Jump to content

Some more New Jersey Brook finds


Moses Oberlander

Recommended Posts

Some interesting finds. I think the first one is a crocodile scute correct me if I’m wrong please… there are 2 pictures of each of the 3 specimens.

DFF46A63-478E-4266-8B39-96A92E509B96.jpeg

2BE721F0-9191-4AC0-BE27-4D82D58D243D.jpeg

02AAB80B-91B1-46E2-ADB6-320676930608.jpeg

779E882B-36C0-4F35-ACF4-4E519C78CEAA.jpeg

3FC73975-7F06-4128-9C25-576EDB650200.jpeg

FF2B5487-4DFA-49F8-935F-7F7BE631351F.jpeg

Edited by Moses Oberlander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes i think the first is croc, the second bone fragment, and the 3 rd tooth.  It looks round enough in cross section to be poss croc as well.

  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, val horn said:

yes i think the first is croc, the second bone fragment, and the 3 rd tooth.  It looks round enough in cross section to be poss croc as well.

Agreed on all 3 of these - and the last tooth seems to be too narrow to be gator, so I think croc is the proper one there.

  • Thank You 1

Fossils? I dig it. :meg:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first one is more likely to be a piece of indet. bone, The pits are more consistent with spongy bone than a croc osteoderm, in my opinion.

The second one is a shark tooth. Not enough to really ID to genus.

The last one is most likely an Enchodus tooth tip,. Can we see the cross-section?

  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2022 at 8:27 AM, Carl said:

The first one is more likely to be a piece of indet. bone, The pits are more consistent with spongy bone than a croc osteoderm, in my opinion.

The second one is a shark tooth. Not enough to really ID to genus.

The last one is most likely an Enchodus tooth tip,. Can we see the cross-section?

I think it’s a little thick for coral I’ve attached more pics. Lemme know what you think also cross section from the tooth as you asked… thank you!

DB826555-F445-42C1-B30F-1DA7002E3F0F.jpeg

4C8AA277-6317-4AD9-93F2-9936BC29DA77.jpeg

831604A0-AC6A-4F03-8AFD-46BBE9C371AE.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Moses Oberlander said:

I think it’s a little thick for coral I’ve attached more pics. Lemme know what you think also cross section from the tooth as you asked… thank you!

DB826555-F445-42C1-B30F-1DA7002E3F0F.jpeg

4C8AA277-6317-4AD9-93F2-9936BC29DA77.jpeg

831604A0-AC6A-4F03-8AFD-46BBE9C371AE.jpeg

Thanks. Very helpful. I'm still thinking the bone fragment is a flake of cancellous bone rather than an osteoderm. And the cross-section verifies that the tooth is Enchodus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually agree 100% with Carl! Going to say osteoderm because it's flat and the pattern is smooth.

  • Enjoyed 1
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Carl I think I must agree to @Plax on this one. It just doesn’t feel right for cancellous bone fragment… it’s very dense and heavy plus it’s fully flat. I really think if you’d see it in person you’d say the same…. 

  • Enjoyed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm happy top be wrong on this: I think osteoderms are much more fun that scraps of bone. What leaves me on the bone frag idea is the subtle difference in the cross-sections of the junctions of the pits in these things. Cancellous bone tends to have a sharp junction (partly because those edges are breaks), croc osteoderms have more square junctions, and trionychids have more peaked and rounded junctions. Also, the non-pitted side of this piece is quite rough whereas I'd expect a very smooth or cross-hatched face. But I am not unaware that any of these details can be abused into any of the others by erosion. Who knows...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Carl would you know anyone or anyway I can get a positive ID? would pics from microscope help? Thank you so much! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Moses Oberlander said:

@Carl would you know anyone or anyway I can get a positive ID? would pics from microscope help? Thank you so much! 

Sadly, I don't think you can get a perfectly positive ID here. Clearly, those of us with great experience here see different things. The specimen may be too fragmentary and worn. But I guess if you found an expert on osteoderms and allowed them to cut it, they histological details should clarify the ID. Doesn't seem worth it.

  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...