is a revolutionary in paleontology, no questions asked. Philip Manning is also very passionate about dinosaurs, and helped to describe the T. rex specimen “Trix.” “Dinosaur” George is another one. I loved his QnA videos back in the day. Unfortunately, with the evidence I’ve laid out above, they’re wrong about “Nanotyrannus” being valid. Links: Carr (2020): https://peerj.com/articles/9192/ Woodward et al., (2020): https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/1/eaax6250.full Brusatte et al., (2016): https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/23714255/23714179._AAM._BrusatteetalNanotyrannusResponseMSRevision.pdf Carr (1999): https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/227005733.pdf Horner (2011): Carr and Williamson (2004): https://www.academia.edu/2291683/Diversity_of_late_Maastrichtian_Tyrannosauridae_Dinosauria_Theropoda_from_western_North_America Carr (2005): https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2009NC/webprogram/Paper156740.html Larson (2013): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289687970_The_case_for_Nanotyrannus “The Case for Nanotyrannus” by Troodon: Yun (2015): https://peerj.com/preprints/852/ Bakker et al., (1988): https://zenodo.org/record/1037529#.X9Ai5CVOmEf Carpenter (1992): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314988830_Tyrannosaurids_Dinosauria_of_Asia_and_North_America Eberth (2020): https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/abs/10.1139/cjes-2019-0019 Carr’s blog (Summary, number 2). http://tyrannosauroideacentral.blogspot.com/2013/09/nanotyrannus-isnt-real-really.html?m=1 Larson and Carpenter (2008) (P. 46): https://www.google.com/books/edition/Tyrannosaurus_Rex_the_Tyrant_King/5WH9RnfKco4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Wyrex Kawabe et al., (2015): https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comments?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0129939 Tsuihiji et al., (2011): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232865497_Cranial_Osteology_of_a_Juvenile_Specimen_of_Tarbosaurus_bataar_Theropoda_Tyrannosauridae_from_the_Nemegt_Formation_Upper_Cretaceous_of_Bugin_Tsav_Mongolia
  7. The photos below show two juvenile/hatchling ichthyosaurus species from Yunnan, China. They are from two different localities but are close by. As they look quite different, are they different species? And any idea what species they are?
  8. Shellseeker

    Rhino Re_identification

    Back in February, my partner found a small tooth that I initially thought to be Gomph. I made him an offer he couldn't refuse. I sent some photos to Richard Hulbert and (surprisingly to me) Richard identified it as a Rhino upper cheek tooth. I did not argue, and once I spotted the Hunter_Schreger Bands in the 1st photos, thought the ID to be correct , although I have never seen an upper Rhino tooth that had this wear pattern. This is what upper T. proterum Rhino teeth look like in Florida, Does anyone recognize my tooth in this photo below? Fast forward to June. We are hunting the same area, and this time I find a small tooth that seems very similar ... especially when it dries out. and before it dries out, I notice those HSBs again.. Now as I compare this to the M3 in the above photo , it might be an upper molar, but in this case, Richard sees it as an unidentifiable Rhino tooth fragment. I am not so sure. So, here are the Questions... Are both teeth Teleoceras Proterum teeth or something else? Is the 2nd tooth an M3 ? Is the 1st tooth an upper Jaw tooth? I will flag @Harry Pristis in the hope that he has collected a baby/juvenile Florida Rhino maxilla for comparison purposes. Thanks for you r help on this one. Jack
  9. Patrik Djurfeldt

    Carcharodontosaurus or Deltadromeus tooth?

    Hi, I am new to this forum. I have had an interest in dinosaurs since I was a little kid, but this has "matured" in recent years. Recently, I got a tooth as a present. It was bought as a Carcharodontosaurus tooth, about 19 mm long (0.75"), at a large exhibition/museum in Kalmar, Sweden. But since the creator of the exhibition managed to lable a (flattened) Mosasaur scull as a Carch as well, I am not too confident in the identification. The tooth is small, but pretty. Did it belong to a juvenile Carcharodontosaurus, a Deltadromeus, or something else? I would be grateful for any help on this. At the moment I do not know where it was found originally.
  10. Hi everyone! I would like to know your opinions on the following Psittacosaurus mongoliensis specimen. Found in Liaoning, China. Size about 20cm long and ~1kg heavy. I see there's quite a lot of glue/consolidant here. I know some are carved and many are composites but I would like to know your opinions. Is this real or fake? Your input is highly appreciated. Cheers!
  11. Rikache

    Baby Mammoth Tooth?

    Hi there everyone! I thought I would ask for some help in properly identifying this specimen that I recently acquired. This specimen is said to be a baby/juvenile M. Columbi tooth found in North Florida. The specimen is very obviously worn and has pink patches due to algae buildup. I’ve included several photos below: Front, Right, Left, Bottom, Bottom, Top (Chewing surface), Top (Chewing surface). I’m fairly certain this is a mammoth tooth but I’d greatly appreciate a positive ID since I can’t find much information about specimens like this online. My real inquiry is identifying whether this specimen would be considered as a milk tooth and if it’s partial. From my understanding, it’s missing most of its root which would obviously make it partial, but I’ve highlighted a section in red where I would’ve thought the rest of the tooth would go. Thank you guys in advance! You all are always extremely insightful and I truly feel like a part of this community. Cheers!
  12. I'd came across an sale listed as an associated pair of juvenile Hadrosaur Dorsal vertebrae - from the Judith River Formation. I had been wondering, are they really associated, and how can you tell if fossils are associated? Here are the pictures from the seller.
  13. Hello, this tooth has baffled me for years. I can't tell if it is a juvenile tyrannosaurid dentary tooth or a cf. Richardoestesia gilmorei tooth Its locality info is Montana, Two Medicine Formation The tooth has a serration density of 19/5mm on the distal mid-line. Unfortunately the mesial carina is worn down so that crucial data is missing The CH is 11.5 mm, CBW is 7 mm and CBL is 4.5 mm As far as I am aware, juvenile tyrannosaurid (with the exception of T. rex) have slender teeth while as this tooth is somewhat robust. Meanwhile, Richardoestesia gilmorei is somewhat of a wastebasket ID for many teeth(likely unrelated species), so this teeth should fall into the range of size and morphology for one May I have your thoughts on this tooth?
  14. kerrimarie805

    Mammoth Tooth

    Ok, this piece is why I'm here. I would like to have it's identification verified and need to know if it could be a fake. It was given to me, not by the person who found it but by a mutual friend who didn't know to ask any questions about the piece when it was given to him. The original collector has since passed so there's no going back for Q&A. I do believe it was found somewhere in western Nebraska, southwest South Dakota, or eastern Wyoming as this area is where the original collector did most of his hunting. However, I do not know this for certain as it concerns this piece specifically. The person who gave it to me could only tell me that it's a juvenile mammoth tooth. I'm needing that ID verified to the best of the forum's collective abilities. As well, I've been asked if it's a fake and the thought that that is possible is always in my mind when looking at the piece. I wouldn't know how to spot a faked fossil but do know fakes are out there and the notion that "if something is too good to be true" does have standing in this situation simply because of how it came to me. I do so hope to hear it's a real fossilized juvenile mammoth tooth and a great specimen for a beginning collector! Fingers crossed, K
  15. DamCam

    Vertebrae Carnivore

    Not entirely sure what I have, I'd love to think it's a baby trex, but I can't be certain. Y'all take a look and tell what you think. I can always snap more pics, so let me know what everyone thinks, Thank You.
  16. I saw a Juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex tooth (or Nanotyrannus) with really good price.. Seller told that this is from Hell Creek formation, Garfield County, Montana. I can't find any oddity or fabrication... but I want to hear everyone's opinion since the price is too good to be true.
  17. Mahnmut

    Simosuchus ct anatomy

    Hello together, I am not entirely sure if the fossil ID section is the right place for this, but I am hoping for information on a fossil specimen, its not one I hold in hands, but a ct scan, and I think I may not post pictures because they are copyrighted. While looking for new inspirations for my model building I took a close look at this wonderful ct scan of a Simosuchus clarki skull. A pugnosed crocodile, how sweet is that? I wonder two things: -how is that bilateral bone called that in many crocodiles protrudes downwards from the skullbase reaching between the mandibles? -Could the fragile structure of the distal end of said bone hint at a juvenile animal? In recent croc skulls I have seen these bones seemed quite solid. The species description says several specimens in a range of sizes have been found, all below one meter and considered fully grown. on the Digimorph site there are videos showing rotation and cross-sections, the structure in question is best visible in the "roll"-vid: http://digimorph.org/specimens/Simosuchus_clarki/ Thanks and Regards, J
  18. A response to Woodward et. al 2020's refutation of Nanotyrannus. Argues that specimens BMRP 2002.4.1 and BMRP 2006.4.4 fall outside the growth curve of Tyrannosaurus. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/1/eaax6250/tab-e-letters
  19. ThePhysicist

    Juvenile Nanotyrannus lancensis

    From the album: Dinosaurs

    A tooth from a juvenile Nanotyrannus lancensis. Only missing the very tip.
  20. butchndad

    Juvenile deer humerus?

    Good morning another good day in The Brook. My best find which I was able to identify was an iPhone 11 which I reunited with it’s owner. Photos below are of a humerus. Most of what I find is deer but this one is substantially smaller. Is it a juvenile deer or something else? As always, thank you for sharing your expertise
×
×
  • Create New...