Fossilized Tooth from Big Brook, NJ (+bonus bone)

[Bear_Pigs]

Hello everyone, first post in this forum! If I make any newbie mistakes please let me know and I’ll edit this post/remember for next time.

 

I have a broken reptile tooth sifted from Big Brook (a stream near Marlboro, NJ) that dates to somewhere between the Late Campanian and Early Maastrichtian. I posted this online at another point and it was identified as a crocodile tooth from the original pictures I posted.

 

I’ve been sitting on this one for a while though and it doesn’t seem to line up with the teeth from other known crocodilians and from this area (Brachychampsa, Borealosuchus, Hyposaurus, etc). Can anyone offer a second opinion? It has really prominent anterior ridge on the front of the tooth which makes me think it’s possible a theropod but it doesn’t look like Dryptosaurus. The back half is broken which means I don’t have any serrations to use as an ID.

 

I’ve included the files in this post. I have also included some bonuses to these image though. I believe I found what appears to be a bird femur in the brook but I’m not certain if this is a quaternary find or actually from the same formation as this tooth. Anyone have a family id or insight on how to check if this is fossilized or just turned black from the soil?

 

I also included some images of saurornitholestine teeth which I personally thought are close in appearance to this tooth. Thinking I might be too hopeful on that ID but thought it was worth sharing my thoughts lol.  Material of these dinosaurs has been found in New Jersey!

 

[hemipristis]

The serrated tooth is a theropod* (sorry, that’s as far as I can go). Love the lil bone!  Turtle?

 

 

 

 

*spellcheck kept wanting to change it to “therapist” lol. I’m hoping you don’t keep teeth of your therapist.   (If you have one).

Edited December 4, 2022 by hemipristis

[Troodon]

Can you post better lit SHARP straight in photos of all sides.  Please no obtuse angles.  Tooth is currently too dark to make out detail.  Need size and which Formation is this from?

[njcreekhunter]

The tooth you found looks like a partial mosasaur tooth. As for the bone I can't help too much. My first guess would be bird humerus though I'm not sure. Most likely modern. 

[Bear_Pigs]

@hemipristis@Troodon@sharktoothboy Thanks for your thoughts! Given the nature of the stream and exact location I found it... the tooth probably comes from the Mount Laurel formation of New Jersey (because of the nature of this stream it could also be washout from the Navesink so definitely Campanian-Maastrichtian in age). The tooth is also 1.8 centimeters in length and the bone is 3.9 centimeters long.

 

It seems pretty clear though that I need to take additional higher quality images. Going to go out and get some putty to better hold the tooth and maybe even get a digital microscope. I think that will be better than my phone no matter the price of the microscope itself.

 

Stay tuned for more pictures.

[Bear_Pigs]

@Troodonapologize for linking you again but I’ve got more images this time. Please let me know if you need more images… still getting used to proper lighting in my space with the digital microscope I purchased.

To add, the tooth is 1.8 centimeters tall like I said before and the ‘carinae’ on the anterior edge are pronounced and run the length of the tooth. I’m unsure if they were ever serrated as the tooth is definitely eroded and clearly broken.

 

It’s either from the Mount Laurel Formation or Navesink formation.

[Troodon]

Good photos.  It may be theropod but not seeing anything from the tooth that conclusively points me in that direction.  The mesial carina is present and looks smooth which is typical on a few species.  In you first photo that concave valley is odd.  Cannot wrap my hands around this one. 

[Bear_Pigs]

Interesting, what families have a smooth mesial carina? It seems only indet. dromaesaurs and basal tyrannosaurs are known from these Cretaceous formations. I’m new to identifying my finds if that’s not obvious.

 

Regardless I might finally have some local contacts to start with and will probably follow up in person. Holding it in your hand makes it much easier to see certain features of the tooth. I’m wondering if the thickness of the outer portion of the tooth, the longitudinal direction of some of the tooth textures, and some of the tooth’s inner composition could help.

 

Thanks for your help so far!

[historianmichael]

The expertise of Dave Parris at the NJSM is vertebrate material. I highly recommend you reach out to him, since any dinosaur material could be scientifically significant. 

Edited December 6, 2022 by historianmichael

[Troodon]

The tooth is appears pretty hollow which is not typical of theropods, not sure its dinosaurian.   Agree the best way to try to ID something odd is holding it.  I like the idea of contacting someone (paleontologist ) who knows the deposit.

[Bear_Pigs]

@Troodon and @historianmichael I will be contacting an expert so fingers crossed I hear back! It would fulfill a childhood dream of mine if I could contribute to paleontology in any meaningful way lol.

[The Jersey Devil]

The tooth in question looks modern based on the combination of the color, texture, and shape. Possibly some type of bunodont tooth, maybe pig.

[Bear_Pigs]

@The Jersey Devil  that would be wild if so!

 

I do have a few questions about that prescription though. Bunodont teeth are the crowns of the molars in mammal teeth right? This tooth doesn't seem very molar-like and really doesn't seem to match any of the teeth of a pig. I looked up pig/boar tusks to see if they'd be a better fit but they don't look diagnostic either (missing the ridge along the front):

 

 

The tooth also ends in a definite point which doesn't seem likely for the grinding action found in the teeth of ungulates. For extra measure, since it looks much more like a canine tooth if it's mammalian, I've taken another image next to a really well-preserved modern fox canine I've found in the same stream (same day as the leg bone oddly enough):

 

 

Is there any mammalian fauna known from the Northeastern USA that might have or have had carinae on the front of its teeth? I think bears can occasionally have that structure on their canine teeth but it's not really the right shape for a black bear tooth. I think the tooth is likely fossilized too, it's certainly harder than the unfossilized tooth and if you look within the broken cavity of the tooth there's reflective grains which I believe could be bits of pyrite (not certain if they're just tiny grains of sand though). 

 

I'm enjoying learning a lot about teeth and fossilization while commenting on this topic lol.

[The Jersey Devil]

@Bear_Pigs 

 

I didn't see the scale of the tooth. I think it greatly resembles one of the little lobes on a pig molar, but 1.8 cm is way too big for that. Probably a different type of mammalian tooth or tusk.

[Bear_Pigs]

So I technically did find dinosaur material, but not in the way I presumed lol. I reached out to Dave Parris of the New Jersey State Museum who deduced that the leg bone was the left humerus of a mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Pretty neat stuff! I actually found a beautiful mourning dove feather a while back so that will sit with it in my budding collection.

 

The real suprise was that @The Jersey Devil might've been right on the money! David also identified the tooth as mammalian based on internal anatomy of the tooth and noticed it most likely a horse canine tooth. The tooth, like I stated, seems to be partly fossilized (the dreaded lick test yuck) but it seems that the rate of permineralization seems to be inconsistent in this area (Pleistocene material can appear to be newer in age than recent post-colonial material and vice versa) so it's hard to say it's age. Pleistocene horse material is indeed known from New Jersey but it's pretty rare and, tbh, it's far more likely to be from the colonial settlement of the state. Pretty cool nonetheless!

 

Thank you all for your help here, guess I've got to keep sifting for some unambiguous material this time.