Please help Id these raptor teeth

[hxmendoza]

Just to clarify, I never said the teeth were tyrannosaurid. I only meant to say that they had features that were similar, or reminiscent of. 

 

There are no reported tyrannosaurs out of the Kem Kem.

[hxmendoza]

@Troodon here are the pics. 

[hxmendoza]

Kem Kem tooth #1

Theropoda sp. indet.

[Troodon]

Hey thanks @hxmendozanever paid much attention to the serrations of those small teeth, that will change.  Will have an opportunity to rumage through a bunch at Tucson. Boy have not seen anything written on them.   Ditto with the fauna in Egypt or Algeria.  Not compressed like other teeth in the Kem Kem. Have to wonder if they are common or not and just overlooked.

[hxmendoza]

Kem Kem tooth #2

Theropoda sp. indet.

 

[hxmendoza]

Kem Kem tooth #3

Theropoda sp. indet.

 

[hxmendoza]

As you can see, none of these teeth are Abelisauridae, Carcharodontosauridae, or Dromaeosauridae.

 

The mesial and distal denticles are approximately the same size.

[hxmendoza]

And I completely disagree with iow673.

@dontom‘s second, smaller tooth is not a premaxillary or anterior Abelisaur tooth. The morphology of his tooth is completely different from the premaxillary or anterior dentary teeth of Abelisaurs, such as Majungasaurus, and Carnotaurus, and others. 

 

[hxmendoza]

25 minutes ago, Troodon said:

Hey thanks @hxmendozanever paid much attention to the serrations of those small teeth, that will change.  Will have an opportunity to rumage through a bunch at Tucson. Boy have not seen anything written on them.   Ditto with the fauna in Egypt or Algeria.  Not compressed like other teeth in the Kem Kem. Have to wonder if they are common or not and just overlooked.

 

For now, from all of the Kem Kem teeth I’ve rummaged through at the Denver shows over the years, I believe these to be quite uncommon compared to the Abelisaur (“raptor”) teeth, the very bladed and tall “Deltadromeus” teeth, Carcharodontosauridae, and Spinosauridae teeth found in the Kem Kem. 

[Troodon]

Just now, hxmendoza said:

 

For now, from all of the Kem Kem teeth I’ve rummaged through at the Denver shows over the years,  I believe these to be quite uncommon compared to the Abelisaur (“raptor”) teeth, the very bladed and tall “Deltadromeus” teeth, Carcharodontosauridae, and Spinosauridae teeth found in the Kem Kem. 

Definitely different morphology and like you say not Abelisaurid, or the other known teeth we commonly see.  Just have to wait this one out until some Paleontologist get the info to publish on it.  In the meantime will be on the hunt for them.  Thanks for posting.

[hxmendoza]

11 minutes ago, Troodon said:

Definitely different morphology and like you say not Abelisaurid, or the other known teeth we commonly see.  Just have to wait this one out until some Paleontologist get the info to publish on it.  In the meantime will be on the hunt for them.  Thanks for posting.

 

My pleasure. 

[Troodon]

4 hours ago, iow673 said:

there are no Tyrannosaurs or Dromaeosaurs in the Kem Kem what so ever!!

Deltadromeous is not a dromaeosaur but believed to be within Abelisauroidea

 

Most likely Carcharodontosaurid and the smaller one will be Abelisaur premaxillary tooth  

 

People have an issue with size...? Well, all dinosaurs had to be babys at some point! and there is evidence of juveniles within the Kem Kem fauna. There is also heterodonty within the mouth of the dinosaurs, so all the teeth vary in size and shape as you go along the jaw.

Some of the premaxillary teeth of Abelisaurs and some Carcharodontosaurids can resemble those of Tyrannosaurs due to the distal carinae being offset as well as more conical in shape, however, the cross-section is not D shaped. This morphology makes the tooth more robust for biting down on bone etc. 

 

This paper is very helpful in identifying teeth from the Kem Kem. 

 

Richter, U., Mudroch, A., & Buckley, L. G. (2013). Isolated theropod teeth from the Kem Kem beds (early Cenomanian) near Taouz, Morocco. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 87(2), 291-30

 

I don't think anyone ever stated that there are Tyrannosaurs or Dromaeosaurs in the Kem Kem.  I also don't ever remember any knowledgable member ever saying that Deltadromeus is a dromaeousur so why raise the issue. 

We do not even know the orgin of the smaller tooth in question.  It could be North American for all we know but it's not an Abelisaurid regardless of locality since the morphology does not work.  

The paper you mention I reference it constantly and it  talks about Dromaeosaurid like teeth so that type of discussion is needed for anything different.  Since so little is understood in the Kem Kem we don't immediately dismiss it and say it's already been published.  It warrants attention and these teeth that have some Tyrannosaurid like features fit that bill.

 

 

[iow673]

2 hours ago, Troodon said:

 

I don't think anyone ever stated that there are Tyrannosaurs or Dromaeosaurs in the Kem Kem.  I also don't ever remember any knowledgable member ever saying that Deltadromeus is a dromaeousur so why raise the issue. 

We do not even know the orgin of the smaller tooth in question.  It could be North American for all we know but it's not an Abelisaurid regardless of locality since the morphology does not work.  

The paper you mention I reference it constantly and it  talks about Dromaeosaurid like teeth so that type of discussion is needed for anything different.  Since so little is understood in the Kem Kem we don't immediately dismiss it and say it's already been published.  It warrants attention and these teeth that have some Tyrannosaurid like features fit that bill.

 

 

It has been suggested in some of the comments above and said for clarity. 

 

I am currently working on small theropod teeth, predominantly from the Kem Kem.... I have several of these teeth, all been identified as Abelisaur and confirmed by my supervisors. 

There is a large amount of heterodonty in Abelisaurs, and there is probably more than 1 species in there so you've got to allow for variation. Same with Carcharodontosaurus.

You cant just say the beefier ones are one, thinner are another... 

For a really precise ID a comparison with denticle count, denticle morphology, cross-section morphology, tooth crown height ratios etc is needed...

Then with the smaller teeth, you have to take into consideration that the younger theropods will probably have a different diet to the adults, and this will most likely reflect in dentition. Eg. more slender teeth for catching insects. A large amount are misidentified, even in scientific literature. 

 

People use 'Dromaeosaurid like' as a bucket taxon, most of the time there is no dromaeosaur features present. 

Tyrannosaurs are extremely distinctive...there hasn't been anything found that could remotely be one from the KK, not a single tooth.  

[bcfossilcollector]

39 minutes ago, iow673 said:

It has been suggested in some of the comments above and said for clarity. 

 

I am currently working on small theropod teeth, predominantly from the Kem Kem.... I have several of these teeth, all been identified as Abelisaur and confirmed by my supervisors. 

There is a large amount of heterodonty in Abelisaurs, and there is probably more than 1 species in there so you've got to allow for variation. Same with Carcharodontosaurus.

You cant just say the beefier ones are one, thinner are another... 

For a really precise ID a comparison with denticle count, denticle morphology, cross-section morphology, tooth crown height ratios etc is needed...

Then with the smaller teeth, you have to take into consideration that the younger theropods will probably have a different diet to the adults, and this will most likely reflect in dentition. Eg. more slender teeth for catching insects. A large amount are misidentified, even in scientific literature. 

 

People use 'Dromaeosaurid like' as a bucket taxon, most of the time there is no dromaeosaur features present. 

Tyrannosaurs are extremely distinctive...there hasn't been anything found that could remotely be one from the KK, not a single tooth.  

Allow me to submit this tooth for consideration. I am not implying that this is the tooth of a tyrannosaurid but it almost appears to have some morphological similarities. This tooth is from the Kem Kem, images are from one of my previous posts. 

[Troodon]

7 hours ago, iow673 said:

It has been suggested in some of the comments above and said for clarity. 

 

I am currently working on small theropod teeth, predominantly from the Kem Kem.... I have several of these teeth, all been identified as Abelisaur and confirmed by my supervisors. 

There is a large amount of heterodonty in Abelisaurs, and there is probably more than 1 species in there so you've got to allow for variation. Same with Carcharodontosaurus.

You cant just say the beefier ones are one, thinner are another... 

For a really precise ID a comparison with denticle count, denticle morphology, cross-section morphology, tooth crown height ratios etc is needed...

Then with the smaller teeth, you have to take into consideration that the younger theropods will probably have a different diet to the adults, and this will most likely reflect in dentition. Eg. more slender teeth for catching insects. A large amount are misidentified, even in scientific literature. 

 

People use 'Dromaeosaurid like' as a bucket taxon, most of the time there is no dromaeosaur features present. 

Tyrannosaurs are extremely distinctive...there hasn't been anything found that could remotely be one from the KK, not a single tooth.  

 I understand the heterodonty in Abelisaurids in the Kem Kem but will respectfully disagree with your assessment on that tooth, just to recurved distally.  I do agree we have multiple species of Abelisaurids, Carch and add Spino's. to that group and happy to hear that some work is being conducted.  Hopefully we will see the results and it get published.  Ute's paper is the only one I've seen from the Kem Kem.

As far as Dromaeosaurid here is a tooth that I believe exhibits those characteristics which includes a twist in the mesial carina and denticle count is greater on the mesial edge than distal.  

[Troodon]

1 hour ago, bcfossilcollector said:

Allow me to submit this tooth for consideration. I am not implying that this is the tooth of a tyrannosaurid but it almost appears to have some morphological similarities. This tooth is from the Kem Kem, images are from one of my previous posts. 

 

I think we need more pictures to have a better look at this tooth and a close up of the serrations. Size?  My initial reaction is it's an anterior tooth Carch or Abelisaurid.  I'm sure iow673 will have her input.

[bcfossilcollector]

I can only submit one other image which if anything is less diagnostic. Unfortunately the tooth is in storage as I moved a few months ago. As I recollect,the tooth is about 1&3/4 inch’s in length with a fairly oval base. I’ll resubmit the other image. Thick serrations vs the Carch teeth I’ve compared it to although I defer to your experience and knowledge. With your posts on Kem Kem material to guide me I’ve labeled it as Kem Kem theropod indeterminate. I welcome the input of iow673

[Troodon]

A beautiful  tooth.  I believe its an anterior one.  The denticles  remind me of the maastrichtian Abelsaurid Chenanisaurus barbaricus also from morocco.  I would like to see more views since there is not a lot of comparative material around with that morphology.  If not possible, hey whenever you can.  My leader in the guessing game is a large bodied Abelsaurid.

[iow673]

17 hours ago, Troodon said:

 I understand the heterodonty in Abelisaurids in the Kem Kem but will respectfully disagree with your assessment on that tooth, just to recurved distally.  I do agree we have multiple species of Abelisaurids, Carch and add Spino's. to that group and happy to hear that some work is being conducted.  Hopefully we will see the results and it get published.  Ute's paper is the only one I've seen from the Kem Kem.

As far as Dromaeosaurid here is a tooth that I believe exhibits those characteristics which includes a twist in the mesial carina and denticle count is greater on the mesial edge than distal.  

3

I think alot of teeth are mistake for Dromaeosaurid... and are actually abelisaurid of some form. I've got this one which does scream Dromaeosaurid... but I've been convinced otherwise by a couple of colleagues whose knowledge is far greater than mine.  

[Troodon]

 What I struggle with is that my understanding Abelisaurid tooth morphology is different to what you are saying.  Christophe Hendrickx who is an expert on Theropod teeth and Ute Richter, for example, both describe Abelisaurids with the carina running about midline, no twist, serrations density can be different and most important the distal edge is almost perpendicular to the base and not recurved.  If I look at the tooth you presented it fits those characteristics and may be a Pre-maxillary tooth.  Although I can see how it can easily  be Dromaeosaurid like but not recurved.   The tooth I show is very different and does not fit that profile.  Why we need more papers on isolated teeth from the Kem Kem.

Edited:

Your tooth looks has some affinities to Madagascar's Masiakasaurus and it's placed in the family Noasauridae

[zekky]

On what basis did they say that tooth is not dromaeosaurid tooth? (just curious.) That tooth sure looks like a pre-max dromaeosauruid tooth, the shape is quite distinctive. Also dromaoesaurids are probably the most widely dispersed group of theropods. 

 

I have what I strongly believe to be a premax noasaurid tooth form Kem Kem, it's not quite like that tooth. The tip isn't curved forward or to the side which I believe it should be.

 

However we haven't even talked about neovenatoridae teeth in this thread. Deltadromeus may be in that family. 

[zekky]

I'll add this oddity from Kem Kem just to make things murkier.  I have no clue what this is, the only tooth I've ever seen comparable is Megalosaur Anterior tooth. Which I'm pretty certain this tooth is not that. No serrations or completely worn off serration on the mesial side. Round base.

 

 

[Troodon]

@zekky Does the mesial carina come down to the base or 3/4?

[zekky]

The mesial serrations do not come down to the base. The top part has been worn and I'm not even sure it has mesial serrations. However the bottom portion is not worn off and there are no serrations present. If there were serrations they'd only go 1/2 or 2/3.

[hxmendoza]

I have a tooth very much like that. Definitely not Abelisaur. Other than that, I have no clue.

Any input would also be appreciated. My mesial serrations are in better shape. 24mm in length.