Jump to content

Need help with ID’ing these


katp9906

Recommended Posts

I’m pretty sure these are teeth(as opposed to claw?) I’ve been 4 weeks in fossil groups trying to figure it out and have gotten approximately 20 different answers(cave bear, peccary, jaguar among the top) any help would be appreciated 

7FB8EF5E-02C6-410D-8AC2-DE9D6677C1B6.jpeg

358DDD48-4D32-4FE6-A730-D161F1593B58.jpeg

460467DC-E1DB-49E8-ACB9-F1DA7C079BED.jpeg

CC576775-E005-4237-849F-ED069F96B51A.jpeg

5EE62D4B-F98F-4AFC-ABED-701746F56C85.jpeg

EFA08CF1-D963-4D5C-A09C-B5E3A7382974.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned above the lack of enamel rules out any of them being teeth (no known teeth of that shape in Florida anyway). They do have a consistent shape so whatever they are these are 3 examples of the same item. always difficult in enigmatic objects to determine if the texture is that of bone or of phosphatized sandy matrix. Some sort of endocast ("steinkern") could be a possibility but I do not recall seeing any from Florida with that shape. They almost remind me a bit of Tilly bones but not really enough to suggest that as a possibility.

 

@Harry Pristis any thoughts?

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clear up the answers already… I’m not new to the game!! I have plenty phosphatic fossilized items and that’s not what these are (I would NOT come in here for an ID if they were!!) as far as no teeth shaped like this in Florida… was that a serious comment or a joke over your morning brew? There’s plenty (thus me saying I’ve been given 20 different ID’s so far) also claws of this shape. I have at least 10 fossilized gator teeth with all enamel stripped since they are in a river. Sorry for the “rage seeming” comment but seriously I’m not a total idiot, just me and MANY others are at a loss and apparently this forum will be 0 help 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody has suggested you were a 'total idiot'. We don't do that here on this forum. We also don't do 'rage' as there are enough other social media sites who have that locked up.

 

I have seen hundreds of fossilized gator teeth from Florida. I have not yet ever seen one that was stripped of all enamel. Gator teeth are very distinctively shaped and none of your objects look anything like gator teeth so no these are decidedly not gator teeth that have been stripped of enamel.

 

Your objects do not appear to resemble any teeth that I'm familiar with in 15 years of hunting for fossils on the Peace River. Do I know everything? Of course not but we have a great diversity of members with many combined years of fossil experience and they are willing to give their opinions here.

 

These items more resemble worn bone fragments if anything. It is very difficult to judge the texture through photos alone and so we have suggested that these may be phosphatic matrix as it can quite often appear to be bone in texture. Again, difficult to determine simply through photos. A "tooth" or "claw" that has evaded positive ID with 20 other suggestions may be because the item is actually not a tooth or claw (or possibly not even bone). You have to consider a wide range of possibilities for items that are not dead simple to ID.

 

These pieces also do not match any of the unguals (claw cores) of any of the species that I am familiar with here in Florida. If you are convinced that your items are either teeth or claws and you are not willing to let this topic run for more than an hour to find out more than your 20 other suggestions have implied, then this forum may not be what you expected. We promote the open discussion of fossils here and we do so politely and with respect.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

  • I found this Informative 1
  • Enjoyed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, katp9906 said:

Sorry for the “rage seeming” comment but seriously I’m not a total idiot, just me and MANY others are at a loss and apparently this forum will be 0 help 

 

 

Wow. You've been a member all of an hour, and are ready to give up on us.  :(

Please be patient, and wait for some more answers. Sometimes we can help, and sometimes we can't.

Sometimes, we don't get answers for a few days. No one implied you are an idiot, (or outright called you one) , and you should keep that in mind.

But this is a Forum, whose members are leading lives outside of this venue, and not all people are on the Forum all the time.

 

  • Enjoyed 1
  • I Agree 1

    Tim    -  VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  VFOTM  --- APRIL - 2015  

__________________________________________________
"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks."

John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~   ><))))( *>  About Me      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually have 4 of these, found in Peace River. Each one is shaped exactly the same.. exactly, which would throw the bone fragment theory out the window. The frustration comes from about 5 of the ID’s being river worn rocks. Peace River, although greatly fantastic; couldn’t wear 4 specimens exactly the same. Their shape resembles (I say resembles because I don’t know what they are) bear, dolphin, whale, peccary and jaguar canines. I have many phosphatic items and the weight, texture and appearance are not that. Am I am expert either… obviously not or I would not be asking for help. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Peace River (as you very well know) runs through an area rich in phosphatic deposits. Many of the bones/teeth are stained grayish black because of the high phosphate content of the Bone Valley Formation. The sandy matrix can also be blackish gray and that is also apparent to anybody who has sifted in the Peace River as the gravel is much the same color as the fossils. It is very possible for the same shape to occur over and over again and not be bone or tooth. We have quite a number of shrimp burrow casts (ichnofossils) which are composed of phosphatized matrix material. Steinkerns (endocasts) of bivalves, gastropods and barnacles are composed of phosphatized matrix and can have repeatable shapes due to the internal surfaces of the shells in which they formed.

 

Bones (like ribs) can be worn down so much as to not be easily identifiable--not necessarily fragmented--which could also result in repeatable objects that still elude being identified easily.

 

Teeth have enamel and ends that are either the chewing (occlusal) surface which usually has some distinct shapes or patterns and the root end which also have distinct shapes and quite often root cavities which would be apparent. Your objects seem to be quite solid with a pointed end and a more fluted end. Neither of these match my concept of the occlusal end nor root end of any of the teeth I've ever seen from Florida rivers. Do they "resemble" cetacean teeth or incisors? Sure, in a very general sense but not in the details. The lack of details cannot always be explained by excessive wear.

 

If your items resemble teeth but are not in fact teeth then trying to determine which type of tooth it is will be an effort without reward. If an object (or objects in this case) is defying simple identification then possibly a wider search may reveal its true identity.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

  • I found this Informative 1
  • Enjoyed 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also don't see any of the traditional characteristics I would expect to see with teeth, since they seem to be consistently made of the same material throughout.

That being said, I think pictures that clearly center on and zoom in on the ends of the items would be very helpful.  That could show additional informative texture details that are missing in the pictures above.

  • I found this Informative 1
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Brandy Cole said:

I also don't see any of the traditional characteristics I would expect to see with teeth, since they seem to be consistently made of the same material throughout.

That being said, I think pictures that clearly center on and zoom in on the ends of the items would be very helpful.  That could show additional informative texture details that are missing in the pictures above.

 

 

 

there’s also a video

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@katp9906Yes, I had reviewed the video and found that it also didn't really have a good focused view of  both ends of the pieces.

From the quick shot in the video, it appeared possibly consistent with worn bone to me but not with tooth.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, digit said:

. . .

@Harry Pristis any thoughts?

 

I agree with the consensus -- these are not teeth.  They appear to me to be bone.  I agree that they are unlikely to be familiar bones (claw cores and other phalanges) which are stream-worn into identical shape.  Yet, bones typically have articular facets, which these objects seem to lack. 

 

Are they atavisms or degenerated skeletal elements from some critter?  Likely candidates are marine mammals like dugongids or whales which evolved from land animals.  Perhaps a marine mammal expert could help.  @Boesse

  • I found this Informative 1

http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page

 

What seest thou else

In the dark backward and abysm of time?

---Shakespeare, The Tempest

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, katp9906 said:

I actually have 4 of these, found in Peace River. Each one is shaped exactly the same.. exactly, which would throw the bone fragment theory out the window. The frustration comes from about 5 of the ID’s being river worn rocks. Peace River, although greatly fantastic; couldn’t wear 4 specimens exactly the same. Their shape resembles (I say resembles because I don’t know what they are) bear, dolphin, whale, peccary and jaguar canines. I have many phosphatic items and the weight, texture and appearance are not that. Am I am expert either… obviously not or I would not be asking for help. 

I'm actually pretty sure these are bivalve steiinkerns that have been blackened or phosphatized perhaps in a lag deposit. Perhaps a pholid or gastrochaenid clam instead of a mytelid (mussel).A good sharp close up of the texture proving they are bone would show that my educated guess is wrong.

  • I found this Informative 3
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Plax said:

I'm actually pretty sure these are bivalve steiinkerns that have been blackened or phosphatized perhaps in a lag deposit. Perhaps a pholid or gastrochaenid clam instead of a mytelid (mussel).A good sharp close up of the texture proving they are bone would show that my educated guess is wrong.

I believe you are correct Plax. The slight indentations in the last photo on all three specimens, where the umbo or hinge was,  convinced me that these are indeed internal cast.

  • I found this Informative 1
  • Enjoyed 1

                                                                 

                                                         “Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum" 

                                                                       Descartes

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Frank Garcia is here still, he’s pretty good at ID’ing. Matter of fact I hoped he’d see this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this conversation seems to be at and end. We've tried to assist you but our efforts are rebuked with hostility (including comments we've had to hide as we don't do drama here). That's not conducive to the polite discussions we attempt to have about fossils here on this forum. You have not received any of our information with anything but being dismissive and getting upset over questions or calls for better imagery. I believe you will not find the answers you are looking for on this forum. This forum is enjoyed by a wide range of members both hobbyists and professionals. Apparently, it is not for everyone. We wish you the best in your efforts to explain the identity of these fossils--perhaps looking elsewhere may prove more to your liking.

 

This topic is being locked as you are rapidly using up the goodwill of our membership and we do not tolerate drama or rude behavior here.

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • digit locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...