Tressmeister Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 (edited) Hello, I am trying to identify if this is a T. rex tooth. It's described as "natural juvenile Tyrannosaurus tooth". Location: Hell Creek Formation, Montana. Dimensions: Height: 4.3 cm Width: 3.8 cm I've read this awesome post by troodon, and I'm leaning towards T. rex ("fat" and rounded tip) - but looking forward to seeing your opinions as well. Thanks and have an awesome day ahead! Edited January 29 by Tressmeister typos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patelinho7 Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 Can you get a view of the base? I believe the base is the main diagnostic feature in differentiating the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 Also, any idea what county it was found in? Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tressmeister Posted January 29 Author Share Posted January 29 51 minutes ago, patelinho7 said: Can you get a view of the base? I believe the base is the main diagnostic feature in differentiating the two. Unfortunately, no. I was wondering as well if the base is pinched on the sides - difficult to see from the images I have. Here are a few more: 29 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said: Also, any idea what county it was found in? No info on the county either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadrosauridae Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 (edited) This looks like rex to me. Just trying to judge from the hand holding as a scale, firstly it looks to be too large for a nano. Just looking at how round the body of the tooth looks also lead me to think its rex. Nanos are pinched at the base, but they are also much flatter in the profile. Edited January 29 by hadrosauridae 3 "There is no shortage of fossils. There is only a shortage of paleontologists to study them." - Larry Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 I actually purchased similar tooth from same seller. My tooth had one sided pinch at lingual side, but it can be cause of tooth position. Otherwise same than with this one, shape and thickness closer to t-rex than nano. But can't be sure without checking the whole tooth, but looks like rex. Pointer: I think first measurent is diagonal and second straight line length. 1 There's no such thing as too many teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FB003 Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 +1 to needing county. *Frank* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resonate Controversy Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 1 hour ago, Resonate Controversy said: Sorry, not an tooth of any kind. I believe there was already an topic with given explanation. 2 There's no such thing as too many teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randyw Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 @Tressmeister I’m in the rex camp also. @Resonate Controversy still just a rock. The o.p.’s tooth and pictures perfectly show all the reasons your rock is NOT A TOOTH. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilNerd Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 @Resonate Controversy high jacking someone else’s thread is bad form. It’s better to start your own thread, which I believe you already have… Your specimen is a rock. Strictly geological in nature. There is no enamel, serration, root, or tooth morphology of any kind to be seen. Like Randyw, I suggest you compare your rock to Tressmeister’s actual tooth to see why your’s is not one. Since you posted your pictures in his thread it will be easy to compare them. Sorry @Tressmeister. I don’t know enough about dino teeth to give an informed opinion. 1 3 The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -Neil deGrasse Tyson Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't. -Bill Nye (The Science Guy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tressmeister Posted February 15 Author Share Posted February 15 Thank you for your input, everyone! Team Rex for this one as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phos_01 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 We really need to see a clear picture of the base to determine Rex or Nano. I see a some compression at the bottom of the tooth, that would make it Nano. Careful do not make the mistake to blindly think that its Rex ! A worthy seller must provide you with decent information and pictures . If the base looks anything like this its Nano for sure: if it would look like this one, its a Rex: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tressmeister Posted February 17 Author Share Posted February 17 I have some more pics of the base! (because I couldn't help myself and got it ) One side is a bit compressed, which would point towards Nano. Overall the body looks full (like in the first images). The exposed side is pretty round. From what I've seen, Nanos are more compressed/sleek? Serrations look more robust as well and seem to go over the (bit damaged) tip? Also, from what I've read, a rex maxillary tooth can have basal compression too: Maybe someone with more experience can confirm my findings. All things considered, I'm pleased with this one whatever species it may come from I've been missing both from my collection anyway! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FB003 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 I may be missing it but without county this is tyrannosaurid to me. 1 1 *Frank* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadrosauridae Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 There is too much matrix covering the base to get a clear view of the shape. I still maintain that based on the APPARENT size alone, this would be "T.rex", although FB003 is correct. Without knowing where it came from, we cant make a positive species determination. Lots of different tyrannosaurids in different place at different times. Are you planning on leaving in matrix, or are you planning on getting it prepped out? 1 "There is no shortage of fossils. There is only a shortage of paleontologists to study them." - Larry Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 You actually can ask from seller if county is known by using message feature. Also can you see how carinae goes at the front side of the tooth or does matrix block the view? 1 There's no such thing as too many teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tressmeister Posted February 17 Author Share Posted February 17 2 hours ago, hadrosauridae said: There is too much matrix covering the base to get a clear view of the shape. I still maintain that based on the APPARENT size alone, this would be "T.rex", although FB003 is correct. Without knowing where it came from, we cant make a positive species determination. Lots of different tyrannosaurids in different place at different times. Are you planning on leaving in matrix, or are you planning on getting it prepped out? I was planning to keep this one in matrix, but will see ... 45 minutes ago, North said: You actually can ask from seller if county is known by using message feature. Also can you see how carinae goes at the front side of the tooth or does matrix block the view? Yes, I asked him. He doesn't know, unfortunately. You mentioned you got a similar one from the same seller, did he mention the county for yours? There's a bit of damage there at the tip, but I believe it went all the way from what it looks like, as they stop at the break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 12 minutes ago, Tressmeister said: Yes, I asked him. He doesn't know, unfortunately. You mentioned you got a similar one from the same seller, did he mention the county for yours? There's a bit of damage there at the tip, but I believe it went all the way from what it looks like, as they stop at the break. Sadly no. But can you see does carinae wonder to the side or stop before the base? There's no such thing as too many teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tressmeister Posted February 17 Author Share Posted February 17 27 minutes ago, North said: Sadly no. But can you see does carinae wonder to the side or stop before the base? Oh, you meant towards the base. I believe it drifts to the side a bit (maybe some denticles were worn). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhysicist Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 IMO it's an indeterminate tyrannosaurid. As mentioned several times, county is necessary to know if it's T. rex with certainty - several formations throughout MT have other large tyrannosaurids with similarly large teeth. Compression at the base varies by tooth position and age of the animal - it is not a diagnostic character in the tyrannosaurids we're concerned with. Nor is "twisting" of the mesial carina - both adult T. rex and "nano" teeth have this feature. 2 "Argumentation cannot suffice for the discovery of new work, since the subtlety of Nature is greater many times than the subtlety of argument." - Carl Sagan "I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." - Richard Feynman Collections: Hell Creek Microsite | Hell Creek/Lance | Dinosaurs | Sharks | Squamates | Post Oak Creek | North Sulphur River | Lee Creek | Aguja | Permian | Devonian | Triassic | Harding Sandstone Instagram: @thephysicist_tff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 8 hours ago, Tressmeister said: Oh, you meant towards the base. I believe it drifts to the side a bit (maybe some denticles were worn). I have seen tooth with same morphology, but 5,5cm tall and with around 2,5x2cm base. Also with slight one sided pinch. So I believe its too bulky to be nano. But it is true we can't be certain with id without county, since earlier tyrannosaurids share most characteristics. But it could possibly be rex. 1 1 There's no such thing as too many teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phos_01 Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 On 2/17/2024 at 2:15 PM, Tressmeister said: I have some more pics of the base! (because I couldn't help myself and got it ) One side is a bit compressed, which would point towards Nano. Overall the body looks full (like in the first images). The exposed side is pretty round. From what I've seen, Nanos are more compressed/sleek? Serrations look more robust as well and seem to go over the (bit damaged) tip? Also, from what I've read, a rex maxillary tooth can have basal compression too: Maybe someone with more experience can confirm my findings. All things considered, I'm pleased with this one whatever species it may come from I've been missing both from my collection anyway! On this picture its a Nano for me, you can see the pinched root also the size is what you typically see for an adult example, mine is almost exact in size: 42mm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tressmeister Posted February 19 Author Share Posted February 19 8 hours ago, Phos_01 said: On this picture its a Nano for me, you can see the pinched root also the size is what you typically see for an adult example, mine is almost exact in size: 42mm Yes, that's the part with the most "Nano" vibes. The pinch doesn't seem as pronounced as in other images I've seen online, it's more like a straight line than a curve. I saw some images of rex maxillary teeth with basal compression as well: https://www.thefossilforum.com/gallery/image/55070-t-rex-posterior/?context=new https://www.thefossilforum.com/collections-database/chordata/dinosaurs/juvenile-tyrannosaurus-rex-tooth-r2081/ As @ThePhysicist mentioned, compression at the base varies by tooth position and age of the animal. Is more compression present in younger rex maxillary teeth, and less compression in adult nano teeth? Or is this not a rule. I saw this post and did some measurements as well: CBR = 0.64 CHR = 1.76 MC = 12/5 mm = 2.5 DC = 12/5mm = 2.5 DSDI = 1 Averages seem closer to rex maxillary teeth, but ranges are very similar between species, so this probably means nothing . I now totally understand why it's so difficult to identify isolated teeth, but I've learned a lot of cool stuff doing this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 I can no longer find the original tooth, but I found similar sized one online, bit difference on shape, but pinching on side. Given length is 5,5 cm. Base 2,4x1.9cm. I have hard time thinking nano could have this ammount of bulk. 1 There's no such thing as too many teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now