Is this Triceratops scapula? Thanks

[baolong]

I found this bone in a paid dig in Lance Creek.

There are lots of  Triceratops fossils there. 

After comparing with lots of bones, from the angle and sharp. 

I think it looks like a Triceratops scapula bone.

Please let me know what you think. 

 

Also, I found those teeth in Lance Creek.

I posted the smaller one before.

Most people said it is from Nano.

How about the bigger one? Is that from Nano as well?

Found them in the same dig site.

 

 

Thanks!

[baolong]

25 minutes ago, baolong said:

I found this bone in a paid dig in Lance Creek.

There are lots of  Triceratops fossils there. 

After comparing with lots of bones, from the angle and sharp. 

I think it looks like a Triceratops scapula bone.

Please let me know what you think. 

 

Also, I found those teeth in Lance Creek.

I posted the smaller one before.

Most people said it is from Nano.

How about the bigger one? Is that from Nano as well?

Found them in the same dig site.

 

 

Thanks!

length in CM not in inch

 

[jpc]

I would call the big tooth a rex.  The bone looks like a scapula but to be honest, I am not sure how the middle portion of trike and hadrosaur scapulae differ.  There are others here who have studied these things in more detail than I have.  Let's see what they have to say.  

[baolong]

31 minutes ago, jpc said:

I would call the big tooth a rex.  The bone looks like a scapula but to be honest, I am not sure how the middle portion of trike and hadrosaur scapulae differ.  There are others here who have studied these things in more detail than I have.  Let's see what they have to say.  

Thank you, why do you think it is from a Rex?

[jpc]

It looks more massive than the other one, and I have seen a lot of rex teeth with that worn enamel look and very few nano teeth showing that.  Still, let's see what others say. 

 

 

[FB003]

Base looks more nano to me but thats only really with the one side clearly visible. Other side is tough to make out for me personally. The crown height is about 1.5 inches though so I wouldn't say size alone can exclude nano on this one. Crown height vs crown base length looks proportionally the same between the two teeth so I also wouldn't consider the bulk too much for nano.  That's me though. It's a nice tooth regardless.

 

Troodon has a couple in this post of similar size. A little bit bigger at 1.7 inch crown height. I'm sure he has a lot more posted somewhere on here too.

 

 

[Kohler Palaeontology]

I'd say it's nano not rex. A very large nano at that.

[jpc]

These two guys (above) know their Maastrichtian theropod teeth better then I do.  Go with their thoughts.  

 

 

[FB003]

5 minutes ago, jpc said:

These two guys (above) know their Maastrichtian theropod teeth better then I do.  Go with their thoughts.  

 

 

I'd like to take credit but I'm just repeating things I picked up from Frank (Troodon). 

 

@baolong I would suggest a straight in picture of the base without it laying on a surface. That might help see if the other side has a pinch or not and perhaps help others too.

[baolong]

@FB003 here are some fresh pictures I just took.

I was mainly asking about the Triceratops scapula. I already thought those teeth were from Nano.

But If the bigger one is Rex, I would be happy.

@hadrosauridae @ThePhysicist Please let me know what you think.

Thanks, everyone!

[Kohler Palaeontology]

I still think nano, we'll see what others think. Hopefully someone can help with the (possible) scapula!!

[hadrosauridae]

I'm going to differ and say both teeth are Rex.  They just look far too thick and chunky on the base profile.  The small one looks even more rex-like than the big one.  I know people are looking at the single side curvature of the larger to call it Nano, but I;m looking at total profile.

 

As for the other bone, indet scapula.  

[Daze]

I'd say both teeth are Nano. The bone is a partial scapula indeed, most probably hadrosaur or ceratopsian. 

Edited November 7 by Daze

[jpc]

now that I see an edge view of the bigger tooth, I am backing off of saying rex.   It is too slender.  

 

 

[baolong]

5 hours ago, hadrosauridae said:

I'm going to differ and say both teeth are Rex.  They just look far too thick and chunky on the base profile.  The small one looks even more rex-like than the big one.  I know people are looking at the single side curvature of the larger to call it Nano, but I;m looking at total profile.

 

As for the other bone, indet scapula.  

Thanks! Good point

[baolong]

3 hours ago, jpc said:

now that I see an edge view of the bigger tooth, I am backing off of saying rex.   It is too slender.  

 

 

It looks slender because the angle I took those pictures. 

I sent those to a local dino museum, and they said the small one is Nano but the big one is from Rex.

I still don't know lol

[baolong]

5 hours ago, Daze said:

I'd say both teeth are Nano. The bone is a partial scapula indeed, most probably hadrosaur or ceratopsian. 

Thanks!

Why is that? A hadrosaur's scapula doesn't look like that.

We think it is Triceratops because I found lots of Triceratops fossils next to where I found this scapula.

[Daze]

I guess you're right. After taking a better look and comparing it to other examples I think the morphology is too different for it to be hadrosaur, ceratopsian is indeed a much better fit. 

Edited November 7 by Daze

[Kohler Palaeontology]

Maybe he could do a DSDI on the teeth to see???

Edited November 7 by Kohler Palaeontology

[jpc]

I just looked at our hadrosaur scapula over my lunch break, and I am going with ceratopsian on yours.  The hadroasur doesn't have as big a ridge.  

[baolong]

47 minutes ago, jpc said:

I just looked at our hadrosaur scapula over my lunch break, and I am going with ceratopsian on yours.  The hadroasur doesn't have as big a ridge.  

Thank you. 

We think it is Triceratops because I found lots of Triceratops fossils next to where I found this scapula.

That location is famous for finding Triceratops for years.

[baolong]

7 hours ago, Kohler Palaeontology said:

Maybe he could do a DSDI on the teeth to see???

DSDI most likely can't tell the difference between Nano and Rex.

[ThePhysicist]

If you are a proponent of the validity of Nanotyrannus, then the dentition of juvenile Tyrannosaurus is wholly unknown. In this case, all of these smaller tyrannosaurid teeth should be considered indeterminate. 

[TriVeratops]

Re: scapula: having stared intently at a hadrosaur scapula for the last five months (and with the caveat that it would help to see it unwrapped and from more angles), I agree it’s probably not hadrosaur. Looks a lot like ceratopsian scapula images online. 

[baolong]

3 minutes ago, TriVeratops said:

Re: scapula: having stared intently at a hadrosaur scapula for the last five months (and with the caveat that it would help to see it unwrapped and from more angles), I agree it’s probably not hadrosaur. Looks a lot like ceratopsian scapula images online. 

Thanks for sharing. I did check the hadrosaur scapula, they are a lot different.

 I didn't unwrap it because it was a broken bone when I found it. I don't feel it is very stable. So I will leave it like this so far.