GuidesMagazineShopBuy FossilsJoin Hunts
Baryonyx
Just wondering if anyone   can take a peek and tell me their thoughts? Shape and size matches cetiosaur vert, but the lack of concave in the center does not.

I'd like it, but worried it mighy actually be plesiosaur.

Found Abingdon.

12cm x 13.5 x 4.9
815 grams Screenshot_20200514-084450_Chrome.jpg  Screenshot_20200514-084443_Chrome.jpg 

Thanks Click image for larger version - Name: Screenshot_20200514-084443_Chrome.jpg, Views: 16, Size: 70.84 KB
Quote 0 0
Gary W
Looks much more like a plesiosaur vertebra 
Gary
Quote 0 0
Baryonyx
Hi Gary,

Thanks for taking a look. I had my suspcions with this one. The seller has quite a few verts--so this makes me suspect the others may have been misidentified too.

Shame, I'm wanting to add a few sauropod verts to my collection.
Quote 0 0
Gary W
I cannot be 100% certain that it is not a cetiosaurus but especially given their rarity it is much more likley to be a plesiosaur i have found a plesiosaur vert at abingdon ( Identified by an expert) and it looks very very similar. Also i do posess a few dinosaur vertebra and your photo just doesnt look right for a dinosaur.
Gary
Quote 0 0
Baryonyx

Gary W wrote:
I cannot be 100% certain that it is not a cetiosaurus but especially given their rarity it is much more likley to be a plesiosaur i have found a plesiosaur vert at abingdon ( Identified by an expert) and it looks very very similar. Also i do posess a few dinosaur vertebra and your photo just doesnt look right for a dinosaur.


Thanks. I have zero verts, more of a teeth collector. But I've been wanting a few verts to put on top of my fossil display. I saw this one but it didn't really match the holotype photos--a similar shape but not really concave like the pics of the cetiosaur holotypes has.

The seller has a couple more for sale, if you don't mind taking a look, see if any of these two look likely to be cetiosaur/sauropod. That would be much appreciated 🙂

To me, vert 2 looks like it could be a sauropod as opposed to plesiosaur. But another, more knowledgable opinion would be great.



Click image for larger version - Name: vert 1.jpg, Views: 22, Size: 135.40 KB Click image for larger version - Name: vert 2.jpg, Views: 21, Size: 150.65 KB
Quote 0 0
Gary W
I think the first is also a plesiosaur but the second could perhaps be dinosaur. The shape is more convincing but the bone structure still looks more saurian. But i am really not sure and i am not an expert in  dinosaur fossils so i would not want you relying on my opi ion.   Perhaps other members might comment.
Gary
Quote 1 0
snowyandtintin
The vertebrae from Abingdon seem to occur with some regularity these days on dealer sites. They are found in the area in the Kimmeridge Clay deposits, which is a marine deposit, so the occurrence of ichthyosaur, plesiosaur and pliosaur vertebrae is to be fully expected. It is possible that land reptiles, such as dinosaurs, did end up in the sea, having been carried out by floods or rivers from the small string of islands that represented the British Isle at that time. However, most dead animals were probably scavenged , so the likelihood of so many turning up has to be considered. Cetiosaurus, Juratyrant and Dacentrurus are the vertebrae of dinosaurs (as opposed to sea reptiles) usually sold and these are synonymous with the Kimmeridge Clay. Even so, precise identification from any of these from just an isolated vertebra bone isn't easy.

You'd need to take a punt and then do some research, if you're intent on buying it. Saurian bone structure is different from sea reptile. It might also be possible to send photos of the specimen, or the vertebra itself, to a museum that can help. Oxford University Museum of Natural History can be very helpful. A first glance at your photos certainly shout plesiosaur but if you're drawn to some detective work and the price is right, it might be a worthwhile addition to your collection.
Quote 1 0
Baryonyx
Thanks fpr taking a look. If there is doubt, I will leave them. Cheers thw both of you.
Quote 0 0
Barrow Museum
The Kimmeridge Clay (and the underlying Oxford Clay) has a history of producing dinosaur remains near Oxford.  In 1879, an early representative of the iguanodontiids was found in a Kimmeridge Clay brick pit.  This fossil, Camptosaurus prestwichii, is now on display in Oxford University Museum and is the most complete European example of the genus.  Mind you, it is a lot smaller than an adult Cetiosaurus.  But it does demonstrate that land cannot have been far away, and this is maybe supported by the rather sandier nature of the Oxford area Kimmeridgian (nearer to the persistent Jurassic-Early Cretaceous island stretching from London to the Ardennes in Belgium) compared with the more offshore areas to the north.
It would be interesting to learn if the bones you are seeing were found in the overlying Thames gravels, or actually removed in situ from the underlying Jurassic clay.  The colour suggests they are weathered somewhat.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...


Discussions on fossils, fossil hunting, rocks, locations, and identifying your finds.
(C)opyright 2019 - UKGE Ltd and UK Fossils - Contact us