Most of it is just painted: One of the oldest known reptile fossils from the Alps is largely a fake, an analysis has revealed: The supposedly surprisingly well-preserved soft tissue traces that appear to form the outline of the animal are paint. The actual fossil, on the other hand, only consists of bones from the hind legs, and the researchers were also able to detect tiny bone scales. These parts alone make it possible to draw conclusions about the characteristics of the approximately 280 million year old reptile, say the scientists.
It was previously considered an important testimony to the fauna of the Permian Age and the evolutionary history of reptiles: the fossil of the creature named Tridentinosaurus antiquus first entered the paleontological stage in 1959. Italian paleontologist Piero Leonardi described it in a publication as an amazingly well-preserved evidence of a lizard-like reptile from the Permian Age. The author also provided information about the location in the Italian Alps: The fossil was discovered in 1931 in a geological layer in Trentino that is dated to be around 280 million years old.
In addition to its age, a special feature of the fossil was the extensive preservation of soft tissue. The fossilized bone structures seemed to stand out darkly from the surrounding rock and depict the outline of a lizard-like reptile. The creature's somewhat unusual features made classification difficult, but it was eventually interpreted as a representative of the Protorosauria. The fossil was subsequently cited in other publications as a special example of soft tissue preservation.
Apparently surprisingly well preserved
It was assumed that the tissue of the find had been carbonized by favorable fossilization conditions. This seemed to be consistent with the fact that plant fossils are known from the site that have been preserved in this way. Valentina Rossi from University College Cork and her colleagues initially did not want to use their study to track down a possible forgery. They hoped to gain detailed information about the fossil. “Fossil soft tissues are rare and when they are found, they can provide important biological information – such as the external coloration and physiology of a creature,” says Rossi.
As the researchers report, they first subjected the fossil to a preliminary examination using different lighting. They found that the structures fluoresced under UV lighting in a way that would not normally be expected from fossils. It subsequently became clear that this was due to a coating substance on the fossil. This seemed unusual, but still explainable, because in the past fossils were sometimes coated with varnish or varnish for preservation purposes.
Someone was doing something “artistic”.
The team then set out to search for traces of the original soft tissue beneath the covering layer. Various microscopic and spectroscopic methods were used to analyze the structures, which can reveal characteristics of chemical substances. As the researchers report, it became increasingly clear during the investigations that the color on the rock could not be the carbonized remains of tissue. The results of the pigment analysis, on the other hand, revealed the signature of an artificial dye.
The researchers come to the conclusion that the supposed soft tissue structures around the few actual fossil elements were painted on the stone surface. “What was described as carbonized skin is just color,” sums up senior author Evelyn Kustatscher from the South Tyrol Nature Museum in Bolzano. However, the researchers emphasize that the fossil is not worthless because it is only partially fake: their studies confirm that the visible bone structures of the hind legs are real. In addition, the new analyzes also identified tiny bone scales - called osteoderms - that apparently once sat in the animal's skin. However, how the reptile should be classified remains unclear.
But who was responsible for the forgery? According to the authors, this can apparently no longer be clarified. In the initial description, Leonardi only provides information about the location that matches the geological material characteristics of the fossil. However, he does not provide any further information about the history of the discovery or how the fossil was prepared. He probably saw it for the first time in its current condition and was deceived, the authors write. Apparently someone had previously manipulated it to make it appear more spectacular. There are already a few other cases of such forgeries known in paleontology, according to the researchers. Finally, they write: “The application of modern analytical techniques can now help to expose forgeries and should be used in particular for historically collected fossils with an enigmatic state of preservation.”
Source: University College Cork, specialist article: Palaeontology, doi: 10.1111/pala.12690