Jump to content
Max-fossils

Santa Fe tooth

Recommended Posts

Max-fossils

Hey guys, 

Around 2.5 years ago I found this tooth in the Santa Fe River in Florida, which is Pleistocene. I previously IDed it as a bison premolar (Bison antiquus), but looking back I am now less convinced by that ID.  The chewing surface seems off, and seen from the top it seems a little too 'rectangular'. Due to its relatively small size, if it is indeed bison, could it possibly be a juvenile (hence explaining why it looks a bit different from normal bison teeth)?

What do you guys think? I can provide more angles if necessary.

Thanks in advance,

Max

 

IMG_0042.JPG

IMG_0043.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Max-fossils

IMG_0045.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Pristis

I think this is a camelid lower p4.  These teeth are quite variable, but this is probably from Hemiauchenia sp. rather than Palaeolama mirifica.

 

 

camel_lower_p4.JPG

camelpremolars.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Max-fossils

@Harry Pristis Ah I hadn't considered camelid, that definitely does appear to be a better fit than bison. Thanks!

However I do see quite some differences between the two teeth:

InkedInkedcamelpremolars.JPG.9a6bfc96d732e2b34d6222a92fa479d6_LI.jpg.f42f0983067dbe720979724e8b1a7ece.jpgInkedInkedIMG_0045_LI.thumb.jpg.0ed950b610bd02c23ad1de05271ec7f5.jpg

I highlighted the differences with colors to make it clearer. 

Red: the big dent in your teeth appears to be much more pronounced than on mine

Yellow: mine has a pretty clear small 'pointy' dent there that yours seem to lack

Blue: my tooth's chewing surface on the right side seems a lot larger (as a consequence of red)

Green: my tooth has got these 2 little holes in the chewing surface, that yours seem to lack completely.

 

These 3-4 differences seem, added together, a bit more than intraspecies variability could realistically produce. However as you said, your tooth is a Palaeolama mirifica, while mine is probably Hemiauchenia. So do you think that that variation is acceptable in between two different genera? It definitely seems plausible to me, but you're the expert here, so I'd love to hear your opinion on this :) 

 

Also, to my understanding, the Hemiauchenia species in this part of the Santa Fe is H. macrocephala, however I could be completely wrong. Do you think I should leave them as Hemiauchenia sp.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Pristis

I've already told you what I think, Max.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Max-fossils
16 hours ago, Harry Pristis said:

I've already told you what I think, Max.

 

 

Right. Well I just wanted to ensure that my extra 'insight' was already part of the elements you've considered.

I'm a bit newer to identifying this type of material, and while I trust your more experienced judgement, I think it's good to critically assess the answers I get rather than immediately consider it as the correct answer. Seeing that there were quite some differences in between the teeth, I wanted to make sure that these are normal differences in between the two rather closely related genera. But it's good to have a confirmation that this is a normal degree of variability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×