Little Hoof Core?

[Brandy Cole]

I checked the river yesterday for a short time and came across a lot of chunkosaurus, but I'm pretty sure this piece could be a small hoof core.  If so, I'm not sure which species it may be.  I felt like it was too rounded for deer but too small for equus.

 

There is mostly Pleistocene in this gravel bed, but Miocene/Pliocene is possible due to older formation outcroppings up river.

 

To me, this looks similar to a small hoof core that @garyc found and posted in an older thread that was ID'd as a possible miocene horse.  But I'm always learning.

 

Thanks for everyone's patience with all my posts.  I've learned so much the past year from the forum.

 

--Brandy

[Harry Pristis]

Don't obscure details of the fossil by pinching it between your fingers. If you want to use fingers to provide scale, support the fossil from below ... that is, on top of your fingers. To improve the focus, rest your hand with the fossil on a stable surface like a table or desk.

For comparison:

 

 

[Brandy Cole]

@Harry Pristis. Thank you.  I have additional pictures with it laying flat. I can add those.

 

The light was better when in the photos when I first found it before cleaning, so I had thought those might be better to include.

 

Here are additional pictures after cleaning. And some other angles after it dried.  Is there a specific angle that I should prop it at before taking the picture that would be more helpful?

 

I can't really get a picture of the articular surface without either holding it or propping it.

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

[Coco]

Hi,

 

15 hours ago, Harry Pristis said:

If you want to use fingers to provide scale...

 

 

Coco

[Harry Pristis]

   

6 hours ago, Coco said:

Hi,

Coco

 

I don't feel as strongly about this as you do, Coco.  I almost always can tell the difference between a man's hand and a woman's hand, and even a child's hand (don't see too many child's hands).  I find it easier to imagine in my own hand a fossil framed by someone else's fingers.  I agree that this is a gross scale, not so useful to those of us who are more imaginative than I.  That's why I like to provide a numerical measurement (with a caliper) along with an in-hand image.

 

And while we're discussing it.  Most images with rules for scale are gross measurements as well.  Most of us don't know to raise the rule to the focal length of the fossil.  Instead, the rule is typically lying on the background surface.  The taller the fossil in the image, the more size distortion (perspective) is introduced into this set-up. 

 

 

 

 

[Coco]

I agree with you, Harry, a picture with fingers doesn’t bother me too much if we have the measurements with it, but it’s very rarely the case. In my opinion it is better to ask the size of the fossils than to suggest using hands. This can go for big fossils, but not for small ones. I also agree with the idea that most of the rules are poorly positioned, but I find that more fair than a hand size.

I suppose we could have this discussion for centuries...

 

Coco

[Harry Pristis]

3 hours ago, Coco said:

Harry, a picture with fingers doesn’t bother me too much if we have the measurements with it

 

I'm sorry that my fingers in an image bothers you at all, Coco.  C'est la vie.

[Notidanodon]

7 hours ago, Harry Pristis said:

   

 

I don't feel as strongly about this as you do, Coco.  I almost always can tell the difference between a man's hand and a woman's hand, and even a child's hand (don't see too many child's hands).  I find it easier to imagine in my own hand a fossil framed by someone else's fingers.  I agree that this is a gross scale, not so useful to those of us who are more imaginative than I.  That's why I like to provide a numerical measurement (with a caliper) along with an in-hand image.

 

And while we're discussing it.  Most images with rules for scale are gross measurements as well.  Most of us don't know to raise the rule to the focal length of the fossil.  Instead, the rule is typically lying on the background surface.  The taller the fossil in the image, the more size distortion (perspective) is introduced into this set-up. 

 

 

 

 

love that C.carcharias tooth, very unusual with the cusps!  nice photography as well!

[Brandy Cole]

@Harry Pristis @Coco

 

That's what I get for using my ruler in a couple of pictures instead of taking time to clean off the table and pull out my cutting mat!  Haha. 

 

To shun all appearances of evil, here are some pictures on hopefully a better background.

 

I thought it resembled the hoof core that @garyc mentioned in this thread that was identified as tapir. Even though I think I'm upriver from him, our hunting areas cover the same type of material.

 

Photos below:

1) distal point opposite articular surface

2) proximal articular surface

3) posterior view

4) anterior view

5) lateral view

6) opposite lateral view

(Since it has lost some of the distal point due to wear, it's hard to get a really good shot of this view without touching it to hold it up.  My propping skills need work).

 

Thanks for taking a look.

 

Edited October 26, 2021 by Brandy Cole
Left out important description

[Coco]

Hi,

 

7 hours ago, Harry Pristis said:

 

I'm sorry that my fingers in an image bothers you at all, Coco.  C'est la vie.

That’s not quite what I said...

 

Coco

[val horn]

Was the common conclusion that this was a hoof core?

[garyc]

The hoof core that I originally posted is currently with Richard White in South Dakota. I brought several items for him to look at in hand and get confirmation of their identification. I will let you know when I find out.

[JohnJ]

@Brandy Cole  

 

Based on all of your photos and the bone texture, I think you have most of a horse ungual.  

 

Although not an exact match, it shares many characteristics with this one.

[Harry Pristis]

 

 

13 hours ago, Coco said:

Hi,

That’s not quite what I said...

Coco

 

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, Coco.  Did you mean something else?  Did you mean that my fingers in an image don't bother you at all?  I thought you said:

 

On 10/25/2021 at 2:43 PM, Coco said:

Harry, a picture with fingers doesn’t bother me too much if we have the measurements with it

 

[Coco]

Hi,

 

Harry, I took your fingers as an example. I just wanted to say that the fingers in general don't deceive the perception of a size of fossil when the dimensions are indicated on the photo, as you do most of the time  (and I add that you have beautiful and clean fingers) 

 

So fingers + measurements indicated in cm and/or inches = very good !

 

I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough to make myself clear.

 

Coco