Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Next tooth up is a "unidentified theropod " tooth from the judith river formation in eastern MT....its CH 8 mm....it has 13 serrations per 3 mm on the posterior of the tooth and  16 per 3 mm on the anterior.......some of the pictures youll see what looks to be ribs on the side of the tooth, i thought zapsalis at first but i dont see the posterior as having a straight edge .....let me know what u all think after viewing the pics!

 

@Troodon

Screenshot_20200128-000658_Gallery.jpg

20200127_234322.jpg

Screenshot_20200128-000658_Gallery.jpg

20200127_234400.jpg

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Joebiwan3 said:

CH 8 cm....it has 13 serrations per 3 cm on the posterior of the tooth and  16 per 3 cm on the anterior.......some of the pictures youll see what

You mean mm not cm.

First we need a locality, eastern Montana is too general, need county and JRF is not found in E. Montana. .  Looks like a Dromaeosaurid tooth.  Could be Saurornitholestes if JRF or Acherorapter if HC

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joebiwan3 said:

Yes mm sorry for that. Ill see if i can get a location.

 

5 hours ago, Troodon said:

You mean mm not cm.

First we need a locality, eastern Montana is too general, need county and JRF is not found in E. Montana. .  Looks like a Dromaeosaurid tooth.  Could be Saurornitholestes if JRF or Acherorapter if HC

So obviously if the location comes back as hell creek we would have an acheroraptor tooth here but if the location is judith river formation as they say and they just got eastern MT part wrong we could have a saurornitholestes tooth. Frank, what characteristics do you see in this tooth that would say saurornitholestes as opposed to dromaeosaurus or paryonychodon? Im reading this article from the journal of paleontology at the moment which says that paryonychodon has ridges on one side and it also says something on the bottom of the article about having considerable overlap between the teeth of dromaeosaurus, saurornitholestes and richardoestesia and even tho they are "morphologically distinct they are not easily distinguishable by quantatative means." Could you please tell me what you see in this tooth that says possible saurornitholestes? Also ill link you to the article im reading so maybe you could explain to me what they mean so i know a little bit more about what im looking at in these teeth.

Thanks frank as always!

 

- joey

 

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/jpaleontol/article-abstract/76/4/751/83364/SMALL-THEROPOD-AND-BIRD-TEETH-FROM-THE-LATE?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Link to post
Share on other sites

First Dromaeosaurus teeth do not look like that they are not that compressed and the mesial carina has a strong lingual twist.    Saurornitholestes teeth are very compressed and the ends of the apical denticles pitch to the tip like yours.   Serrations on Richardoestesia teeth are extremely fine and dont match yours.  

A good explanation with photos can be found in the book 

Dinosaur Systematics Approaches and Perspectives by Carpenter & Currie

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Troodon said:

First Dromaeosaurus teeth do not look like that they are not that compressed and the mesial carina has a strong lingual twist.    Saurornitholestes teeth are very compressed and the ends of the apical denticles pitch to the tip like yours.   Serrations on Richardoestesia teeth are extremely fine and dont match yours.  

A good explanation with photos can be found in the book 

Dinosaur Systematics Approaches and Perspectives by Carpenter & Currie

 

Excellent as soon as i get home from work im going to look at that book again. When you say compressed are you referring to the way the tooth looks flat and not round?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Joebiwan3 said:

 

Excellent as soon as i get home from work im going to look at that book again. When you say compressed are you referring to the way the tooth looks flat and not round?

Well both have a Rectunglar base but one is significantly flatter than the other. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Troodon said:

Well both have a Rectunglar base but one is significantly flatter than the other. 

2 hours ago, Troodon said:

First Dromaeosaurus teeth do not look like that they are not that compressed and the mesial carina has a strong lingual twist.    Saurornitholestes teeth are very compressed and the ends of the apical denticles pitch to the tip like yours.   Serrations on Richardoestesia teeth are extremely fine and dont match yours.  

A good explanation with photos can be found in the book 

Dinosaur Systematics Approaches and Perspectives by Carpenter & Currie

 

Excellent as soon as i get home from work im going to look at that book again. When you say compressed are you referring to the way the tooth looks flat and not round?

1 hour ago, Troodon said:

Well both have a Rectunglar base but one is significantly flatter than the other. 

I have the dealer looking into the county location. They are getting back to me tomorrow. From what youve been saying it looks like this is a JRF saurornitholestes tooth. Once they get back to me with the county we'll know for sure....im still on the hunt for that dromaeosaurus tooth. Hopefully there will be some good ones to choose from now that the fossil show is going on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joebiwan3 said:

Hopefully there will be some good ones to choose from now that the fossil show is going on.

You really do not see many and have yet to run across one.  They are not common....

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Troodon said:

You really do not see many and have yet to run across one.  They are not common....

So what would you consider common findings  in the hell creek formation  and  also in the JRF? Nanotyrannus/tyrannosaur teeth?  saurornitholestes?....what would you say are common teeth found in these formations or maybe easier to ask what species are found there but not common? Obviously dromaeosaurus in the JRF we already said isnt very commonly found and dakotaraptor in the HCF is pretty rare to come across.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only theropod tooth that is not common in the HC is Dakotaraptor

The common theropod teeth in the JRF include Saurornitholestes and Tyrannosaurids.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Troodon said:

The only theropod tooth that is not common in the HC is Dakotaraptor

The common theropod teeth in the JRF include Saurornitholestes and Tyrannosaurids.

So then acheroraptor is a common finding as well? And what about zapsalis in the JRF? Im reading that the zapsalis teeth could possibly be premax teeth from saurornitholestes??

1 hour ago, Troodon said:

You really do not see many and have yet to run across one.  They are not common....

So what would you consider common findings  in the hell creek formation  and  also in the JRF? Nanotyrannus/tyrannosaur teeth?  saurornitholestes?....what would you say are common teeth found in these formations or maybe easier to ask what species are found there but not common? Obviously dromaeosaurus in the JRF we already said isnt very commonly found and dakotaraptor in the HCF is pretty rare to come across.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Joebiwan3 said:

So then acheroraptor is a common finding as well?

The most common theropod tooth found is Nanotyrannus.   Acheroraptor/Trex are not common but are typically found when you are working a channel deposit

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Troodon said:

The most common theropod tooth found is Nanotyrannus.   Acheroraptor/Trex are not common but are typically found when you are working a channel deposit

And what about zapsalis in the JRF? Is ot true that the zapsalis teeth found might belong to saurornitholestes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joebiwan3 said:

And what about zapsalis in the JRF? Is ot true that the zapsalis teeth found might belong to saurornitholestes?

The Zapsalis teeth are dromaeosaurid pre-maxillary teeth.   There are a couple of dromaeosaurids in the JRF so until we find a jaw it may be hard to distinguish between them... Saurornitholestes is the prime candidate since they look exactly like the ones found in Alberta.   Likewise  Zapsalis teeth in the HC most likely belong to Acheroraptor and we of course have no idea what Dakotaraptor look like.  Zapsalis from the JRF will be declared invalid as soon as a premax is found with teeth like what happened in Alberta.

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

One of the advantages of living near the show is that a dealer friend of mine hand delivers some of my bigger or delicate fall trip finds since my prep person lives in near him in South Dakota.

 

So here is a Caudal Vertebra and Humerus from an Edmontosaurus

My pooch is eyeing the bone...

20200128_144959.thumb.jpg.d2fa7333407a50a008a33e25f4bfbbfd.jpg20200128_145026.thumb.jpg.e5ef76df59e5fae146e8498bceff17f6.jpg

 

 

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow thats a really nice edmontosaurus piece. Lucky dog HAHA.....did u get anything from the show this year?

Link to post
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...