>> Dating of the sediments around the remains suggests it lived about 39 million years ago.
ok, so clearly then "not original organic material".
But then, >> "Each vertebra weighs over 100kg, which is just completely mind-blowing," said co-worker Dr Rebecca Bennion from the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences in Brussels.
If I'm charitable I'm reading this as "The vertebra, when they were made of bone, weigh over 100kg..." ? I mean now that they are _fossils_ (ie ROCK) well, 100kg of rock doesn't really tell me a whole lot.
>> "It took several men to shift them out into the middle of the floor in the museum for me to do some 3D scanning.
Which makes me think she's talking about the _fossil_ weight. So, implying "they're big fossils"? Not that the bones used to weight this much...
then
>> The team that drilled into the centre of some of these vertebrae to work out the bone density - the bone was so dense, it broke the drill on the first attempt."
So either it's a fossil (aka ROCK) or it's bone. It (apparently?) can't be both.[1] Given that it's rock, drilling into it and breaking the drill bit just tells me it's hard rock.
There's more in the article seemingly mixing the term "bones" and "fossils" ("The bones are going on display in Lima to celebrate their description in a scientific journal")
I get that this is a "popular science" type article, but is it too much to ask that it use the right words?
[1] I checked online, and apparently; "But a buried bone isn't the same thing as a fossil -- to become a fossil, the bone has to become rock. " https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geolog....
"Fossils are not the remains of the organism itself! They are rocks." https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/fossil/