Search the Community

Paper just released that describes the dorsal vertebrae in detail of the titanosaur Dreadnoughtus schrani from Argentina that was described in 2014. If you ever wanted to know what the different areas of a dorsal vertebra were called this gives you more than you ever need. It also gives you relative position in the vertebral column. You will be tested on the pronunciation and spelling of these words Check the scale bar it's 50 cm (appox 20 inches) Complete dorsal vertebrae are very rare especially this well preserved. This discovery gives paleontologist an opportunity to use these specimens to compare against other taxons. It also gives them a better understanding of their position in the sketal structure. https://www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app003912017.html Osteology of the dorsal vertebrae of the giant titanosaurian sauropod dinosaur Dreadnoughtus schrani from the Late Cretaceous of Argentina Kristyn K. Voegele, Matthew C. Lamanna, and Kenneth J. Lacovara Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 62 (4), 2017: 667-681 doi:https://doi.org/10.4202/app.00391.2017 app62-Voegele_etal_SOM.pdfapp003912017.pdf Supplemental Images app003912017.pdf Dreadnoughtus 2014 paper https://www.nature.com/articles/srep06196

Tiny once thought to be a Triceratops its actually a Torosaurus Paper says Tiny is the most complete Cretaceous dinosaur found in Colorado http://www.denverpost.com/2017/12/05/thornton-triceratops-torosaurus/ Current bone map provide by Joe Sertich curator Denver Museum of Nature and Science Press Release from Museum

In March of this year I found a heteromorphic ammonite that has had me curious ever since. So yesterday I finally sent an email about it to a local ammonite expert, Ron Morin, who is associated with the Dallas Paleontological Society. I had a correspondence with him in May of this year as it related to him identifying my Phlycticrioceras trinodosum heteromorphic ammonite which I recently added to 'Collections'. That's when I first talked to him. Then at the Dallas Paleontological Society's Fossil Mania event in October, I was talking to Roger Farish about my unidentified ammonite. He recommended that I contact him again for identification. Here is the email and the pictures that I sent him yesterday. I will post an update to this thread when he responds, which from my experience might be weeks. I have edited it to remove any slightly sensitive information like my name and more specific location information (I'm paranoid), as well as to fix any grammatical errors and to add relevant reference designations in between the < and > symbols: "Hello! I am Heteromorph, the one who contacted you to identify my Phlycticrioceras trinodosum specimen in May of this year, and I was wondering if you could help me identify another heteromorphic ammonite from the Upper Coniacian stage of the Austin Chalk. This specimen was found on March 23 of this year in a creek in Ellis county. It is, in fact, within half a mile of where I found the last specimen that I sent to you for identification. The stratigraphy of this area is the Atco member of the Austin Chalk, Prionocycloceras gabrielense zone. My problem is that even though it resembles P. trinodosum, there are differences that would make me reluctant to indenify it as such. To date, I have not found one like it. It is similar to P. trinodosum in that the whorl section is compressed, it has ventral tubercles, and it has an open planispiral shape. But it also has 3 key differences that make me think it is either a different species or it is very pathological. I list these below. First and foremost, the main difference is the lack of any ventrolateral tubercles, which are one of the defining characteristics of P. trinodosum. On both the specimen itself and its negative, it appears to be free of any ventrolateral tubercles. The only tubercles that I can see are the ventral tubercles which are something that P. trinodosum has as well. Second, the ribs are shaped differently than P. trinodosum. While P. trinodosum has rectiradiate ribs, this specimen has ribs which are rectiradiate until about half way up from the umbilicus, at which point it bends. Due to the fragmentary nature of this specimen, I have a hard time determining whether it bends abapically or adapically. Third, the ribs are more costate on this specimen than any of the twelve P. trinodosum specimens that I have found in the Austin Chalk. It has a rib index of 7, while the most costate specimen that I have found and know for sure is a P. trinodosum specimen only has a rib index of 5. While this is not unheard of for this species, with specimens of this species having rib indexes of up to 8 (Emerson et al. 1994), yet from my experience it is apparently very unusual for this part of the Austin Chalk. The closest thing that I have seen to my specimen is illustrated on Plate 11, fig 2 of Young, 1963 (as P. sp. cfr. douvillei), the similarity being the fact that they both have rib indexes of 7. After that, though, the similarity ends in that P. sp cfr. P. douvillei still has ventrolateral tubercles and rectiradiate ribs. I also found a very small P. trinodosum negative in the same creek just a few feet away. It has ventrolateral tubercles and a rib index of 4. The ribs are rectiradiate. A photo of it is not attached here. My specimen is 87mm long including its negative and has a whorl height of 34½mm. The oval whorl section is compressed like P. trinodosum. It is shown first in the attached photo DSCN5355. Aside from the specimen in question, for reference I have also attached photos of two P. trinodosum specimens that I have found. They are both from within 5 miles of the creek site, so they are on roughly the same stratigraphic level. What I am calling P1 is shown first in the attached photo DSCN5281 <F13> in comparison with the specimen in question. P1's negative is shown first in the attached photo DSCN5394 <22>. The positive is 69mm long when both pieces of it are measured together but 53mm when just measuring the largest piece. It has a whorl height of 31mm and a whorl breadth of 9mm. Rib index of 4. It was found within a quarter of a mile of the creek site. Because it is has just a slightly shorter whorl section to the specimen in question it is a good comparison piece. The specimen which I am calling P2 is shown in the attached photo DSCN5361 <F27>. It is only a negative but I am attaching a picture of it here because it is the specimen that I referenced earlier with a rib index of 5. It is 23mm long and has a whorl height of 15mm. It was found about 4-5 miles to the south-west of the creek site. For reference, here is a post I made about the P. trinodosum specimen that I sent you a picture of in May. I thank you very much for your help in advance. Sincerely, Heteromorph" I have given an alphanumerical designation to each picture for ease of reference. I guess it is probably kinda silly to have so many pictures that this is necessary. If this is stupid, than I extent my apologies to the Mods. I will patiently receive correction. Thank you to everyone in advance. F1 F2 F3 F4

went hunting in a small site that normally produces small crow shark teeth and enchodus teeth and pieces of turtle shell and found this bone. not sure what it belonged to.thanks

Chiropractor discovers BC's first dino skull. Looks like a Tyrannosaurid. Pretty good find while on holiday http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4158748

I literally joined the forum 5 minutes ago, and I am still learning about the technicalities of paleontology. So if I use terms or vocabulary in the wrong context please excuse me. I have recently acquired a bone fragment that was found in the Hell Creek Formation near Jordan Montana,and it is from the Late cretaceous period. This is all I currently know about this fossil. I need help identifying the species that this bone fragment is from. Thanks for the help !

Dear Guys, I made the pictures of possible big discovery in Late Cretaceous erratics of Lithuania. There are some frog bones in flints (ilium, urostyle, tibiofibula, scapula), snake pieces (tibiofibula like of Tetrapodophis! and one thin scale), and toothed birs upper and lower jaw fossils. If you could confirm these finds, it will be the first further my article in scientific magazine and I wish it will be successful. There will be some posts, please review the pictures and tell what do you think. At first, I will show you frog remains. Best Regards Domas The second part- snake remains.

Zuul crurivastator David Evans of the ROM contributed in describing a new ankylosaur from northern Montana's Judith River Fornatikn. One of the most complete Ankylosaurs ever found ROM's release http://www.rom.on.ca/en/collections-research/research-community-projects/zuul http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/deadthings/2017/05/09/meet-zuul-crurivastator-i-aint-fraid-of-no-ankylosaur/#.WRJrc5BlDxA http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/demon-faced-dinosaur-named-after-ghostbusters-baddie

Sorry, it's blurry. Hopefully identifiable. It is 3/4" x 1/2". From a late Cretaceous site. Shark or Ray?

Placement of terrestrial formations in the late cretaceous of North America as been constantly evolving and in October 2016 Denver Fowler a Paleontologist at the Museum of the Rockies published a very extensive paper on the subject and updated most units. This is very important when it comes to understanding dinosaur evolution and aids in describing species. This paper is in the process of going through peer review so is subject to change. Fowler DW. (2016) A new correlation of the Cretaceous formations of the Western Interior of the United States, I: Santonian-Maastrichtian formations and dinosaur biostratigraphy. PeerJ Preprints 4:e2554v1https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2554v1 The paper is pretty technical but all of the data is found in this excel file (supplemental information) which is a massive high-resolution stratigraphic chart for all of the formations from the late cretaceous of North America. It's nice to see it all laid out and a great reference source. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2554v1/supp-1 To make it easy I've broken the chart apart so you can easily see most important dinosaur formations Texas The biggest change came with our understanding the Aguja and Javelina Formations of Texas part of the Tornillo group. The study indicated that the Aguja Formation deposits are only Campanian in age and that the Javelina Formation does not extend into the end of the Cretaceous. Very important when trying to describe species in those formations. Sellers have been comparing the Aguja to the Judith River in Montana well there is a correlation but its deposits are much younger that JR. Eastern Montana, N. Dakota, S. Dakota and Wyoming What I found interesting is that the Hell Creek is much older in Montana than in the adjacent states. The other interesting observation that can been easily be seen on these charts is that the how short a time frame the deposits of the Hell Creek/Lance formation are compared to the other major dinosaur formations. Central Montana Two Medicine and Judith River Formations are the two key formations in this locality Utah and New Mexico Utah depicted on the left and NM on the right Head North to Canada Alberta and Saskatchewan

I have some Lance formation matrix I purchased on that auction site and I have been slowly breaking it down. This is one of my finds. I don't have a scale small enough to measure it against so . . . It is a little smaller than the head of a pin, flea speck. I did a Google image search on Lance Formation micro teeth but came up with nothing. The photos were taken with my Nikon point an shoot through the eyepiece of my microscope. These photos are the best I can do.

Any help on the identity and position of this small (scale bar = 1 mm) vertebra from the Hell Creek Formation (Late Cretaceous) of S. Dakota, would be greatly appreciated. It looks like much of the neural arch and processes are gone. The centrum is a bit more dorso-ventrally flattened as compared to the turtle vertebra I posted the other day, and the ventral side (?) of the centrum has sinuses unlike the turtle vert (perhaps due to wear / breakage?).

Is this a tooth of Richardoestesia isosceles? Scale marks on left side of tooth are in mm and on the right side are in 0.5 mm increments. Serration count ranges from about 6 to 8 per mm. What remains of the tooth is approximately 11 mm in length. Hell Creek Formation (Late Cretaceous: Maastrichtian), South Dakota.

Could someone help me with the identification and position of this vertebra. I was thinking it was procoelous and maybe crocodylomorph? Scale bar = 1mm.

Hi All, I am hoping someone might recognize this bone fragment. It is from the Hell Creek Formation (Late-Cretaceous) of South Dakota. It looks fishy to me but does not have the exterior texture of gar skull. The exterior is really "pocked", almost like small, conchoidal chips. If fish, maybe bowfin, paddlefish, or sturgeon skull fragment? Only other thought I had was maybe crocodilian or champsosaur skull fragment, but I am leaning fish. There might be enough structure on the interior surface for someone to recognize which bone. Top photo is the exterior surface, middle is interior surface, and bottom photo is close-up (under magnification) of the exterior surface. Scale is in cm / mm. Thanks for any help.

Sorry for the barrage of Hell Creek posts, I finally have time to go through some of my summer collections. I am having a hard time with this mammal tooth (Hell Creek Formation, Late-Cretaceous, South Dakota). The occlusal surface is heavily worn. I was thinking perhaps Cimolodon? or Mesodma? Any help / suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Scale bar = 1 mm

Hi all, This is a leaf from the Hell Creek Formation (Late-Cretaceous: Maastrichtian) of South Dakota. My best guess is Marmarthia sp. (Lauraceae). Maybe M. trivialis? Can anyone familiar with the Hell Creek Flora confirm or perhaps suggest alternatives?

Hey all, Had the honor of being taken fossil hunting with Pfooley recently. Found my first ammonites! I'd been wanting to find some for a long time. Was a great experience and I look forward to more trips soon. Checked out the famous "Windmill Site" first. The drive there was amazing in early morning. I busted open my first nodules... Poor quality picture of the Windmill Site finds. Nice variety in there. Far left is a large bivalve and there's a large gastropod on the far right. We moved on to find some other ammonites. My best find of the day was this large whole Spathites. Had a blast and can't stop thinking about the next time I'll find myself out there... Thanks again Mike!