Possible bear claw (not sure if fossil or modern) found in Big Brook, NJ

[TRexEliot]

Just found this while hunting today at Big Brook. Not sure if it's fossil or modern, but I'm pretty sure it's a bear claw. Can anyone tell me what I've found here? Thanks!

 

 

[Al Dente]

Looks like mammal tooth enamel. 

[Harry Pristis]

For comparison:

 

 

[TRexEliot]

@Harry Pristis that's a bear claw core. This is what the claws themselves look like (modern, not fossil)

Edited May 29, 2023 by TRexEliot

[Harry Pristis]

So . . . You believe your find is the keratin sheath of a bear claw.  In that case, you can be confident that your find is not a fossil.  Keratin doesn't preserve very well as a fossil.

[TRexEliot]

@Harry Pristis Thanks! Pretty sure it's not enamel, so modern bear claw seems likely.

[Al Dente]

6 hours ago, TRexEliot said:

Pretty sure it's not enamel, so modern bear claw seems likely.

A hot needle test will confirm if it is keratin. Should smell like burnt hair. I’m still confident it is enamel.

[TRexEliot]

2 hours ago, Al Dente said:

A hot needle test will confirm if it is keratin. Should smell like burnt hair. I’m still confident it is enamel.

What type of tooth could it be? It's the wrong shape for a beaver, and it would have had virtually no chewing surface and been super thin and fragile. As you can see from the top view, it thins out even more towards the tip, and actually was this thin when intact.

[TRexEliot]

On 5/30/2023 at 4:50 AM, Al Dente said:

A hot needle test will confirm if it is keratin. Should smell like burnt hair. I’m still confident it is enamel.

Showed it to Ralph Johnson of MAPS - he says definitely claw of some sort and that keratin does last long enough in the brook to be pleistocene, but that none of the pleistocene fossils in the brook are permineralized, so C12 dating would probably be needed to get an age.

[Al Dente]

1 hour ago, TRexEliot said:

Showed it to Ralph Johnson of MAPS - he says definitely claw of some sort and that keratin does last long enough in the brook to be pleistocene, but that none of the pleistocene fossils in the brook are permineralized, so C12 dating would probably be needed to get an age.

 

The cracked surface of this tells me it is hard and brittle, not something I would expect for keratin. Also, there is a ridge of something enamel-like near the bottom in this photo. I've never seen that on a claw, but it would be something a tooth could have.

 

 

[Harry Pristis]

Big Brook must be a magical stream for keratin to survive from the Pleistocene.  The keratin sheath survived but the bone core was lost, huh?

 

It occurs to me that the OP is looking at this find upside down:  This is a mammal tooth ROOT, or a fraction thereof.  The hollow is the nerve canal-to-pulp cavity.  No animal has a bone core extending to the tip of the keratin sheath.  The buttress that Al Dente points out is another characteristic of a tooth.

 

Nothing is left of the crown, so identification is problematic.  But, the understanding that this is a fragment of a tooth allows for a Pleistocene origin, no magic required.  Over the years here we've seen examples of tooth roots being mistaken for tooth crowns or claws . . . I think this is another.

 

 

[JohnJ]

1 hour ago, Harry Pristis said:

Nothing is left of the crown, so identification is problematic.

 

A possible split horse canine?

[old bones]

I think that it looks like a pig tusk. It wouldn't take look in the Brook for a 'modern' pig tusk to look old.