Dinodads Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 My group found this weird fossil they have shared it with some paleontologist who are absolutely certain it is dinosaur, I don't want to sway anyone here. It is smaller then .5mm. Very smooth in some places. I was leaning more towards scute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Hunter Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Who were the paleontologist? Certain it is dinosaur what? If they verified it why are you seeking additional verification? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinodads Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 Our group took it to a museum in Phoenix, and the palentologists were sure it was some form of scute. The professor on our team disagreed, said that it was a hadrasour tooth. The experts at the Pioneer Trails Regional Museum were the ones to originally identify it. No one in our group has ever talked to them, other than the professor. Also, our school just upgraded microscopes and we are able to get a lot better photos and details from the specimen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Hunter Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 I'm no expert but it looks a scute, I would also take the word of a professional paleontologist over a professor. I'm thrown off by color and shine though, is that natural? Maybe that's why tooth was in play? Plenty of experts on here who will figure it out . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinodads Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 The sample we have is from an area that does suffer from flooding and were warned that a lot of the fossils that we would find could end up being very rounded. I am only on my second semester on this project and have a lot to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Hunter Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 (edited) Learning is never ending process with fossils. Trying to account for shine, is it wet? It kinda looks like enamel? Edited February 14 by Lone Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Hunter Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Yay @DPS Ammoniteis here ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinodads Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 Its not wet just very shiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Lone Hunter said: Yay @DPS Ammoniteis here ! I am not a good vertebrate paleontologist, but I don’t see a dinosaur tooth. What Phoenix area museum did you go to and get an ID? The Arizona Museum of Natural History is the only area museum that has professional paleontologists. Edited February 14 by DPS Ammonite 1 My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinodads Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 Yes it was the Arizona Museum of Natural History was the one we went to as a group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Hi, 1- I think it is rather 0.5 cm and not 0.5 mm (half a millimeter) that would not be visible to the eye ! 2- How can we definitively attribute a dinosaur origin to a piece of something of this size and also damaged ? Coco ---------------------- OUTIL POUR MESURER VOS FOSSILES : ici Ma bibliothèque PDF 1 (Poissons et sélaciens récents & fossiles) : ici Ma bibliothèque PDF 2 (Animaux vivants - sans poissons ni sélaciens) : ici Mâchoires sélaciennes récentes : ici Hétérodontiques et sélaciens : ici Oeufs sélaciens récents : ici Otolithes de poissons récents ! ici Un Greg... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinodads Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 4 minutes ago, Coco said: Hi, 1- I think it is rather 0.5 cm and not 0.5 mm (half a millimeter) that would not be visible to the eye ! 2- How can we definitively attribute a dinosaur origin to a piece of something of this size and also damaged ? Coco Everything my group is working with we have to use a microscope to pick the fossils from the grains of sand quite satisfying honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinodads Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, westcoast said: Not you, i was referring to dinodads comment about professor Apologies 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Hunter Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 So back to the fossil Could a water wear put a shine on a dermal scute like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinodads Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 Just now, Lone Hunter said: So back to the fossil Could a water wear put a shine on a dermal scute like that? I could imagine so its like putting a rock through a tumbler but I am no expert. 😅 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Hunter Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 That's what I was thinking, looks like scute is more likely then. Curious about how old is the professor ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Lone Hunter said: That's what I was thinking, looks like scute is more likely then. Curious about how old is the professor ? If you talked to a paleontologist at the Arizona Museum of Natural History I saw them tonight a few hours ago. Did you show it to them in person or by a photo? Edited February 14 by DPS Ammonite My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinodads Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 Just now, DPS Ammonite said: If you talked to a paleontologist at the Arizona museum I saw them tonight a few hours ago. Did you show it to them in person or by a photo? We showed them photos and we had brought the fossils but they are quite small. The photos before were not great we took them with our phone camers through the eyepiece. The college just upgraded to digital and we can connect to them via wifi and now have better photos. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Hunter Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 So they did personally look at fossil just to clarify, and was it more than one person ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinodads Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 It was 3 palentologist who looked at our presentation and the fossil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 looks like top of a vertebral arch, bit eroded. I do not see a tooth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 The Fort Union Formation is a Paleocene deposit, though. No dinosaurs. 1 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...
Al Dente Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 6 hours ago, Dinodads said: My group found this weird fossil they have shared it with some paleontologist who are absolutely certain it is dinosaur I can understand why they say it looks like a dinosaur tooth. Very similar to a fragment of Hadrosaur tooth. Awfully small and wrong age for dinosaur tooth unless it has been reworked. Same cross marking in cross section and similar ridge. Photos are from here and here. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandy Cole Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 If it were a scute that is this worn, I would expect to see at least some sign of porous structure due to wearing off of the cortical material. I can't see that here. But I'll defer to the dino experts. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 8 hours ago, Dinodads said: Our group took it to a museum in Phoenix, and the palentologists were sure it was some form of scute. The professor on our team disagreed, said that it was a hadrasour tooth. The experts at the Pioneer Trails Regional Museum were the ones to originally identify it. No one in our group has ever talked to them, other than the professor. Also, our school just upgraded microscopes and we are able to get a lot better photos and details from the specimen. I think this is the most informative post. Paleontologists at the Museum of Natural History identified it as a scute. Scutes are not necessarily dinosaur. For example it could be crocadilian, which would be consistent with the Paleocene age of the Fort Union Formation. It is the professor who identified it as a hadrosaur tooth, supposedly backed up by someone at the Pioneer Trails Regional Museum, although apparently no-one except for the professor talked to that person. I looked up that Museum, it seems like an interesting place that covers a lot of territory from natural history to archeology and much in between. However the only paleontologist listed is the curator, whose background is in ammonites. Regarding the professor, it's hard to weigh his opinion without knowing his background. Personally, I am an Entomology professor but I work in molecular biology. If you brought me an insect to identify I may or may not be able to do that accurately, as that is not my expertise or area of research. Personally I do not see a hadrosaur tooth, or any sort of a tooth, in the photos. I could go with a scute, in agreement with the paleontologists at the Arizona Museum of Natural History. However, @Al Dente and @Brandy Cole make interesting points. A heavily worn tiny fragment of a baby hadrosaur tooth would be hard to ID without a lot of experience, which I certainly do not have. Don 3 1 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