Fullux Posted November 10 Posted November 10 Howdy all, I'm curious, what hadrosaurus genera are known from the Judith River Formation, and is it possible to attribute this tooth to a specific genus?
Kohler Palaeontology Posted November 10 Posted November 10 (edited) What I can tell you is that I think this is a maxillary tooth. You can tell by the lump on the bottom where the enamel stops. That lump is quite worn down though. I don't think you can tell what species this hadrosaur was, it's too worn. A really long tooth may suggest Lambeosaurine. Yours is too incomplete even for that. Here are the only described species from that fauna to my knowledge. (there are other unidentified hadrosaurs from that fauna) I also got this from Troodon's (Frank) post on that fauna. The fauna includes: Probrachylophosaurus bergei (Fowler & Horner 2015) and Brachylophosaurus canadensis (Sternberg 1953), Corythosaurus sp. (Takasaki et al. 2022) What I do know thanks to Denver Fowler, is that there is an outcrop I believe in hill county, that may actually be the Dinosaur Park Formation where Lambeosaurus itself has been found. Hope this helped! Edited November 10 by Kohler Palaeontology 1 "The past always seems better when you look back on it than it did at the time." - Peter Benchley (author of the novel "Jaws" that inspired the 1975 hit film)
Fullux Posted November 10 Author Posted November 10 10 hours ago, Kohler Palaeontology said: What I can tell you is that I think this is a maxillary tooth. You can tell by the lump on the bottom where the enamel stops. That lump is quite worn down though. I don't think you can tell what species this hadrosaur was, it's too worn. A really long tooth may suggest Lambeosaurine. Yours is too incomplete even for that. Here are the only described species from that fauna to my knowledge. (there are other unidentified hadrosaurs from that fauna) I also got this from Troodon's (Frank) post on that fauna. The fauna includes: Probrachylophosaurus bergei (Fowler & Horner 2015) and Brachylophosaurus canadensis (Sternberg 1953), Corythosaurus sp. (Takasaki et al. 2022) What I do know thanks to Denver Fowler, is that there is an outcrop I believe in hill county, that may actually be the Dinosaur Park Formation where Lambeosaurus itself has been found. Hope this helped! This isn't a tooth I own, but one I'm interested in. The seller says that it's from hill county. And yes, you have been an amazing help, thank you!
Kohler Palaeontology Posted November 10 Posted November 10 Glad this helped!! In case you do ever wonder, I also believe this is from an adult, or at least sub-adult. 1 "The past always seems better when you look back on it than it did at the time." - Peter Benchley (author of the novel "Jaws" that inspired the 1975 hit film)
Fullux Posted November 12 Author Posted November 12 On 11/10/2024 at 4:18 PM, Kohler Palaeontology said: Glad this helped!! In case you do ever wonder, I also believe this is from an adult, or at least sub-adult. Question, what leads you to believe it is sub-adult or adult?
Kohler Palaeontology Posted November 12 Posted November 12 26 minutes ago, Fullux said: Question, what leads you to believe it is sub-adult or adult? Well, I done much research on determining between juvenile and adult teeth from Maastrichtian aged Mesozoic formations in north America. I have gotten much help from talking to paleontologist, Denver Fowler. This is one of my specimens. As you can see, there are a couple features this has that are different from most adult teeth. This tooth comes from Valley County, in Montana, so it's Judith River Formation. To my knowledge, not much study has been done on this part of the formation, however I believe it is suggested it may be around 77 myo, though, I am not 100% positive on this dating to this part of that fauna. I believe this tooth to likely come from an individual 3 years old or less. Back to the point, you can see its unusually large, and/or exaggerated features such as the denticles, also, it is very small, the crown alone measures around 1cm, whilst the whole thing measures maybe 1.3 cm or so. This was likely a dentary tooth, though, it may not have been. There are my spitter teeth, all of which are adult teeth (hadrosaurid) again, one of them is a maxillary, because of that lump. The main reasons I don't think yours is a juvenile tooth, is its bulkiness and size. There may be remnants on it from what's left of those denticles, and they are definitely not juvenile. I know this is a theropod tooth, but look at the size of the denticles, this looks troodontid, though, it is a dromaeosaurid juvenile tooth (Chiarenza et al. 2020) (scale bar = 0.5 mm). I hope you got something out of that, I'm a little tired today, so don't be surprised if there's a spelling mistake or something like that, but I hope you enjoyed reading it! 1 "The past always seems better when you look back on it than it did at the time." - Peter Benchley (author of the novel "Jaws" that inspired the 1975 hit film)
Kohler Palaeontology Posted November 12 Posted November 12 I do have real close-up photos of the denticles on my tooth, if you want to see them, I can show you them. But, of course, denticles on all hadrosaurid teeth are different, but I don't think they should be tiny, maybe another member knows of some juvenile teeth that have tiny (un-worn) denticles. 1 "The past always seems better when you look back on it than it did at the time." - Peter Benchley (author of the novel "Jaws" that inspired the 1975 hit film)
Fullux Posted November 12 Author Posted November 12 1 hour ago, Kohler Palaeontology said: Well, I done much research on determining between juvenile and adult teeth from Maastrichtian aged Mesozoic formations in north America. I have gotten much help from talking to paleontologist, Denver Fowler. This is one of my specimens. As you can see, there are a couple features this has that are different from most adult teeth. This tooth comes from Valley County, in Montana, so it's Judith River Formation. To my knowledge, not much study has been done on this part of the formation, however I believe it is suggested it may be around 77 myo, though, I am not 100% positive on this dating to this part of that fauna. I believe this tooth to likely come from an individual 3 years old or less. Back to the point, you can see its unusually large, and/or exaggerated features such as the denticles, also, it is very small, the crown alone measures around 1cm, whilst the whole thing measures maybe 1.3 cm or so. This was likely a dentary tooth, though, it may not have been. There are my spitter teeth, all of which are adult teeth (hadrosaurid) again, one of them is a maxillary, because of that lump. The main reasons I don't think yours is a juvenile tooth, is its bulkiness and size. There may be remnants on it from what's left of those denticles, and they are definitely not juvenile. I know this is a theropod tooth, but look at the size of the denticles, this looks troodontid, though, it is a dromaeosaurid juvenile tooth (Chiarenza et al. 2020) (scale bar = 0.5 mm). I hope you got something out of that, I'm a little tired today, so don't be surprised if there's a spelling mistake or something like that, but I hope you enjoyed reading it! That's very interesting! I haven't done much research on hadrosaurs, but I am very interested in them.
Recommended Posts