Jump to content

Paleostoric

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

 

I just got this tooth from the Hell Creek Formation of Carter County, Montana. It was labeled as Richardoestesia, so based on the curvature, I was assuming the proper ID would be cf Richardoestesia gilmorei. However, when taking some measurements, what caught my eye was that the mesial carina appeared to end 1/3 from the base, and I started to wonder if instead this tooth could possibly be Dakotaraptor. These are the measurements I was able to get:

 

Mesial: around 5.5-6 serrations/mm

Distal: around 5 serrations/mm

CH: around 16.5 mm

CBL: around 7 mm

CH/CBL: around 2.4

 

The crown appears to be smooth, the base is almond shape, and I believe the denticles have rounded tips. Please let me know what you all think. Also, some of the measurements may need double checking. Thanks!

Photo on 9-19-20 at 12.36 AM.jpg

Photo on 9-19-20 at 12.37 AM.jpg

Photo on 9-19-20 at 12.39 AM.jpg

Photo on 9-19-20 at 12.40 AM.jpg

Photo on 9-19-20 at 12.53 AM.jpg

Photo on 9-19-20 at 12.53 AM #2.jpg

Photo on 9-19-20 at 12.42 AM.jpg

Photo on 9-19-20 at 12.26 AM.jpg

Photo on 9-19-20 at 12.27 AM.jpg

Photo on 9-19-20 at 12.28 AM.jpg

Photo on 9-19-20 at 12.29 AM.jpg

Photo on 9-19-20 at 1.00 AM.jpg

Photo on 9-19-20 at 1.07 AM.jpg

Photo on 9-19-20 at 1.08 AM.jpg

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

Interesting tooth.  Unfortunately not at home to look at my reference sources but would lean against DR.   The distal density is much to high more typical of Richardoestesia.  The CHR at 2.4 is also high compared to the holotype.   The distal side would also be more recurved than your specimen.  The length of the mesial carina is what's Interesting have to look at my books to see what they say on Richardoestesia if anything.  Very nice tooth BTW

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

Interesting tooth.  Unfortunately not at home to look at my reference sources but would lean against DR.   The distal density is much to high more typical of Richardoestesia.  The CHR at 2.4 is also high compared to the holotype.   The distal side would also be more recurved than your specimen.  The length of the mesial carina is what's Interesting have to look at my books to see what they say on Richardoestesia if anything.  Very nice tooth BTW

Thanks for the info. The mesial carina is quite interesting. I wonder if it has any significance. :zzzzscratchchin: Would a proper label for this tooth be cf Richardoestesia gilmorei? It is a great tooth nonetheless.

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...