Found near Crescent City (Del Norte County) California. is this potentially a mammal tooth ?

[Suchascenicworld]

Hi everyone,

So. I am not from California but received this as a gift. I do have a background in Paleoecology (with a focus in the Pleistocene trophic ecology) but I am a bit out of practice as I have been working with extant systems for the past 10 years. In addition, my focus primarily involved East and Southern Africa.

In any event, I am not quite sure yet. It is highly mineralized and I see what looks like algae. From what I gather, it looks like it was in the ocean for some time. the shape (especially in the first image) along with the highly mineralized cross section (enamel?) reminds me of a proboscidean...but I am not quite sure. I have been trying to look into the geology and paleontology of the area, but haven't found much for mammals outside of cetaceans...which I know little about. Any input would be greatly appreciated! thank you

[Fossildude19]

This looks like quartz or chert, to me. 

[Suchascenicworld]

fossilized enamel can look like that sometimes, but I agree. I am a bit unsure. the only reason why I am leaning towards fossil is the weight, the slight porosity,, and the fact that "the quartz side" somewhat ungulates and stops and has striations in it...but yeah. I really do not know. 

[JohnJ]

I think it is some type of brecciated, quartz-based rock.  The fractures, inclusions, and vugs are easily seen. 

 

Was the algae cleaned using a wire brush?  (3rd photo)

[Suchascenicworld]

Hey @JohnJ,

 

I am not sure if it was cleaned with at all. I must admit, I do feel like quite a fool for thinking this could possibly be a tooth when it was ordered! I guess, the images sent seemed like it could be a weird (albeit wonky) proboscidean tooth! If it is just ..rock, well, it is what it is. But I do admit that when I did receive it (today) I was a bit...disappointed. 

[JohnJ]

16 minutes ago, Suchascenicworld said:

I must admit, I do feel like quite a fool for thinking this could possibly be a tooth when it was ordered!

 

I wouldn't let it bother you too much.  We all have to calibrate our visual image 'database' when exploring less familiar items. 

 

Unfortunately for most people, if sales sites make up most of their 'encyclopedia', they compromise their ability to recognize what is Not a fossil.  Scientific articles, well reviewed fossil guides, TFF, or a paleontologist are a much better identification base.

[RJB]

This is what many of us would simply call a rock.

 

RB

[Brandy Cole]

I agree with @JohnJ.  If you plan to purchase something, it may be helpful to search for images of that type of item on the forum first.  It's a great resource. 

 

The sales images online are often grossly misrepresented.  Even shops can be unreliable.  I wandered through a fossil/rock shop a while back and found a piece that I think was labeled "turtle bone.". It actually was a fossil, but definitely not what they labeled it.  It was actually an astragalus from something in the camel/llama family.

 

Don't feel bad.  There is a lot of misinformation out there.  That makes it tricky to learn.