Jason M Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 here are some pics of the skull, and heres a quick sketch of what i think it may have looked like. Tell me what u think. closest to p. sibiricus, but still different, and way out of range for one. notice what appears to be a broken nose horn on tip of rostrum. Large supra orbital bone and larger points on several parts of skull. apears to have more sharp points and more frill like structure than Sibiricus. and side rostral horns are very horizontal planed, where sibiricus' points are more vertical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason M Posted March 27, 2009 Author Share Posted March 27, 2009 Resized and posted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 well it wont let me post my picture i sketched. i think it is pretty accurate so that sux. if anyone knows how to help me post it< it is 1.25meg but site says 2 mb limit. If it's not already, convert it to jpeg and reduce the size (72 ppi, 800 max dimension). You say "out of range"; where is your fossil from? "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 that is something hmmmm yes where from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason M Posted March 27, 2009 Author Share Posted March 27, 2009 Well sibiricus is/has been only found in Fossilsite Ilek Formation at Shestakovo, Kemerovo, Province, West Siberia, Russia it was found a long way from there. it is 8 foot, and was brought into the US a few years ago., from lower mongolia!!! sure isn't any species thats ever been found there before! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 It's different, alright! P. mongoliensis is smaller and lacks horns and frill. That giant sucking sound is all your spare time for the next couple years being devoured by research. Congratulations! "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason M Posted March 28, 2009 Author Share Posted March 28, 2009 How do u guys feel about my sketch? Would u say it portrays accuracy compared to the skull u've seen? and where would u put the tympanic membrane? i believe it would be recessed in the tube called a caudal? not sure how to add that or where to my drawing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Keep in mind that there are over a dozen described (should I say 'proposed') species of Psittacosaurus, very few of which are probably valid. Psittacosaurus has been subject to extreme oversplitting by some overzealous paleontologists. Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason M Posted March 29, 2009 Author Share Posted March 29, 2009 well this species seems new and very large to me at 8+ feet. what do u think of the drawing in relation to the skull? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 At 8 feet... how sure can you be that it is Psittacosaurus? Or, on the flip side, it may just be a really big individual; size alone can't demonstrate 'distinctiveness'. Also, the photo of the lateral side of the skull makes it look like its been skewed - as in the dorsal part of the skull skewed forward/anteriorly. I'm not sure that basal ceratopsians had horns that large; aside from that, nice drawing. As far as nose horns go, no ceratopsians outside Ceratopsoidea have nose horns (and neither does Zuniceratops, which suggests nose horns are unique to the derived Ceratopsidae). So... is this a specimen someone is working on? Otherwise... not much point in referring to it as a new species. Just my 2 cents. Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Menser Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Very Nice! Be true to the reality you create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason M Posted March 29, 2009 Author Share Posted March 29, 2009 i will be working on it. pouring hours of research into it, and writing up the differances, probably use a clay mold tequnique to simulate muscle and flesh and see what it may have looked like. I would love to describe it, and it be different enought that I would get to name it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 A major project; life is good! I sure wish I could draw or sculpt....interpretive drawings like yours would go a long way in my little "museum". "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason M Posted March 29, 2009 Author Share Posted March 29, 2009 thanx for the support! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleozoicfish Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 thanx for the support! Do not forget about polymorphism within a population. There is always variation, look at the vast differences between Homo sapiens. This is a cardinal problem in paleontology, when is something a new species? Are you a lumper or a splitter? Sexual Dimorphism in the Ceratopsians takes some drastic turns, so always be aware of that. There is a paper from 1976 on Protoceratops sexual dimorphism from Dodson. I will attach it to give you an idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleozoicfish Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Do not forget about polymorphism within a population. There is always variation, look at the vast differences between Homo sapiens. This is a cardinal problem in paleontology, when is something a new species? Are you a lumper or a splitter? Sexual Dimorphism in the Ceratopsians takes some drastic turns, so always be aware of that. There is a paper from 1976 on Protoceratops sexual dimorphism from Dodson.I will attach it to give you an idea. (and a fun one one Pterosaurs from Niobrara by Bennet in 1992 while I am attaching pdfs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Paleozoicfish, Dodson's statistical analysis isn't taken that seriously within the range of current ceratopsian researchers. For example, Dodson has even turned away from itself (in the wrong direction) and has instead named these into multiple new species. Dodson has named many new genera and species of Psittacosaurus like critters, and many of these are probably synonyms. For example, the evidence of Protoceratops sexual dimorphism is pretty weak, and instead follows a linear trend with body size. The same happens with Triceratops - Horner (2005?6?) presented a talk at SVP that basically destroyed the previous interpretation of sexual dimorphism within Triceratops. There are something like 12 species described, most of which he found were synonyms. Horner and Goodwin (2006) ascribed most of this variation towards ontogeny, and they used a larger sample size of skulls than ever used before. Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason M Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 I agree there are variations among species but these psitts have a very wide range then. and this psit, i am working on appears to me to have horns wider facial features and a partial frill with horns. good candidate for new species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I agree there are variations among species but these psitts have a very wide range then. and this psit, i am working on appears to me to have horns wider facial features and a partial frill with horns. good candidate for new species. I don't see anything on there that looks like it has larger cheek horns than any other species of Psittacosaurus, and I don't see a frill. Frills don't appear 'until' the Neoceratopsia. These are the sort of criteria that have allowed the proliferation of new genera/species that probably just represent variation within a species. Additionally... for a species to be named, the specimen must be deposited in a museum, and a scientific paper must be published in order to establish the new species and designate the specimen as a holotype. I apologize for my skepticism; please don't think I'm being rude. That is a very nice skull. Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dicranurus Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 i will be working on it. pouring hours of research into it, and writing up the differances, probably use a clay mold tequnique to simulate muscle and flesh and see what it may have looked like. I would love to describe it, and it be different enought that I would get to name it. First: Wow! What a marvelous skull. Second: This is important if it is new to science and you want describe it. (It is important to describe If it is new to science.) Private person (professional paleontologist or not) can’t own holotype(s) (aka "name bearers"). Holotype is a single physical specimen of a fossil, known to have been used when the species was formally described in scientific journal. Holotype must belong to collection of (professional) Natural History Museum, like the Smithsonian or the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. It must also describe and published in scientific journal. Here is some extra informations: http://www.iczn.org/ http://jerwood.nhm.ac.uk/pipermail/paleone...ust/000546.html "It seems to me that the natural world is the greatest source of excitement; the greatest source of visual beauty; the greatest source of intellectual interest. It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living." -Sir David Attenborough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason M Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 well if it new I would love to describe it, submit it, and turn it over to the museum. The beginnings of a frill would be the last 1/4 of skull. if u look at my guesstimation of how it looked u can see where I believe the frill type is. if u look at other ceratops they have holes in their frills for lightening as one of the major theory's of the frill. i have seen many psitt skulls and this one has much wider straighter osseus jugal horns, and appears to have places for horn attachments throughout the skull, appears to me to be even beefier and brawnier than sibiricus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason M Posted May 30, 2009 Author Share Posted May 30, 2009 First: Wow! What a marvelous skull.Second: This is important if it is new to science and you want describe it. (It is important to describe If it is new to science.) Private person (professional paleontologist or not) can’t own holotype(s) (aka "name bearers"). Holotype is a single physical specimen of a fossil, known to have been used when the species was formally described in scientific journal. Holotype must belong to collection of (professional) Natural History Museum, like the Smithsonian or the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. It must also describe and published in scientific journal. Here is some extra informations: http://www.iczn.org/ http://jerwood.nhm.ac.uk/pipermail/paleone...ust/000546.html Thank you for the information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCFossils Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Hi Jason, I agree with some of the other comments on the forum. several of the described species are synomonous. Some of the features in your drawing including he horns are in my opinion a bit exagerated. My best guess would be Psittacosaurus sibiricus. A friend of mine worked on an 8' specimen a few years back so the size range would conform to your piece. I believe casts are available from The Palm Beach Museum of Natural History. Was the skeleton loose when you purchased it or still in the original matrix? Nice piece! Rob 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