DAS_Rex Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 I’m going through and labeling a lot of my smaller fossils here lately. What is the most correct way to label Paronychodon teeth from the Hell Creek Formation. I know P. lacustris is from Judith River Fm. but I’ve noticed a somewhat wide range of name versions for Hell Creek Fm. So far P. caperatus, P. cf. caperatus, and just Paronychodon sp. seem most common. Some even just dismiss the P. caperatus bit totally and label all as lacustris. What is the most accepted as of now? I haven’t even approached finding the proper label for the serrationless Zapsalis favoring morph. Any help would be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwigia Posted August 13 Share Posted August 13 I'm not at all familiar with this fauna, but doesn't it make sense to settle on which species you have in the hand before you make your label? And if that's not possible, then you'll just have to settle on Paronychodon sp. 1 Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger http://www.steinkern.de/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS_Rex Posted August 13 Author Share Posted August 13 (edited) Paronychodon is a tooth taxon found in several localities and formations. And identified as anything from Deinonychosaurian to pterosaur and everything in between by various people. I believe I’m certain of what it should be, but I was making sure for the sake of a display I’m making. Most online sources just quote Wikipedia (and of course it’s always accurate). Actual descriptions seem sparse and most don’t agree. I think I’ll just stick to P. caperatus until more actual research is produced. Consensus on these fossils is few and far between even on this forum. The specimens I own come from Hell Creek Fm. in North Dakota. Therefore it should be Paronychodon caperatus. I’ve just noticed a pretty common practice of not using this species name or inserting cf. In this forum I’ve even seen it called a possibly dubious species. Edited August 13 by DAS_Rex 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS_Rex Posted August 13 Author Share Posted August 13 Not really an identification as much as proper grammar for the naming of the hell creek specimens. Ideas on these beasties seem to change like the wind, so I just want to be current. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kikokuryu Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 17 hours ago, DAS_Rex said: Paronychodon is a tooth taxon found in several localities and formations. And identified as anything from Deinonychosaurian to pterosaur and everything in between by various people. I believe I’m certain of what it should be, but I was making sure for the sake of a display I’m making. Most online sources just quote Wikipedia (and of course it’s always accurate). Actual descriptions seem sparse and most don’t agree. I think I’ll just stick to P. caperatus until more actual research is produced. Consensus on these fossils is few and far between even on this forum. The specimens I own come from Hell Creek Fm. in North Dakota. Therefore it should be Paronychodon caperatus. I’ve just noticed a pretty common practice of not using this species name or inserting cf. In this forum I’ve even seen it called a possibly dubious species. HC/Lance morphs I would (and personally) just go with Paronychodon caperatus and call it a day. Tooth taxons are perfectly fine since it still tells you exactly what you are looking at. I go with a label like this: Quote Theropoda indet. Paronychodon caperatus Comparatively, the cf. Zapsalis sp. morphs could possibly be labeled as Acheroraptor temertyorum, but maybe with a (?) next to it. The Zapsalis premaxillary morph has been found in both Velociraptor and Saurornitholestes so it makes sense Acheroraptor is a strong candidate. Quote cf. Zapsalis sp. Acheroraptor temertyorum (?) And then you have the tyrannosaurid premaxillary tooth taxon Aublysodon molnari that belong to either Nanotyrannus or Tyrannosaurus; so could use it in tandem with Tyrannosauridae indet. There's also Richardoestesia with both Richardoestesia cf. gilmorei and Richardoestesia cf. isosceles, the former is a theropod, but the latter is a bit more confusing I think. cf. Avisaurus archibaldi is the one tooth taxon that became a bit problematic to use because it turns out many of these teeth turned out to be very young crocodylomorph teeth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS_Rex Posted August 14 Author Share Posted August 14 Thank y’all for the replies and the info. I greatly appreciate the help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts