Beach fossil molar or sea urchin?

[Re-Elu]

Greetings,

 

First post here, and I'm at a loss trying to identify this (suspected) fossil.

I found this a few days ago on Zandmotor beach, in Monster in The Netherlands.

On first glance it appears to be a molar, but it looks very different from the Pleistocene material that Zandmotor beach is known for. I've never seen a molar inside a matrix like this one.

 

Some have suggested that it's just a rock, or maybe a piece of limonite. I realise that this specimen looks completely different from other fossil material found at Zandmotor beach, but I'm still positive that this is some kind of fossil. Personally I think it's part of a molar inside a matrix, maybe flint? Someone suggested a sea urchin instead of a molar, which might make sense. Older than Pleistocene considering the level of mineralisation. 

 

Picture 1 - 4 show various view of the specimen, with what appears to be part of the crown, and the mold of a root (cast still present at the base of the root (part closest to the crown).

Picture 5 shows a second root. 

Picture 6 - 9 are close-ups of this root, plus a mold of a third root. It appears that some enamel still lines the second root and the inside of the cast.

 

I find it hard to believe that is 'just a rock' or a bit of limonite. If so, it's trying pretty hard to look like something else.

What are your views? I would be very grateful if you can help me!

 

PS: Let me know if any additional photographs are needed.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2022 by Re-Elu

[sjaak]

I already reacted at the WPZ site, so I will await other reactions!

[Re-Elu]

3 hours ago, sjaak said:

I already reacted at the WPZ site, so I will await other reactions!

Thanks Sjaak! Hopefully someone can make some sense of it, and if not maybe I'll just have to be patient until someone can have a look in person!

[Lone Hunter]

What I can't make sense of is how someone could see an urchin, I can't see a molar either or any part of a tooth.  I think iron oxide concretion (like limonite) makes more sense but I'm not an expert.

[Coco]

Hi,

 

I completely agree with you! Geological.

 

Coco

[Fin Lover]

I don't see any enamel or the supposed "roots".  I would agree with the others that it is geological.

[Re-Elu]

Took another close look just know, using my loupe and some very bright lights (ow my eyes), following the 'enamel'. Maybe it's not a molar, but still looks organic to me. The 'not-enamel' is a thin layer surrounded all roundish elements of the specimen. Dark-brown colour, reddish tint, crystalline, very thin. Also visible at the top in some parts. Made a picture (though very difficult, because it's so small), will post later with extra picture to show where those lines run exactly. So maybe not a molar, but pretty sure it's organic, and definitely not any iron concretion.

[Lone Hunter]

Concretions can be very deceiving,  they often look like they should be  'something'. Here's a few that are of similar composition to yours, they are eye catching but nothing more than mother nature's art. 

[Re-Elu]

On 11/13/2022 at 4:34 PM, Lone Hunter said:

Concretions can be very deceiving,  they often look like they should be  'something'. Here's a few that are of similar composition to yours, they are eye catching but nothing more than mother nature's art. 

Those are stunning indeed! Nature can surely make some beautiful art!

The specimen that I have is definitely not an iron oxide concretion though. I've found plenty of limonite in weird shapes or containing casts (quite common on Zandmotor beach). This stone doesn't leave a streak, and lacks any of the characteristics that would even make me doubt.

Also, the brown crystalline layers surrounding the roundish structures is not like something I've ever seen before. If there's any type of iron oxide concretion that has these characteristics, please let me know! I've added some pictures taking with the camera set on macro and very bright light (ouch my eyes), still difficult to properly photograph those layers, they're much move distinctive in real life. Added pictures with yellow lines to show the location (two of the many more spots at least).

My guess now is either something with a shell that had long tubular structures, which were filled and surrounded by sediment and mineralised, or an exoskeleton, maybe trace fossils, I don't know. But those crystalline thin layers arranged in tubular structures surrounding what appears to be the same mineral as matrix doesn't look geological to me. If anyone has examples of similar structures and material and knows what this is, please show me, I'd love to learn more!

 

[Lone Hunter]

Perhaps it is chert which would not leave a streak. I'm having hard time seeing what your seeing but still think it's geological in nature, maybe someone else sees what I don't.

[Mahnmut]

Hi Re-Elu and welcome to the forum.

I think I can see what made you think of a tooth or other biological structure, especially the tube- like impressions.

concerning the bright crystalline layer though, it looks to me, judging from the fotos, rather than mineral deposited into the crevices of the nodule.

Not Ironstone, I agree.

So my best explanation: iron-coloured quartzite or chert with a tubular structure that could be some growth layer of a concretion, could be a weird fracture in amorphous material or could be organic remains/trace fossil. The whitish structure does look like a post-break-encrustation to me, it appears not only around the "tubes" but also in other crevices. Could be as simple as sea salt, if its not water-soluble maybe lime.

Best Regards,

J

[fifbrindacier]

I agree with what was said, this is purely geological, sorry.

[Re-Elu]

5 hours ago, Mahnmut said:

Hi Re-Elu and welcome to the forum.

I think I can see what made you think of a tooth or other biological structure, especially the tube- like impressions.

concerning the bright crystalline layer though, it looks to me, judging from the fotos, rather than mineral deposited into the crevices of the nodule.

Not Ironstone, I agree.

So my best explanation: iron-coloured quartzite or chert with a tubular structure that could be some growth layer of a concretion, could be a weird fracture in amorphous material or could be organic remains/trace fossil. The whitish structure does look like a post-break-encrustation to me, it appears not only around the "tubes" but also in other crevices. Could be as simple as sea salt, if its not water-soluble maybe lime.

Best Regards,

J

Thanks! Maybe you're right (the crystalline layer I was referring to is not bright or whitish, it looks more like a reddish brown). For now I'll just let it rest and maybe bring it next time I'm able to meet with some experts in real life. Always easier to tell in real life compared to camera. At least convinced it's not a molar though!

[fifbrindacier]

On 3/11/2022 at 12:56 PM, AnyArthropod said:

Hello fellow fossil enthusiasts,

 

In the pictures included in this post it shows a molar I have found last summer. I found it within a bed of shells on a Dutch beach. I can’t remember the name of the beach, It however was rather close to Zandmotor, which is famous for its ice age mammal bones. I have shown this molar to a fossil buyer/seller and he has told me its possibly an unused molar of a woolly rhino. I thought I’d put it on here too however to see if anybody agrees. 
 

thanks for looking,

AnyArthropod

I don't know what kind of tooth you expected but here is an example of tooth that can be found in zandmotor.

Without speaking about Mammoth material like this pièce of ivory @Max-fossils have found.

Edited November 14, 2022 by fifbrindacier

[sjaak]

3 hours ago, fifbrindacier said:

I don't know what kind of tooth you expected but here is an example of tooth that can be found in zandmotor.

Without speaking about Mammoth material like this pièce of ivory @Max-fossils have found.

 
As mentioned somewhere else I agree this is geological. Also it’s unlike the typical Zandmotor fossils which are late Pleistocene or early Holocene, not so much fossilised or complicated and are clearly identifiable as bone or teeth etc.  Having said that I find it hard to see a piece of ivory in the picture above found by Max. It rather looks like a tooth fragment.

Edited November 14, 2022 by sjaak

[fifbrindacier]

10 minutes ago, sjaak said:

 
As mentioned somewhere else I agree this is geological. Also it’s unlike the typical Zandmotor fossils which are late Pleistocene or early Holocene, not so much fossilised or complicated and are clearly identifiable as bone or teeth etc.  Having said that I find it hard to see a piece of ivory in the picture above found by Max. It rather looks like a tooth fragment.

Yes, it might, know he had find a very nice mammoth molar.

[fifbrindacier]

You can see what can be found in Zandmotor and what the fossils there look like in that post :

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/99542-zandmotor-an-incredible-hunt-with-sara/

[Max-fossils]

@sjaak it is a piece of ivory, although I confess it's not a great photo nor a very convincing (or impressive) specimen. It is not enamel and it does have that "creamy" texture and colour that ivory typically has. I think I may have thrown that fragment away now as I have found much better ivory pieces since (that find is very old, from only my second ever visit to the ZM!) 

 

 

@Re-Elu I'm afraid I have to agree with the others and say this is purely geological. The ironstone, flint and other concretions found on the Zandmotor can be very misleading at times (for example I once found an ironstone concretion that looked almost identical to an ichthyosaur vertebra!). But learning to recognise the texture of the concretions versus the bones and teeth is something that is mainly done through experience, and hard to explain via text. So the more you hunt at the Zandmotor, the more concretions you'll come across and the better you'll become at recognising them from true fossils.