Apex, The Largest Stegosaurus Fossil Ever Found, Heads to Auction

[thomasw100]

Fortunately, in many countries there are laws that regulate the sale of exceptional fossils. The best setup would be that private fossil collectors need to apply for a license (issued by the government after demonstrating sufficient knowledge and training to the local paleontological museum) and then they can dig on private property. They have to show all finds to the local museum paleontologists and they can freely sell specimens considered second class. First class and particularly exceptional specimens of high scientific value have to be handed over to a paleontological museum, but the government compensates the collectors for their costs and expenses, and they will not get profit. This would make sure that a specimen like this exceptional stegosaur would for sure end up in a public museum. Collectors without a license who nevertheless dig and sell fossils would be subject to legal punishment. Collectors with a license who break the rules would loose their license.

[thomasw100]

If I were in charge of the product development at Haolonggood, I would throw out the molds of the forthcoming Stegosaurus ungulatus and let them be remade based on this very skeletal. Then I would advertise this model to represent this specimen. This model would then sell like crazy.

[andrewsaurus rex]

Selling copies of these fossils would not fetch even close to the money the original fossil would.  And stricter regulation just discourages discovery.  Anything that decreases profits or potential profits is going to mean less is discovered because there will be less incentive to look. 

I prefer to live in a world where this Stegosaurus fossil, Dueling Dinosaurs, Stan, Big John etc exist.  Were it not for fortune hunters, they may well have never have been discovered at all.

[thomasw100]

Selling copies of these fossils would not fetch even close to the money the original fossil would.  And stricter regulation just discourages discovery.  Anything that decreases profits or potential profits is going to mean less is discovered because there will be less incentive to look. 

I prefer to live in a world where this Stegosaurus fossil, Dueling Dinosaurs, Stan, Big John etc exist.  Were it not for fortune hunters, they may well have never have been discovered at all.

I am sorry but I would strongly disagree with this entirely money driven perspective. I have been a quite active mineral collector when I was younger, and it was never because of money. It was because of the joy and excitement of discovery as such and then because of the love of nature. The feeling you get when you find something that possibly nobody else has ever found before is very special. This probably feels a little bit like what the early discoverers of unknown terrains must have felt.

[andrewsaurus rex]

That's great.  And there are amateur paleontologists who are like you.  But the reality is, many of these fossil discoveries are made ONLY because of the lure of financial reward.  And that lure makes people willing to spend countless hours looking and large amounts of money digging up and preparing fossil discoveries to sell.  To always expect this to happen out of the goodness of people's hearts is not realistic.

I wish we lived in a world where everyone would give freely of their time and money in order to further scientific discovery.  But we don't and never will.  But there are still benefits from the activities of the fortune hunters.  They have made some amazing fossil discoveries and no doubt many more will be discovered by them in future.

[Concavenator]

If I were in charge of the product development at Haolonggood, I would throw out the molds of the forthcoming Stegosaurus ungulatus and let them be remade based on this very skeletal. Then I would advertise this model to represent this specimen. This model would then sell like crazy.

I think there's no need for them to do that. Haolonggood's Stegosaurus is already a good depiction of S. ungulatus. While it's not based on this new specimen, it can be easily seen that it represents the same species, so if anyone is interested in getting a figure of that species, they can get Haolonggood's, which does a good job at depicting it. It would be quite a hassle for them to discard that figure now, since I guess it must be finished already (or nearly so), and unlike the Ouranosaurus case, there's no obvious inaccuracy that would need to be fixed. And Stegosaurus is one of the most popular dinosaurs, so it's going to sell well regardless. Even more so because it's just a good depiction of the animal, and it will be the only figure of the Stegosaurus ungulatus species available (prior to it there's just Kaiyodo's Dinotales 6 version).

If they were to modify any model, I would strongly advise them to do that with Maiasaura and Amargasaurus, since those do have important inaccuracies that is going to cost them sales. I think the Maiasaura lacking the head crest and the Amargasaurus lacking a complete neck sail are inaccuracies in a comparable (if not the same) tier as the Ouranosaurus missing the thumb spikes. So this situation is not something like: "I wish it was modified to have lips", those two inaccuracies are more serious.

[thomasw100]

If I were in charge of the product development at Haolonggood, I would throw out the molds of the forthcoming Stegosaurus ungulatus and let them be remade based on this very skeletal. Then I would advertise this model to represent this specimen. This model would then sell like crazy.

I think there's no need for them to do that. Haolonggood's Stegosaurus is already a good depiction of S. ungulatus. While it's not based on this new specimen, it can be easily seen that it represents the same species, so if anyone is interested in getting a figure of that species, they can get Haolonggood's, which does a good job at depicting it. It would be quite a hassle for them to discard that figure now, since I guess it must be finished already (or nearly so), and unlike the Ouranosaurus case, there's no obvious inaccuracy that would need to be fixed. And Stegosaurus is one of the most popular dinosaurs, so it's going to sell well regardless. Even more so because it's just a good depiction of the animal, and it will be the only figure of the Stegosaurus ungulatus species available (prior to it there's just Kaiyodo's Dinotales 6 version).

If they were to modify any model, I would strongly advise them to do that with Maiasaura and Amargasaurus, since those do have important inaccuracies that is going to cost them sales. I think the Maiasaura lacking the head crest and the Amargasaurus lacking a complete neck sail are inaccuracies in a comparable (if not the same) tier as the Ouranosaurus missing the thumb spikes. So this situation is not something like: "I wish it was modified to have lips", those two inaccuracies are more serious.

You are probably right, I was just thinking how much of a hype Haolonggood could create if their Stegosaurus ungulatus would be modeled exactly after this skeleton. But perhaps they can still refer to this specimen for promoting their sales, given how close it would be.

[Quiversaurus]

How do we know it's an S. ungulatus?

Apart from the money talk, this discovery makes me very happy. I already like Stegosaurus as my favourite species, and such a complete skeleton just feels exciting.

I was on the fence about HLG's S. ungulatus, but I think I'll get it now that this fossil has been revealed.

I also enjoyed reading this, from the BBC article:

"Apex didn't appear to have been damaged in fights with other creatures. The only indication of wear and tear was that its lower vertebrae had fused with the pelvis, an effect of arthritis, suggesting the stegosaurus enjoyed a long life before an eternity in the ground."

Edit: If this specimen managed to get arthritis, it means it lived to a ripe old age, which means the measurements for this guy would be very close to the upper limit, and so models modelled on this specimen would be a great replica of an adult specimen.

[Concavenator]

@Quiversaurus I'd say it's because of the shape of the plates.

[Sim]

How do we know it's an S. ungulatus?

The shape of its larger plates having a wide base and narrow top is an identifying feature of Stegosaurus ungulatus.  S. stenops has broader, more rounded plates.

I also really like this, from the BBC article:

"Apex didn't appear to have been damaged in fights with other creatures. The only indication of wear and tear was that its lower vertebrae had fused with the pelvis, an effect of arthritis, suggesting the stegosaurus enjoyed a long life before an eternity in the ground."

I like that too!  Stegosaurus was well-equipped to handle the challenging time it lived in!

[Quiversaurus]

Thank you @Concavenator and @Sim !

I'm really excited for HLG's S. ungulatus now, can't wait for the reveals.

Edit: "It's almost 11.5ft tall (3.5m) and fully 27ft from the top of its head to the tip of its scaly tail."

27ft = 8.23m
"One species, Stegosaurus ungulatus, is one of the largest known of all the stegosaurians, with the largest known specimens measuring about 7.5 metres (25 ft) long and weighing over 5 metric tons (5.5 short tons)." (Wiki)

Which means this guy is larger than the largest S. ungulatus specimen so far...

Edit 2: Screenshot from the NYT article. That is a huge skull:

[andrewsaurus rex]

Interesting about the lack of damage, although i suppose it could have had all sorts of scars and chunks of flesh taken out of its hide during its life, but nothing major, it seems.  So large size seems to have served Apex well.  No mention of tooth marks on any of the bones, i gather?   You'd think it would have been scavenged upon after death, unless it lay somewhere inaccessible or died during some sort of mass death episode.

[Faelrin]

Perhaps the lack of scavenging damage could be correlated with its excellent state of preservation? Too many questions which I fear will go unanswered (edit: without a formal peer review).

[DinoToyForum]

cases like this are upsetting, but without the lure of big money for dinosaur fossils, many of those that have been found would not have been discovered at all and still be lying in the ground, unknown.

I'm trying to decide if I'd rather skeletons like this be lying in the ground, unknown, or in some millionaire's mansion, unknown. As a palaeontologist it makes little meaningful difference.

Indeed, these discoveries, so far as they can be trusted (buyer beware), make little difference to anyone other than the private buyer, the auction house, and the seller, right? At least if the millionaire is willing to publicly share 3D data, or donate/sell replicas to public institutions, something potentially positive can come from them. But often only lip-service is paid to this idea.

[andrewsaurus rex]

well at least if it's out of the ground there is the chance it could be purchased by a museum, or a generous millionaire could allow its study, some day, donate it temporarily and so on.  In the ground we know zip about it, not even that it exists.  We already know things about Apex, Dueling Dinosaurs, Stan, Big John etc.  Would you rather none of them existed?

I can't think of one example where we know nothing about a fortune hunter's fossil find that went to a private buyer.  Irritator is probably the closest?   

I think a useful law would be if fortune hunter's had to allow their finds to be studied for a period of 365 days, prior to being able to auction it.   That way they can still make their money, so there is incentive to keep looking, but the scientific community would have a decent look at it.  There would be a lot of details to work out with a law like this but in broad strokes, i think it would work.

[DinoToyForum]

well at least if it's out of the ground there is the chance it could be purchased by a museum, or a generous millionaire could allow its study, some day, donate it temporarily and so on.  In the ground we know zip about it, not even that it exists.  We already know things about Apex, Dueling Dinosaurs, Stan, Big John etc.  Would you rather none of them existed?

I can't think of one example where we know nothing about a fortune hunter's fossil find that went to a private buyer.  Irritator is probably the closest?   

I think a useful law would be if fortune hunter's had to allow their finds to be studied for a period of 365 days, prior to being able to auction it.   That way they can still make their money, so there is incentive to keep looking, but the scientific community would have a decent look at it.  There would be a lot of details to work out with a law like this but in broad strokes, i think it would work.

Anything anyone says they 'know' about a privately owned specimen should be regarded with caution. I've seen dozens of dodgy specimens in my time as a palaeontologist, and I've had the opportunity to inspect many specimens first hand, including mounted dinosaurs sold for millions of dollars, and I can tell you with all sincerity: do not take these specimens at face value. You cannot trust the specimens or the people that build them. Sometimes they are reliable, sometimes they are not. Sometimes they are professionally conserved and mounted with detailed records, sometimes they are veritable bodge-jobs with few records and lots of fakery involved. They are almost always less complete than marketed. Because the sellers (no matter what they say) are often more interested in money than science, they have few scruples with undermining the scientific value of the specimen if it makes it more sellable or aesthetically pleasing. I've seen shocking examples.

Apart from this fundamental issue with the specimens themselves, the problem with making specimens temporarily available to researchers is reproducibility in science. This is why academic journals only accept research articles on specimens held in accredited repositories (barring the occasional rare, controversial exception), which hold specimens in perpetuity for society.

It may not sound like it but I'm actually progressive on this matter. I'm more open minded than many of my peers and I've published on a best case scenario for a privately owned dinosaur specimen, where the owner worked in collaboration with and provided replicas for an accredited museum: https://plesiosauria.com/pdf/larkin_etal_2022_titus.pdf But 3D models or replicas are no substitute for the real bones, they can be problematic in other ways, so it's a compromise solution.

We can hope for a similar best case scenario with this Stegosaurus, but a worse case scenario really could be worse than it being left in the ground - a net negative for palaeontology that fuels more of the same losses in the future.

[andrewsaurus rex]

those are all very interesting points you make and have given me food for thought.   But i think i'm still a 'half a cake is better than none' person, on this issue.

[DinoToyForum]

those are all very interesting points you make and have given me food for thought.   But i think i'm still a 'half a cake is better than none' person, on this issue.

Even if the half a cake makes you retch? Sometimes no cake could be better I'm half kidding, I can also see both sides of the coin.

[thomasw100]

well at least if it's out of the ground there is the chance it could be purchased by a museum, or a generous millionaire could allow its study, some day, donate it temporarily and so on.  In the ground we know zip about it, not even that it exists.  We already know things about Apex, Dueling Dinosaurs, Stan, Big John etc.  Would you rather none of them existed?

I can't think of one example where we know nothing about a fortune hunter's fossil find that went to a private buyer.  Irritator is probably the closest?   

I think a useful law would be if fortune hunter's had to allow their finds to be studied for a period of 365 days, prior to being able to auction it.   That way they can still make their money, so there is incentive to keep looking, but the scientific community would have a decent look at it.  There would be a lot of details to work out with a law like this but in broad strokes, i think it would work.

Anything anyone says they 'know' about a privately owned specimen should be regarded with caution. I've seen dozens of dodgy specimens in my time as a palaeontologist, and I've had the opportunity to inspect many specimens first hand, including mounted dinosaurs sold for millions of dollars, and I can tell you with all sincerity: do not take these specimens at face value. You cannot trust the specimens or the people that build them. Sometimes they are reliable, sometimes they are not. Sometimes they are professionally conserved and mounted with detailed records, sometimes they are veritable bodge-jobs with few records and lots of fakery involved. They are almost always less complete than marketed. Because the sellers (no matter what they say) are often more interested in money than science, they have few scruples with undermining the scientific value of the specimen if it makes it more sellable or aesthetically pleasing. I've seen shocking examples.

Apart from this fundamental issue with the specimens themselves, the problem with making specimens temporarily available to researchers is reproducibility in science. This is why academic journals only accept research articles on specimens held in accredited repositories (barring the occasional rare, controversial exception), which hold specimens in perpetuity for society.

It may not sound like it but I'm actually progressive on this matter. I'm more open minded than many of my peers and I've published on a best case scenario for a privately owned dinosaur specimen, where the owner worked in collaboration with and provided replicas for an accredited museum: https://plesiosauria.com/pdf/larkin_etal_2022_titus.pdf But 3D models or replicas are no substitute for the real bones, they can be problematic in other ways, so it's a compromise solution.

We can hope for a similar best case scenario with this Stegosaurus, but a worse case scenario really could be worse than it being left in the ground - a net negative for palaeontology that fuels more of the same losses in the future.

How is your view on this Siber & Siber company in Switzerland? On one hand, they have been commercially digging for dinosaur bones and selling many specimens (also to respectable museums), on the other hand they run their own museum (which admittedly feels a bit packed and chaotic) and have donated several skeletons to the Natural History Museum of the University of Zürich. This example came just to my mind, because we happened to visit Zürich and both museums in April.

[DinoToyForum]

Another note about the scientific value of high-ticket mounted skeletons like this, which might not occur to non-palaeontologists: the very act of mounting a skeleton destroys data and makes it more difficult to study.

Palaeontologists don't mind seeing natural breaks and cross-sections through the bones, which tell us about the internal structure and shape of the bones. Dealers want to 'fix' them. On the other hand, palaeontologists don't break bones on purpose (expect for specific research reasons), while fossil bones are often unnecessarily damaged in the process of mounting the skeleton, accidentally or on purpose. Palaeontologists don't want missing parts to be irreversibly reconstructed and made to look indistinguishable from the real fossil. Dealers want to 'complete' them. Palaeontologists are glad when there's still matrix adhered to the bones, and we're even more happy if there's taphonomical data: bones preserved in articulation, invertebrates living on the bones, soft tissues preserved in the matrix, the sort of thing that is removed by heavy-handed preparators more interested in the superficial appearance of the finished mount.

Mounted skeletons may look impressive and command high prices, but more as works of art than natural history specimens. Palaeontologists would rather have all the bones loose and accessible so they can be easily inspected, measured, experimented with, photographed from all angles. Palaeontologists want the raw data and fundamentally don't care what the specimen looks like. If a skeleton is to be mounted it can be done completely with replicas, which is much easier anyway.

The driving force behind mounting real fossil bones is usually simple. Millionaires are buying them and a dozen shelves and trays of loose bones won't impress their friends.