A new Dracorex with premaxillary teeth

[Brad McFeeters <archosauromorph2@hotmail.com>]

I picked up the new issue of Prehistoric Times (#85) last night and noticed 
something interesting in an ad on page 43.  The ad has the same content as this 
webpage: http://www.prehistoricstore.com/item.php?item=1148

The claims about premaxillary teeth are surprising because the premaxilla of 
the first *D. hogwartsia* skull was described by Bakker et al. (332-333) as 
forming a thick pad without teeth.  "The alveolar-beak surface along the 
periphery of the premaxilla is of exceptional interest. There are no alveoli. 
Except for the tiny, vestigial crown fragment mentioned below, there is no 
evidence that this individual possessed premaxillary teeth."  Unfortunately I 
can find no mention or figure of this supposed vestigial crown fragment 
elsewhere in the paper.  The only subsequent mention of premaxillary teeth is 
when they claim (324): "All the long-snouted skulls lack premaxillary teeth and 
are of Lancian age."  Well, not any more!  The new skull also appears to have a 
couple sharp-looking maxillary teeth where the holotype has a diastema (or has 
5 pmx teeth, which is equally unexpected).  One possibility is that the 
possession of anterior teeth is variable within the species, being another of
 the major ontogenetic transformations in the Pachycephalosaurini... explaining 
the vestigial pmx tooth crown supposedly associated with the *D. hogwartsia* 
holotype?  The alternative is of course that the two *Dracorex* skulls belong 
to different species, which would refute the hypothesis that there is only a 
single valid species of Lancian pachycephalosaur.  Either way, it looks like a 
significant specimen.  Contrary to the ad, it is not exciting that the 
premaxillary teeth are serrated, because they are typically serrated in 
previously described pachycephalosaurs.  

It's too bad I have to find out about this specimen from an advertizement for 
replicas, rather than a scientific publication.  The wording of the ad seems to 
suggest that it is cast directly from a real fossil, and not sculpted like some 
of their other products, though I cannot be 100% sure.  The PT version of the 
ad has "Cast From A Real Dinosaur!" written beside the photo of this skull, but 
perhaps they are only claiming that it is not representative of some fictional 
dragon species.  And if it is a proper cast of a fossil, was any restoration 
done?  I wonder if the second *Dracorex* skull is in a museum yet, and if we 
will ever see a scientific paper on it discussing those mysterious teeth.  
_________________________________________________________________