Nubie Question -Tooth-

[Riffmeister]

hello everyone i am new to fossils in general, but im a ameture rockhound and during a recent trip in my hometown i found a tooth shaped rock ..... then after about ten hours of removing sediment and crustateaus smaller fossils from the piece i realized i had something shaped far from what i had found..... my final guess is a Enchodus palatine tooth..... but im not a avid fossil hunter and do not know for sure, what i do know is that the tooths curved inside is sharp , very sharp and so are the bolth sides of the triangulated side of it. .... but the other side is not sharp, and for the backside the shape is untouched and is as found and without buildup of anything on it--- any leads would be appriciated very much!!! thanks for reading ... and also was found below 1000' elevation in northern california---

[Fossildude19]

Sorry, but I do not see anything fossil-ish about this piece.

I see no enamel, no bone.

Doesn't look like any of the enchodus teeth I've seen on the forum.

I think you have an interestingly shaped rock.

Regards,

[Auspex]

It certainly has a suggestive form, but I can't quite see it as organic in origin.

[Riffmeister]

. ( not my image!!!)

***i thought it resembled the tooth on the right, it definitly showed cellular structure under magnificaction - and i did not fixate or create this shape through preperation- its shape was present under/inside the sedimentary layers i cleaned off. thank you folk for your point of veiw.

[Riffmeister]

image.jpg. ( not my image!!!)

***i thought it resembled the tooth on the right, it definitly showed cellular structure under magnificaction - and i did not fixate or create this shape through preperation- its shape was present under/inside the sedimentary layers i cleaned off. thank you folk for your point of veiw.

ment on the left.

[Fossildude19]

Although your specimen bears a superficial resemblance to the item on the left in your latest pic, it is just that - a passing, superficial resemblance.

I am not seeing the porous bone in your item that I see in the later pic.

Also, the odd, almost 90 degree angle on the backside of your item says rock, rather than bone, to me.

It is an interesting rock, for sure.

Regards,

[Riffmeister]

--well folks im sure now i made a huge beginers mistake with this peice, now i have to say this was my very first "find" that i thought is a fossil- and the first ive ever preped(destroyed). i was browsing online today and found a picture of a megalodon tooth that had the exact size, shape and patina as my initial find (prior to my unfabulous rookie work) , i am very ashamed to admit that i have done this but feel it will help future arrogance on my behalf--- so i shall post the one and ONLY picture of my "tooth" and the one o found through researching that looks exactly like mine once did.......

~ once again thanks everyone for helping this confusion and since this find i have found two more small (1/2"-7/8") flat hooked fossil teeth that dont quite look like sharks.... thanks !

****my picture is the one with the hand palm horizontal, the other is obviously from online) ~

[Riffmeister]

--and so if anyone would like to see what the hard core of a large fossilized shark took looks like .... i can gladly send them pictures! haha. bitter sweet though

[RickNC]

--well folks im sure now i made a huge beginers mistake with this peice, now i have to say this was my very first "find" that i thought is a fossil- and the first ive ever preped(destroyed). i was browsing online today and found a picture of a megalodon tooth that had the exact size, shape and patina as my initial find (prior to my unfabulous rookie work) , i am very ashamed to admit that i have done this but feel it will help future arrogance on my behalf--- so i shall post the one and ONLY picture of my "tooth" and the one o found through researching that looks exactly like mine once did.......

~ once again thanks everyone for helping this confusion and since this find i have found two more small (1/2"-7/8") flat hooked fossil teeth that dont quite look like sharks.... thanks !

****my picture is the one with the hand palm horizontal, the other is obviously from online) ~

Both of those look like rocks to me.

[Fossildude19]

Yup. Both are rocks.

And Megalodon was a shark, not a "shark like dinosaur".

Love the internet, and the false information it conveys.

Real Martha's Vineyard teeth can be seen in this thread.

Regards,

Edited September 3, 2014 by Fossildude19

[Riffmeister]

internet does produce very much false info, especially in forums. localized rock where this was found is andesite- they tend to stand out incredibly considering .... what this looks like, smelt like during working and differnt hardness throughout the process. - not valid that it is the common rock/stone compisition from the area... interesting to hear people POV without asking about the geology of the area

[tmaier]

Don't be discouraged, you will find fossils if you keep trying. They are out there...

When i first starting fossil hunting at the age of 10, I read some books at the library (back in the 1960's) and there were rough images and line drawings. I had never actually seen a fossil in my long ten year life. But, we went out west every year and I decided to try to find some. We stopped for gas somewhere like north dakota and I was looking at some "beauty rock" that was around the gas station sign. There was a beatiful, complete brachiopod. It perfectly matched the drawings I had seen. Then reality came to me; ten year old kids don't find fossils at gas stations... so I threw it out in the field, realizing I had almost been tricked into accepting this thing as a real fossil.

My next fossil was NOT a fossil, it was a rock, but I thought it might be a real fossil because it wasn't at a gas station and I was eleven.

Anyway, the fossils are out there...

[Fossildude19]

internet does produce very much false info, especially in forums. localized rock where this was found is andesite- they tend to stand out incredibly considering .... what this looks like, smelt like during working and differnt hardness throughout the process. - not valid that it is the common rock/stone compisition from the area... interesting to hear people POV without asking about the geology of the area

When something is obviously a fossil, I usually do ask about where it was found, and in what context.

When something is obviously NOT a fossil, I tend to explain why it isn't a fossil.

That may be an unfortunate bias on my part, and not in the best interests of education. I apologize for that.

When someone comes on, and makes a blanket statement saying "I believe this item is this kind of fossil! " and asks for coraborating ID assistance, I try to speak up when something is obviously - to me - a non fossil.

After nearly 20 years of collecting fossils of all types, I feel fairly confident in discerning what is and isn't a fossil.

Knowing mother nature produces many weird look a-likes that are NOT fossils, that have fooled me as well, I tend to NOT say anything when I am unsure about something.

That said, I do know the differences in morphology of teeth, and your items, both prepped and unprepped show no signs of having been teeth. The superficial similarities are easy to mistake.

I am not an expert, but have much experience, and feel confident on my id's in this case.

I cannot speak to the geology of the area where you found this rock, (as I wasn't inclusive enough to ask about where your rock was found, And, I apologize for that oversight ) but can say with certainty that rocks in a certain area can be primarily one type, but that is not always the case. You need to take into consideration many variables that can affect local geology.

Because that rock differed in appearance and smell, that doesn't automatically make it a fossil.

ID's online are tricky, as examining 2 dimensional low quality cell phone photos do not convey the detail that examining an item in person would.

That said, I have seen enough rocks over the years to be able to fairly accurately know when I am looking at a rock as opposed to a fossil.

Forum information is only as good as the people who put it out there, and since this website was created to divulge knowledge of fossils, we strive very strenuously to give the correct information, to steer people towards the correct answers, and toward enjoyment of the hobby of fossil collection.

I cannot speak for all here, but I have been wrong in the past, and freely admit that I am not an expert, or professional paleontologist. But I have successfully hunted all types of fossils, including shark/fish teeth, and have seen all types of weird geology.

I freely admit when I make mistakes, as I am learning about things right along with everyone else.

But, the keeping an open mind, tempered by previous experience, is something that I continually strive to achieve.

I think everyone should.

Regards,

[Auspex]

Sometimes, something is so non-fossil to the experienced eye that the local geology is of no consequence.

[Riffmeister]

Sometimes, something is so non-fossil to the experienced eye that the local geology is of no consequence.

ha ! thats why i seek profesional advise.... i may be a profesional conventional machinist and a gunsmith ... but these perks dont help in my rockhounding/dig finds. The area where these came from is semi baren, native oaks, red-dirt and the andesite... are the staple for these foothills, any other rock,mineral or stone can be found there BUT it had to be brought there by someone! by means of a rigorous hike. When i dig around ... anything that is out of place i clean and observe and learn from. in this process ive found fossil(mostly small crusties and horn corals)- indian artifacts and animal remains-- but thats just it though.... one cant help but question the out of place. This is how the indian artifacts are discovered... thats a whole different topic for another place though- i definitly would not come onto this site and argue with folks that have been doing this for a long time.... not my right, now if you want to argue trigger jobs and rifle accurizing technique ... im the guy with expeirience in that department . i appriciate eveyones help and hope to have more questions in the future

[ReeseF]

--and so if anyone would like to see what the hard core of a large fossilized shark took looks like .... i can gladly send them pictures! haha. bitter sweet though

Here's an example

Reese

[Riffmeister]

...still makes mr wonder though i wont lie. It has a uniform "grain" that aligns perfectly to the larger point, and has retained a razor sharp edge along the the edge through to the small arm side. like a circular (hook knife) like blade, and shows no chipping like if i was sharpening stone or rock. still keeps me wondering

[Riffmeister]

...still makes mr wonder though i wont lie. It has a uniform "grain" that aligns perfectly to the larger point, and has retained a razor sharp edge along the the edge through to the small arm side. like a circular (hook knife) like blade, and shows no chipping like if i was sharpening stone or rock. still keeps me wondering

***could be a strange shaped peice of petrified wood, but ive cut many different p woods and all mostly chip , especially when ground on... idk bizzare

[RickNC]

internet does produce very much false info, especially in forums. localized rock where this was found is andesite- they tend to stand out incredibly considering .... what this looks like, smelt like during working and differnt hardness throughout the process. - not valid that it is the common rock/stone compisition from the area... interesting to hear people POV without asking about the geology of the area

You're correct in saying that the internet produces a large amount of incorrect information. That web page is a prime example. For someone who finds fossil shark teeth on a regular basis, the geology of a particular site makes no difference when differentiating a shark tooth from a rock. Even very worn shark teeth are still identifiable as teeth. The object you posted and the object from that web site are clearly not shark or any other type of teeth, they lack any feature of fossil shark teeth except for a slight resemblance in their shape.

[Plax]

I'd like to see some pics of your horn corals and "crusties" if possible. Would be interesting to see the actual fossils of you area

[Riffmeister]

I'd like to see some pics of your horn corals and "crusties" if possible. Would be interesting to see the actual fossils of you area

no problem, im going out today so it might be tommarow but they and other little crusteceous finds are very hard to distinguish in their matrix but this is what i often mistake as other things ...... but thats how im learning

[BobWill]

I've been lucky enough to make a correct ID once in a great while and may have helped a newbie before but mostly I learn something new on here every day.

That last picture shows something I didn't notice before. What you are calling a "grain" reminds me more of sedimentary layers. If that is the case they can be useful for distinguishing fossils. Most were laid down in sediment which can leave the parallel lines, buy only in the matrix surrounding the fossil. The fossil itself shouldn't show layers. Of course you're not altogether wrong since some fossils do exhibit grain lines.

I probably would have picked that thing up too just because of it's suggestive shape but the more stuff I look at, the better I get at knowing when to throw them back I still find it amazing how natural forces can break and wear rock with such a variety of outcomes.

[Riffmeister]

I've been lucky enough to make a correct ID once in a great while and may have helped a newbie before but mostly I learn something new on here every day.

That last picture shows something I didn't notice before. What you are calling a "grain" reminds me more of sedimentary layers. If that is the case they can be useful for distinguishing fossils. Most were laid down in sediment which can leave the parallel lines, buy only in the matrix surrounding the fossil. The fossil itself shouldn't show layers. Of course you're not altogether wrong since some fossils do exhibit grain lines.

I probably would have picked that thing up too just because of it's suggestive shape but the more stuff I look at, the better I get at knowing when to throw them back I still find it amazing how natural forces can break and wear rock with such a variety of outcomes.

the sediment layer lines are the only reason i didnt give up sooner, i thought to myself ; if its bone theyll be present only surface, if its stone the layer would be promident and slightly color different, or it could be actually grain layers of wood.... still dont know BUT i do know that i ground through the dark layer down to a dark blue solid core in a small place- and that is where i stopped

[Riffmeister]

...here is another oddity i dug and cleaned from the same hill, i thought it looked to be covered in a "talcy" looking matrix which ive now researched our goelogy more and are pretty sure it was volcanic ash-- but im not going to say what it looks like .... just post these pics and hope to hear someone say something about what it might be roughly 1 1/8" long, witth a raised edge on one side (like a aligator tooth) .

thanks for veiwing guys.....alot of time cosuming work to remove this from matrix......

[Riffmeister]

my thought at first was horn coral.... but wasnt ... idk--