skeleton is real, but too damaged to be recognizable, and the outline, previously thought to be carbonized skin or flesh, is fake, which means there's no way to properly identify it now.
According to TFA quoting one of the authors, it was likely a preparation (beautification) and / or preservation attempt which went very wrong.
> Application of paints, consolidates and lacquers on fossil bones was the norm, because that was the only way to protect the specimens from further deterioration. It was also sometimes to embellish specimens by making them sleek and shiny. Unfortunately, in the case of Tridentinosaurus, the mechanical preparation did most of the damage and then the application of a black paint created the illusion of a lizard-like animal impression on the surface of the rock.
That’s not hard to believe if you watch restoration / preservation channels, like Baumgartner. Although obviously there’s no way to tell what whoever did it was thinking at such a remove.
> Although obviously there’s no way to tell what whoever did it was thinking at such a remove.
Well there are some hints. Hint 1: The specimen wasn't officially described scientifically until 1959. Hence it seems neither the person who found it, nor the geologist he turned it over to seemed to want to cause sensation with a fake find. Hint 2: Giorgio Dal Piaz died in 1962. This means that he was alive (age 87) to protest when it was described scientificially and did cause sensation, but chose not to (though it's possible he was frail and demented I suppose). Hint 3: The person that found the fossil was a museum employee, this makes carelessness less likely, but could go either way for deliberate fraud I suppose.
