bcfossilcollector Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 I have read that what little is known about Deltadromeus places it in the clade Ceratosauria. The teeth attributed to the same are sometimes described as Abelisauridae. Are the morphology of the teeth attributed to Deltadromeus characteristic of one clade vs the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) Currently Deltadromeus is placed as a Ceratosaurian Dinosaur and that could change has more material is found including the skull. No teeth were found with the holotype to identify how they looked so until a skull, with teeth, is found and described they remains a mystery. Dealers sell all type of teeth and call them Deltadromeus which is a marketing ploy to attract sales. Abelisaurid type teeth from the Kem Kem have a very distinctive morphology and have not been placed in any specific taxon and they also remain a mystery . Edit: not sure if you've seen this http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/58139-kem-kem-theropod-teeth-what-you-need-to-know/page-1 Edited January 15, 2016 by Troodon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfossilcollector Posted January 15, 2016 Author Share Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) Currently Deltadromeus is placed as a Ceratosaurian Dinosaur and that could change has more material is found including the skull. No teeth were found with the holotype to identify how they looked so until a skull, with teeth, is found and described they remains a mystery. Dealers sell all type of teeth and call them Deltadromeus which is a marketing ploy to attract sales. Abelisaurid type teeth from the Kem Kem have a very distinctive morphology and have not been placed in any specific taxon and they also remain a mystery . Edit: not sure if you've seen this http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/58139-kem-kem-theropod-teeth-what-you-need-to-know/page-1 I did read your excellent and informative thread regarding Kem Kem theropods. I suppose my failure to grasp the marketing as pertains to these teeth vs a taxonomic certainty still has to sink in a little. That is one of the reasons this forum is such a value to the inexperienced collector. On this forum science trumps business. As always thank you! Edited January 15, 2016 by bcfossilcollector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts