austinswamp Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 I have always assumed this was a Mosasaur tooth or bony fish but I took this to a fossil group meeting recently and many claimed it is a tyrannosaurus shed. Just looking for more opinions thanks. Found at onion creek in Travis county Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekky Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Sure looks dinosaur to me. Can you take a picture of the other edge, and the bottom? Are there any serrations visible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Can we get a view from the bottom as well? Cropped and brightened the photos - not seeing any serrations. 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...
Miocene_Mason Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 On dinosaurs, @Troodon is who you want. “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Or @hxmendoza Or @Canadawest Or @jpc 2 Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Ditto what the others said, need more pictures. The Austin Chalk (Gulfian Series) is located in that county and dinosaur material has been found in that fauna. If it's that we are looking at its a late cretaceous deposit and just because of size definitely a Tyrannosaurid. Nothing more specific has been describe. Awaiting pictures of distal edge and base to confirm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austinswamp Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share Posted July 13, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 That picture does not help. Need picture of base and across distal edge not tip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austinswamp Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share Posted July 13, 2017 OK will do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austinswamp Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share Posted July 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Troodon said: That picture does not help. Need picture of base and across distal edge not tip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 I think it is but hate to be a pain but looking for a straight on picture of the base not at an angle and one one the side serrations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austinswamp Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share Posted July 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Troodon said: That picture does not help. Need picture of base and across distal edge not tip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 The base of this looks too bone like for a tooth. I'm wondering if it isn't a process from turtle pleural bone, something like Trionyx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 I don't see any evidence of serrations on your last picture. Leaning away from a tooth however it looks like there is enamel in the tip picture.. I still would like to see a straight in picture of the base Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFOOLEY Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Could this be a very large Protosphyraena tooth? Maybe @John S. has seen something similar in his Cretaceous adventures. 1 "I am glad I shall never be young without wild country to be young in. Of what avail are forty freedoms without a blank spot on the map?" ~Aldo Leopold (1887-1948) New Mexico Museum of Natural History Bulletins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekky Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 That base doesn't look dinosaur, odd texture. I think it could very well be a Protosphyraena Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austinswamp Posted July 15, 2017 Author Share Posted July 15, 2017 On 7/13/2017 at 10:24 AM, Troodon said: Ditto what the others said, need more pictures. The Austin Chalk (Gulfian Series) is located in that county and dinosaur material has been found in that fauna. If it's that we are looking at its a late cretaceous deposit and just because of size definitely a Tyrannosaurid. Nothing more specific has been describe. Awaiting pictures of distal edge and base to confirm Do all Tyrannosaurus teeth have serrations? Thought the front didnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 3 hours ago, austinswamp said: Do all Tyrannosaurus teeth have serrations? Thought the front didnt Yes on both edges. Should be from the tip to base on the distal (inside) edge and may not go down all the way on the mesial (outside) edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austinswamp Posted July 15, 2017 Author Share Posted July 15, 2017 Several staff members from the natural history museum in Dallas confirmed it is a shed from a Acrocanthosaurus 39 minutes ago, Troodon said: Yes on both edges. Should be from the tip to base on the distal (inside) edge and may not go down on the mesial (outside) edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 22 minutes ago, austinswamp said: Several staff members from the natural history museum in Dallas confirmed it is a shed from a Acrocanthosaurus Interesting but let me point out that Acrocanthosaurus is from lower Cretaceous deposits and although Im not an expert in the geology Travis County it appears to contain Late Cretaceous deposits part of the Gulfian series. Acro. teeth also contain very fine serrations on the distal edge and a bit more than 50% on the mesial edge. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 28 minutes ago, Troodon said: Interesting but let me point out that Acrocanthosaurus is from lower Cretaceous deposits and although Im not an expert in the geology Travis County it appears to contain Late Cretaceous deposits part of the Gulfian series. Acro. teeth also contain very fine serrations on the distal edge and a bit more than 50% on the mesial edge. Agreed. The geology of that local watershed in Travis County is an Upper Cretaceous marine environment. It would be interesting to know the defining characteristics on which the "staff members" based their Acrocanthosaurus ID. 2 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Speeding Carno Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 As far as I know, Acrocanthosaurus teeth have really small serrations I'm not seeing any on this specimen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekky Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 The bottom dentin just doesn't look right. Those pit like structure are bugging me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 21 hours ago, austinswamp said: Several staff members from the natural history museum in Dallas confirmed it is a shed from a Acrocanthosaurus Did they actually get their hands on it? Or just looking at photos like us? Some fossils just cannot be nailed down without an up-close inspection. Not to mention who were the staff members? We have seen a few erroneous IDs of fossils made by museum staff who were not paleontologists, let alone zoologists or even biologists. And Onion Creek would be producing Upper Cretaceous fauna, so Acrocanthosaurus would not be likely. Doesn't rule out a younger therapod but probably not that genus. Whatever it turns out to be, it is one impressive fossil! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austinswamp Posted July 16, 2017 Author Share Posted July 16, 2017 3 hours ago, erose said: Did they actually get their hands on it? Or just looking at photos like us? Some fossils just cannot be nailed down without an up-close inspection. Not to mention who were the staff members? We have seen a few erroneous IDs of fossils made by museum staff who were not paleontologists, let alone zoologists or even biologists. And Onion Creek would be producing Upper Cretaceous fauna, so Acrocanthosaurus would not be likely. Doesn't rule out a younger therapod but probably not that genus. Whatever it turns out to be, it is one impressive fossil! They were three paleontologists in the lab underneath the museum that were able to use microscope and all three agreed on the ID 13 hours ago, The Speeding Carno said: As far as I know, Acrocanthosaurus teeth have really small serrations I'm not seeing any on this specimen... Present serrations were viewable under microscope 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