Is this a tooth?

[Jmeister]

Hey everyone, 

 

Any ideas about what this could be? 

 

We found it on a beach shore in Acadia Michigan.

 

It has so many features that makes me think it's something special. 

 

- Triangle shape

- possibly single root lobe and root line on top?

 

Was thinking shark tooth but doesn't have two root lobes or v shaped root/gum line. Also seems very old.

 

Was also thinking dinosaur, but It's my understanding there are no dinosaur fossils in Michigan, so possibly very old? 

 

Curious to know what you think!

 

Thanks.

[Praefectus]

Sorry. Not seeing a tooth. 

[hemipristis]

Sorry, that’s geologic, not a fossil. It represents a white quartz-infilled fracture in a metamorphic rock called a gneiss. The alternating light/dark bands are diagnostic

[FranzBernhard]

What a beautiful geological oddity! Thanks for sharing!

In addition to the diagnoses given by @hemipristis, it appears that the rocks "below" and "above" the quartz-filled fracture are slightly different. That means, that there was probably some movement along the quartz-filled fracture involved.

Franz Bernhard

[Rockwood]

The tooth shape is common in glacial float. The quartz fill is slightly more resistant to erosion than the country rock.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

Although it is oversimplifying tooth-anatomy by quite a bit, as a rule of thumb: if there's no enamel, then it's not a tooth. In addition, as others have explained, the type of minerals and grain characterising the rock are typical of a gneiss, a type of metamorphic rock. It's not very common to find these on a beach, I'd say, as metamorphic rock is a secondary rock, meaning it's formed out of existing rock, under high temperature and often pressure. You'd therefore mostly associate it with areas of geological upheaval, such as mountains (that's where I found most of my pieces in the past). Finding it on a beach - that is, at low elevation - implies a history: either the rock was washed down the mountain by a river, taken along by a glacier, as @Rockwood suggests, or brought in during one of the ice ages.

[Jmeister]

Hey everyone, thank you for the information regarding your thoughts about what this could be.

 

I just did a 3D scan of the object and wanted to share it with you. This might give a better impression of the unique curves and shape of the object.

 

I'm in Minnesota now and plan to get this object into the hands of an expert just to see what their thoughts are. 

 

If anyone knows of anyone in the twin cities area that could take a physical look at it, let me know! 

 

Note: ignore the hot glue globs on the top and bottom. Should be able to open this attached file in a 3D object viewing software. If using Windows 3D Viewer go to "Stats & Shading" then click "Albedo" under "Texture Data" this will show the actual texture with out the weird shiny lighting effects.

Unknown_Fossil_Acadia_Beach_MI.obj

[Troodon]

29 minutes ago, Jmeister said:

I'm in Minnesota now and plan to get this object into the hands of an expert just to see what their thoughts are. 

 

The individual that have responded are experts and I agree with their comments.  This one unlike others we see is an easy call its clearly geologic, looks cool but nothing special 

[fifbrindacier]

That's a perfect example of pareildolia.

[Jmeister]

1 hour ago, Troodon said:

 

The individual that have responded are experts and I agree with their comments.  This one unlike others we see is an easy call its clearly geologic, looks cool but nothing special 

 

I'm open minded to the ideas and agree it's possibly geological. Not rejecting any ideas, just wanted to provide the best representation of the object in an effort to share the unique look of it with others. I am new to fossil/rock hunting and personally found it fascinating compared to other rocks I've seen. 

 

Don't get me wrong,  I half knew using the word 'expert' might make some think I'm rejecting their knowledge, this was not the intention. The point I was trying to make is getting it into the physical hands of 'another', just so they can have the benefit of holding and touching it as additional data in their assessment.

 

I have great respect for your knowledge,  i am just being thorough for due diligence. As a graphic designer/engineer,  I deal a lot with images and different types of objects,  so naturally I am prone to noticing the disconnect from assessing flat images vs the real physical objects. 

 

I know when to put this one to rest but just wanted to make sure we aren't missing something before I move on and hurl it back into the depths from which it came for another hundred+ million years.

 

Many thanks! :)

[Coco]

Hi,

 

I can’t see your file. I guess that’s the case for many other TFF members. Please put images in JPG format directly on the forum.

 

Coco

[Jmeister]

7 hours ago, Coco said:

Hi,

 

I can’t see your file. I guess that’s the case for many other TFF members. Please put images in JPG format directly on the forum.

 

Coco

[Lone Hunter]

Enjoyed the 3D of the rock! 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

46 minutes ago, Lone Hunter said:

Enjoyed the 3D of the rock! 

 

Indeed! It's a great 3D rendering if the stone, but it still is just that - although I must say that without the clear textures of the photographs, it's a bit more difficult to identify it as a gneiss now

[abyssunder]

There's conchoidal fractures on the top of the specimen in the video, reminds me of silex ( chert, flint, or similar).

[Jmeister]

10 minutes ago, abyssunder said:

There's conchoidal fractures on the top of the specimen in the video, reminds me of silex ( chert, flint, or similar).

If you are referring to the very top,  some hot glue made it into the 3D scan. I glued it to the back side of a plate, pointing upward so I could take the 360 degree scans.