Another ? from Big Brook

[RFausta]

When I first picked this up I thought it was a piece of shell.. cleaning it and examining it under magnification however has made me question what it is. Let’s play What The Heck! 

[Enafter]

I'm probably wrong, as I'm no expert in this field, but looks mammalian.

There are a bunch of other experts around who might be able to give you a more specific identification.

 

 

[Rockwood]

It's either a concretion doing its best look like a fragment of enchodus  jaw, or a fragment of enchodus jaw that looks like concretion.

Or neither. 

[Rustdee]

This is actually a lungfish tooth. It is a very nice find! I believe a TFF member found a new species of lungfish in a NJ stream not too long ago. There is a possibility it is scientifically important. Congrats

[RFausta]

34 minutes ago, Rustdee said:

This is actually a lungfish tooth. It is a very nice find! I believe a TFF member found a new species of lungfish in a NJ stream not too long ago. There is a possibility it is scientifically important. Congrats

Sweet! Guess i had better contact the museum to make sure its not significant

[Fossildude19]

I believe that would be only the 3rd ever found there. 

Well done!

[RFausta]

3 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

I believe that would be only the 3rd ever found there. 

Well done!

I have been researching it and so far that seems to be true!  I have an email in to the museum, i am guessing its quite significant... once this plague is over I *will* be driving down there to hand it off in person!

[FossilNerd]

Very cool! Congrats on the great find and high-five for getting with the museum. 

[The Jersey Devil]

More pictures would help, but from the pictures posted so far it looks like a concretion 

[Fossildude19]

@frankh8147

[Plax]

See the Mosasaur, Volume 7, p66

[frankh8147]

1 hour ago, Fossildude19 said:

@frankh8147

 

Ughhh.. DEFINITELY show it to the museum anyway but here is my thought...

 

I don't think so. It doesn't have that texture (basically, the little holes in it) that I have seen in all other lungfish specimens so I don't think we have a match.

 

The only two specimens ever found from New Jersey (found by me and fellow member @njfossilhunter) do appear to represent a new, un-named species of lungfish (article in the Mosasaur as stated above), and another thing they had in common was a 'crushing' adaptation. This one (shape-wise) would be closer to the carnivorous ones found in Texas.

 

That said, maybe they want to examine the angles or maybe they will see something I don't so please proceed forward with this!!

 

For comparison, here is my example.

[frankh8147]

Here is a link to our article.. Also, I don't think Tony will mind.. here is his find.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-kntyDpO_YbWhihO7Dne8jRmaKhqiFGV/view

 

 

[RFausta]

51 minutes ago, frankh8147 said:

 

Ughhh.. DEFINITELY show it to the museum anyway but here is my thought...

 

I don't think so. It doesn't have that texture (basically, the little holes in it) that I have seen in all other lungfish specimens so I don't think we have a match.

 

The only two specimens ever found from New Jersey (found by me and fellow member @njfossilhunter) do appear to represent a new, un-named species of lungfish (article in the Mosasaur as stated above), and another thing they had in common was a 'crushing' adaptation. This one (shape-wise) would be closer to the carnivorous ones found in Texas.

 

That said, maybe they want to examine the angles or maybe they will see something I don't so please proceed forward with this!!

 

For comparison, here is my example.

How very interesting! Mine definitely appears to lack the porosity under magnification (lord I am going crosseyed here) but man, the morphology is sure comparative to the Midwest tearing types. David Parris has 15 pictures from every angle from me, and we are all stuck at home so.. we will see! He seems intrigued at least, so...  

[frankh8147]

1 minute ago, RFausta said:

How very interesting! Mine definitely appears to lack the porosity under magnification (lord I am going crosseyed here) but man, the morphology is sure comparative to the Midwest tearing types. David Parris has 15 pictures from every angle from me, and we are all stuck at home so.. we will see! He seems intrigued at least, so...  

 

That's the man who needs to have those photos! I really hope I'm wrong on this one..

 

Either way, great attention to detail and thank you for posting! Just a quick heads' up, the New Jersey State Museum is closed indefinitely due to the virus so we might need to wait a little bit until we get a definitive answer on this one.

[RFausta]

2 minutes ago, frankh8147 said:

 

That's the man who needs to have those photos! I really hope I'm wrong on this one..

 

Either way, great attention to detail and thank you for posting! Just a quick heads' up, the New Jersey State Museum is closed indefinitely due to the virus so we might need to wait a little bit until we get a definitive answer on this one.

As a paleontologist by trade, I would be remiss in not ensuring any potentially significant finds weren’t analyzed by subject matter experts.. science first!  As I told David, I am trapped in the least fossiliferous state in the continental US so will take pretty much any excuse to get out and kicking dirt.. regardless of the significance of this whatsit, I will be driving to NJ to check out the museum and crawl around through Big Brook again at the earliest possible opportunity  But man, I am getting so much research done while socially distanced in New Hampshire.... 

 

[frankh8147]

14 minutes ago, RFausta said:

As a paleontologist by trade, I would be remiss in not ensuring any potentially significant finds weren’t analyzed by subject matter experts.. science first!  As I told David, I am trapped in the least fossiliferous state in the continental US so will take pretty much any excuse to get out and kicking dirt.. regardless of the significance of this whatsit, I will be driving to NJ to check out the museum and crawl around through Big Brook again at the earliest possible opportunity  But man, I am getting so much research done while socially distanced in New Hampshire.... 

 

 

Great to hear!!!

 

I'm stuck inside myself, re-examining years of fossil finds in my collection. It keeps me something close to 'sane'!

 

Also, make sure to keep the sediment on it!

[RFausta]

11 minutes ago, frankh8147 said:

 

Great to hear!!!

 

I'm stuck inside myself, re-examining years of fossil finds in my collection. It keeps me something close to 'sane'!

 

Also, make sure to keep the sediment on it!

Havent cleaned it a bit! I am sorting and labeling finds and going through old boxes, so... yeah. My collection will NEVER have been so well organized!

[Plax]

have another thought. Split in half base of a small mammal horn. The row of bumps in pic one and 5 would be around the base of the horn. Just throwing this out here as I am in the lungfish camp but others are making some good suggestions.

[frankh8147]

22 minutes ago, Plax said:

have another thought. Split in half base of a small mammal horn. The row of bumps in pic one and 5 would be around the base of the horn. Just throwing this out here as I am in the lungfish camp but others are making some good suggestions.

 

Could be. I personally think it's a Cretaceous fossil. Obviously, I want this to be lungfish but I'm thinking it's a piece of fish skull or possibly coprolitic (though I doubt that).. I don't see those bumps on any lungfish specimens either but you can't dismiss stream-wear.

 

Either way, @RFausta handled this perfectly and pictures have been sent to the experts.

 

I'll be watching this one!

[The Jersey Devil]

@non-remanié

[non-remanié]

Very interesting!  I think this could go in a few ways but I too am getting a bit of a mammal vibe from it.  I definitely think this needs to be seen by some expert eyes in person.  Stream patina and iron stain on NJ creek finds makes a lot of IDs of unusual forms quite difficult from pictures alone. 

[njfossilhunter]

My first thought was a broken deer molar or some other ice age mammal.   Now some years back I found a black tine in Big Brook from a ice age deer that is now extinct and Dave Parris ID-ed for me which was donated to the museum .....I did some looking  and I found a pictures of a molar of a early deer ...now imagine that tooth if it was split and been tumbling in the brook for ten thousand years or more ... On the specimen in question   there appears to be a partial ridge around the tooth now look at the picture in my post.....I'm not say yours is a deer but from what I seen in the past it would suggest that its mammalian in nature.