Jump to content
Brandy Cole

Claw Core and Hoof Core?

Recommended Posts

Brandy Cole

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!  I really appreciate this forum and the people willing to take the time and effort to answer everyone's questions and help people learn.

 

I found these two fragments on the Brazos River in sandy gravel and low water near Brookshire, Texas. Mostly Pleistocene era here with some Cretaceous shells also I think.

 

FRAGMENT ONE:  CLAW CORE?

 

The photos I'd seen of claw cores made me think this could be one, but since it's not very well defined, I've been wondering if it's even animal related at all. 

 

 

5fc000e57ab5c_ClawCore.thumb.jpg.0dfaf62c0620ab4a6dd64e9f28246343.jpg

 

The most similar example I could find was a turtle claw core documented by @Harry Pristis  , as seen here:

 

5fc001228e997_TurtleClawCoreHPristis.jpg.a743d7f4299a143626675daa8a924a41.jpg

 

Am I way off base?  The flat smooth side and holes made me think it was vascular tissue, but I've wondered if it might be reef or even some type of mineral instead.

 

 

FRAGMENT TWO:  SMALL HOOF CORE?

5fc001503488a_TinyHoof.thumb.jpg.b5218e66b33397b27b4982ecab92fc30.jpg

 

This looks like a very small hoof fragment with a rounded top and very flat bottom.  The exterior looks worn on the toe-tip area and broken off toward the top.  I had trouble finding anything that looked similar online.  It does seem very small compared to several other hoof core examples I've seen.

 

The closest thing I could find that looked a little similar was this camel hoof core fragment documented by @worthy 55  

 

5fc0024e13796_CamelHoofCoreWorthy55.jpg.778df9fcbc56bed79e6673be664034a8.jpg

 

As usual, any help would be appreciated, and thanks to anyone who takes a look.

 

--Brandy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mahnmut

Hi Brandy,

I think it is hard to say with the first one, because it is mostly spongiosa (except for one side as far as I can see in your pictures)

The claw or hoof cores look porous due to a lot of openings that contain blood vessels supporting the growing nail/hoof in the living animal.

Your specimen looks much more spongy though, and the pores are somewhat "cut" open, that is not the original surface of the bone.

That means most of the original surface is gone, could be a rounded fragment of a much bigger bone.

No idea about the second.

Best Regards,

J

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockwood

I'm afraid the texture in the second one lacks the "got a hoof to feed here" look as well. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandy Cole
On 11/26/2020 at 2:18 PM, Mahnmut said:

Hi Brandy,

I think it is hard to say with the first one, because it is mostly spongiosa (except for one side as far as I can see in your pictures)

The claw or hoof cores look porous due to a lot of openings that contain blood vessels supporting the growing nail/hoof in the living animal.

Your specimen looks much more spongy though, and the pores are somewhat "cut" open, that is not the original surface of the bone.

That means most of the original surface is gone, could be a rounded fragment of a much bigger bone.

No idea about the second.

Best Regards,

J

 

 

On 11/26/2020 at 3:06 PM, Rockwood said:

I'm afraid the texture in the second one lacks the "got a hoof to feed here" look as well. Sorry.

Thank you both for answering!  The second one was particularly strange because the insides don't have that porous texture I've seen inside the bones I've found, but it wasn't consistent with any rock I know.  That, and the fact that it's totally flat on the bottom were really unusual.  Guess I'll have to put these back in the unidentified pile.  Thanks again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GPayton

Yep, agree with the gentlemen above. First fossil is just a really worn down fragment without any discernible diagnostic features that would be needed for an ID, but it's probably just a section of the inside of a much larger bone. The second fossil is actually petrified wood. I swear, if I had a nickel for every time I flipped over or picked up a piece of petrified wood on the river thinking it was bone I'd be able to buy all the mammoth bones and sabercat teeth I wanted! Keep at it though, a claw core is very high on my wishlist too - especially sloth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockwood
3 hours ago, GPayton said:

The second fossil is actually petrified wood.

Could you point out the indications ?

Not saying it isn't. Just don't know why it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plantguy

Hey Brandy, I agree with the others in the 2nd item not being a hoof core. Any chance you can get some real sharp closeup/focused shots of the 2nd specimen, especially that porous lighter colored/boney looking section? The idea of petrified wood is intriguing. Is there any banding in the darker area? Can we get close pics of that as well...looking to see if there is any texture at all...

@Brandy Cole

Regards, Chris 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GPayton
19 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Could you point out the indications ?

Not saying it isn't. Just don't know why it is.

Sorry, I should have explained myself better. Although the second specimen could just be a chunk of suggestive riverworn chert, I based my ID off of the last picture on the far right of the top row. That mixed whiteish-tan coloring is very characteristic of the majority of the silicified petrified wood I've seen from the same location. There's so much of it in the Brazos that the stuff has to amount to a sizable percentage of the total river gravel. That colored section seems like the outer bark/covering of the wood, and the darker area seen in the other pictures looks like the core. Like @Plantguy said, if we could get a better close-up of that dark area we could probably tell if it has the fine-grain structure that makes it wood for certain. I feel as if I can almost make something like that out but I'm not certain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LabRatKing

Humor me.

Does this first sample float?

Does it react to a fizz test?

 

I hate to be the devil's advocate, but I don't see fossil or bone, I see bubbles...as in foam...as in... 

 

As for #2 in my opinion core is a reach. Looks more like a well worn tooth, but the way the photos are posted, there is no way to zoom in and see details clearly. It could easily be a concretion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plantguy
8 hours ago, LabRatKing said:

Humor me.

Does this first sample float?

Does it react to a fizz test?

 

I hate to be the devil's advocate, but I don't see fossil or bone, I see bubbles...as in foam...as in... 

 

As for #2 in my opinion core is a reach. Looks more like a well worn tooth, but the way the photos are posted, there is no way to zoom in and see details clearly. It could easily be a concretion.

Yep its tough not being able to pick up these things and examine them in your hand and test them and I can see the foam similarity/reference for the first one. We are blessed to get to see alot of big fossil boney debris frequently in Texas and Florida from some really sizeable critters and some complete bones once in awhile but lots of times they are just fragments and many have sides that are very well worn and polished. Here's a couple of large fragments of unworn tortoise shell from a type that we had running around here showing a similar interior cancellous structure....Not saying Brandy's is tortoise by any measure but I just wanted to show some of the tortoise material I'm playing with and its porous nature depending on what surface you are examining. It does have a bubbly/foamy look to it in this first view.

5fc8512618e26_Tortoiseelementsandcrosssection.thumb.jpg.e343218303de0f76a88463a91e0ce343.jpg

Pardon the black and white image/loss of color....my photo editor decided I wanted pink and lime green tortoise shell in this image. I fought with it and it won so black and white it is for now...LOL. 

 

Hoping Brandy can see some more hidden detail in her 2nd specimen as to provide some type of solid ID! 

 

Regards, Chris 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockwood

This presents an interesting question. Need there be passages large enough for blood cells to permeate all the spaces in cancellous bone, or is the shape a purely structural and temporarily sealed unit at times ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mahnmut
8 hours ago, Rockwood said:

This presents an interesting question. Need there be passages large enough for blood cells to permeate all the spaces in cancellous bone, or is the shape a purely structural and temporarily sealed unit at times ?

Well, spongiosa is often filled with red bone marrow, which is the tissue producing different types of blood cells that have to get out of the bone somehow. During a lifetime not all bones retain their red marrow, it often gets replaced by fat. I still think that even this fatty bone marrow stays connected to circulation via fine vessels.

In humans, an erythrocyte is about 7,5µm in diameter, the smallest vessels, capillaries, have a diameter of 5-10µm (Erys are flexible and sqeeze through as long as blood sugar is not to high). So, passages large enough to let the cells through would not have to be visible.

Best Regards, J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandy Cole
On 12/2/2020 at 11:24 AM, LabRatKing said:

Humor me.

Does this first sample float?

Does it react to a fizz test?

 

I hate to be the devil's advocate, but I don't see fossil or bone, I see bubbles...as in foam...as in... 

 

As for #2 in my opinion core is a reach. Looks more like a well worn tooth, but the way the photos are posted, there is no way to zoom in and see details clearly. It could easily be a concretion.

On the first sample, it doesn't float.  Does white vinegar count for a fizz test?  I tried to clean it with white vinegar when I brought it home, and it didn't react.

 

Like @Plantguy said, there are lots of turtle fossils here where I am, and it did seem to have the same spongy texture as the turtle stuff.  That's why I picked it up.  (I included a picture below showing it on the left and one of the turtle shell fossils on the right for comparison).  But that being said, the texture of the yellow piece feels almost chalky compared to the smooth, almost glossy, turtle shells we've found.  Also, it's rare for us so far to find yellow fossils here.  Most of what we find is darker and brown.  I assumed we're finding things that were preserved in a dark layer somewhere up river and washing down to us.  Those are the reasons why I thought this might be from a different part of the body or from something else entirely.  Thanks for taking a look!

 

5fcb9a3b85dda_IMG_08312.thumb.jpg.3e6ed67ab14b3ff10f855dfda637cca8.jpg

Edited by Brandy Cole
Grammar correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandy Cole
On 12/1/2020 at 8:53 PM, Plantguy said:

Hey Brandy, I agree with the others in the 2nd item not being a hoof core. Any chance you can get some real sharp closeup/focused shots of the 2nd specimen, especially that porous lighter colored/boney looking section? The idea of petrified wood is intriguing. Is there any banding in the darker area? Can we get close pics of that as well...looking to see if there is any texture at all...

@Brandy Cole

Regards, Chris 

I appreciate everyone trying to help me figure this one out.  Sorry it took a while to get these new pictures posted.  We used some silly putty to hold it in place and tried a different setup to try to get clearer pics, but they still don't do a great job of conveying the texture, I think.  

 

Here's a picture of the whitish 'top.'  

 

5fcb9deb6fd94_IMG_20201203_1912442.thumb.jpg.fa1e25bcd2f97117f35d65715e6696a6.jpg

 

And here's the front.  

 

5fcb9eae50e1d_IMG_08272.thumb.jpg.8d962471bfd638babcdda820353a95ca.jpg

 

 

Here's the back.

 

5fcb9ed51f864_IMG_08292.thumb.jpg.04c71ded07d0999228430e41f9b5d5c4.jpg

 

 

And here's a side view.  

 

5fcb9ee52815a_IMG_20201203_1914512.thumb.jpg.125637706441637aea936ab71be3ae30.jpg
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockwood

Impressive photos of fossil wood. More I can not add.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plantguy

Thanks for the additional great photos. I am also in the wood camp for fragment 2 with GPayton and Rockwood. cool stuff! 

 

Regards, Chris 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lorne Ledger

Interesting discussion, I don't much to add.  The top piece looks like chunkasauras to me- just a chunk of badly worn bone.  I have no opinion on the second.

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.

×