Florida Pleistocene Canine Teeth

[Fossil-Collecter]

Found these teeth recently along the Peace River in Florida. Was curious what species these may be from. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

 

 

[Thecosmilia Trichitoma]

I know pretty much nothing about peace river fauna, but the canine seems to be either dire wolf or jaguar? I don’t know about the molar, but it would probably be helpful to see the chewing surface.

@Harry Pristis

@Shellseeker

[Fossil-Collecter]

Thanks, here's a top view of the tooth. Not sure if the teeth are big enough to be from a Dire Wolf.

 

[PrehistoricWonders]

What are the sizes on them? Coins are not good size references. They look mineralized, but I’m not convinced they’re fossilized. If they’re modern, I’d say they’re most likely domestic dog. If they’re fossilized, they could be any type of canid, I can’t be more specific without measurements.

[Fossil-Collecter]

They appear to be mineralized not fossilized. I believe they are from the Pleistocene Epoch. I added a photo with exact measurements.

 

[PrehistoricWonders]

I don’t think they could be Pleistocene without being fossilized, it takes 10,000 years for them to fossilize, and the Pleistocene ended around 11,700 years ago. 
 

aside from that, at least the canine is not dire wolf. One of that quality would be at least two inches. Coyote, Red Wolf, or domestic dog seen most likely. I’d say the carnassial is modern, but I’m not sure what that’s from.

[Shellseeker]

I would reiterate that it is a good thing to take exact measurements and provide them .

It should not be me trying to figure out the exact size.  You should state it in words.

Your Carnassial would seem to be an upper jaw P4. and at 19 mm , I am not sure that qualifies as Dire Wolf.  The only one I have is 32 mm. The canine is wolf. Once again at 64 mm, the canine I have is a lot bigger.

We'll see what Harry says... Might be female or juvenile or a smaller wolf.

 

So, It is fossilized, most likely Pleistocene (because that is most common from the Peace River). I am certainly not convinced that these two teeth come from the same animal or even the same species.

 

Fantastic !!!! Finds.  I manage to find 1 Dire Wolf Carnassial or Canine every could of years...

 

 

[jpc]

1 hour ago, Fossil-Collecter said:

They appear to be mineralized not fossilized. 

 

 

Mineralizes IS fossilized.  The technical term is permineralized.  

[Fossil-Collecter]

Shellseeker, thanks for the photos, diagrams, and info. They are very informative and detailed.

[PrehistoricWonders]

51 minutes ago, jpc said:

Mineralizes IS fossilized.  The technical term is permineralized.  

Really? I thought to be mineralized it had to turn to rock, but to be fossilized it has to be 10,000 years old. 

[Joe_17]

9 minutes ago, Familyroadtrip said:

Really? I thought to be mineralized it had to turn to rock, but to be fossilized it has to be 10,000 years old. 

I believe it means it hasn't completely turned into rock But has minerals in it that seeped in over the years, in other words, kind of halfway there .

[Shellseeker]

1 hour ago, Fossil-Collecter said:

Shellseeker, thanks for the photos, diagrams, and info. They are very informative and detailed.

It would be valuable to search this forum for "coyote"

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/59108-small-predator-carnassial/

It shows a Coyote Carnassial as 20 or 21 mm in tooth length.  So your Carnassial is in the size range of Coyote.

Then I looked at this webpage which says MODERN coyote teeth measure 4-5 cm or 1.6 to 1.9 inches.  Once again within your tooth's size range.

Even though I think your Canine looks like wolf, I must go with the measurements --- Coyote

 

Although Coyote are rapidly expanding in modern Florida,  they also exist in Florida's fossil record.

 

Quote

Coyote Close-up

https://www.sarasotamagazine.com/news-and-profiles/2018/01/coyotes-florida

Coyote fossils have been found in Florida dating from 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago.

The red wolf kept coyotes from migrating east of the Mississippi until the 20th century. When the wolf population was decimated by humans, coyotes moved into every state.

There are between .2 and 1.2 coyotes per square mile in Florida—a total of between 13,000 and 70,000.

 

[jpc]

7 hours ago, Familyroadtrip said:

Really? I thought to be mineralized it had to turn to rock, but to be fossilized it has to be 10,000 years old. 

That business about 10000 years is not hard and fast.  Sticks that fall into the hot mineral pools in Yellowstone for example, will become mineralized very quickly; much quicker than 10000 years, but they are fossilized.  That is the way I intepret it.  

[Mahnmut]

Hello together.

There are a lot of terms, fossil, subfossil, mineralized, permineralized, prehistoric,...

Most of these terms try to make categories from gradual and complex changes. As jpc mentioned, there are places and conditions where mineralization happens quite fast, and others where it does not happen over far more than 10 ka (think permafrost). Prehistoric means older than written history, that may be 200 years in some parts of the world and 5000 in others.

10000 is a simple number to remember, it also fits roughly with the beginning of the holocene (that, climatologically, zoologically and geologically speaking, happened at slightly different times in different parts of the world also).

 

By the way, does it irritate you as much as me that the first results when searching for "fossil" are mostly watches?

 

Personally I would consider your teeth subfossil and a nice find, as they took up enough minerals to change colour at least a bit.That can happen quite fast, though.

 

Aloha,

J

 

[PrehistoricWonders]

4 hours ago, Mahnmut said:

By the way, does it irritate you as much as me that the first results when searching for "fossil" are mostly watches?

Yes!!! It’s so annoying!! You can’t look up fossils without seeing some type of watch.

[PrehistoricWonders]

4 hours ago, Mahnmut said:

Hello together.

There are a lot of terms, fossil, subfossil, mineralized, permineralized, prehistoric,...

Most of these terms try to make categories from gradual and complex changes. As jpc mentioned, there are places and conditions where mineralization happens quite fast, and others where it does not happen over far more than 10 ka (think permafrost). Prehistoric means older than written history, that may be 200 years in some parts of the world and 5000 in others.

10000 is a simple number to remember, it also fits roughly with the beginning of the holocene (that, climatologically, zoologically and geologically speaking, happened at slightly different times in different parts of the world also).

 

By the way, does it irritate you as much as me that the first results when searching for "fossil" are mostly watches?

 

Personally I would consider your teeth subfossil and a nice find, as they took up enough minerals to change colour at least a bit.That can happen quite fast, though.

 

Aloha,

J

 

Agreed. The texture doesn’t look right for them being fully fossilized, but the colors do. 
I was considering a subfossil & something that’s been mineralized the same. 

[Harry Pristis]

There seems to be endless misunderstanding about the term "fossilized."

"Fossilized" (along with "petrified") is a near meaningless term in this specialized forum. The term is often substituted for "mineralized" in describing a bone or tooth. But, fossilized doesn't always equate to mineralized because many fossils are not reinforced or replaced by minerals.

Bone is primarily composed of hydroxyapatite and collagen. Hydroxyapatite is an inorganic compound of calcium, phosphate, and hydroxide which is organized in a crystal latticework that gives bone (and teeth) structural rigidity. It preserves well as a fossil under some conditions.

Collagen is a fiberous protein that serves as connective tissue in bones and muscles. It does not preserve well in a fossil. As collagen decomposes, it may be replaced in the hydroxyapatite latticework by minerals from the depositional environment (e.g. silica dioxide dissolved in groundwater).

Bone reinforced with exogenous minerals is said to be "mineralized." If the bone components (including the hydroxyapatite) are entirely replaced by exogenous minerals such as silica, it is said to be "replaced by -". If a bone is mineralized, it is more likely to be a fossil. If a bone is not mineralized, it is less likely to be a fossil. No absolutes, only likelihoods, because there are exceptions.

In the case of leaves and wood, as with bones, permineralization depends on the circulation of mineral-saturated groundwater. If there is limited or no circulation (or no suitable minerals in solution), then there is no permineralization. BUT, the organic remains - the leaves, or wood, or bone - are still fossils ("fossilized" if you like).

A 'burn test' or 'match test' will indicate only whether there is collagen remaining in a bone -- scorched collagen has an awful smell. Briefly apply an open flame (I prefer a butane lighter) to an inconspicuous area of the object . . . you cannot keep a pin hot enough long enough to scorch collagen. Tooth enamel contains hydroxyapatite, but doesn't contain collagen, so the 'burn test' on tooth enamel would be a waste of time.

The 'click test' - tapping a putative fossil against your teeth - was a joke that caught on. There are plenty of other things in the environment against which you can click a bone. Don't put the remains of dead, decomposed animals in your mouth.

[darrow]

3 hours ago, Mahnmut said:

There are a lot of terms, fossil, subfossil, mineralized, permineralized, prehistoric,...

Most of these terms try to make categories from gradual and complex changes. As jpc mentioned, there are places and conditions where mineralization happens quite fast, and others where it does not happen over far more than 10 ka (think permafrost). Prehistoric means older than written history, that may be 200 years in some parts of the world and 5000 in others.

10000 is a simple number to remember, it also fits roughly with the beginning of the holocene (that, climatologically, zoologically and geologically speaking, happened at slightly different times in different parts of the world also).

Excellent point!  Though most of these words have precise definitions they are often used in such a way that they become "fuzzy concepts". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_concept#Sciences)  

 

Tooth enamel is very highly mineralized tissue while still in the body so not much opportunity for permineralization.  Color may be an indicator if a tooth is a fossil but I would look beyond the enamel for more confidence in that determination.  Permineralization of any intact bone around the tooth...  Identification to an extinct genus/species...  and more often than not the opinions of others with experience with fossils from the same location.

[darrow]

8 minutes ago, Familyroadtrip said:

Agreed. The texture doesn’t look right for it being fossilized, but the colors do. 

Surface texture isn't perceptibly altered by permineralization.