EskimoChef Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 My dad found this fossil on the beach on Gary Island, NWT. He's been told it could be a mammoth leg bone, and it doesn't appear to be older than 10,000 to 30,000 years old. Can anyone identify it? It's about 2 feet long, and 73 lbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EskimoChef Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share Posted July 13, 2015 Attaching another photo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 It appears to be the distal portion of a mammoth humerus. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 It appears to be the distal portion of a mammoth humerus. ...Sort of...but it seems too gracile. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lissa318 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Wanted to say welcome to the forum and WOW! That's huge and awesome!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Could you post additional photos? The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EskimoChef Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share Posted July 13, 2015 Yeah it's huge! My uncle found a tusk, and a tooth in the same area in the past. I'll post more photos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EskimoChef Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share Posted July 13, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EskimoChef Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share Posted July 13, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EskimoChef Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share Posted July 13, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foshunter Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) How about the distal end of humerus , Teleoceras Rhinoceros----Tom Edited July 13, 2015 by Foshunter Grow Old Kicking And Screaming !!"Don't Tread On Me" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 How about the distal end of humerus , Teleoceras Rhinoceros----Tom 011.JPG Bingo! A Miocene Rhino; how cool is that? "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raggedy Man Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Wow what an amazing find! I'm so jelly. Welcome to the forum! Best regards, Paul ...I'm back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichW9090 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Seems way too big to be Teleoceras. Can't find any mention of Miocene fossils from that area, and the preservation would be most unusual for Miocene. Also, the long, strong flange on the distal end is typical of Mammuthus, and reduced in rhinos, including Teleoceras. The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 For comparison: http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DylanS Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I agree - distal portion of the right humerus of Mammuthus. Likely Mammuthus primigenius due to location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 ...Can't find any mention of Miocene fossils from that area... I have seen reference to White River beds of the Swift Current River. Any rhino-like fauna from these? "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Thanks for the additional photos. As Harry initially mentioned, it does appear to be the distal portion of a mammoth humerus. After seeing the new photos, I agree. However, it is interesting how much more slender it is compared to others I've seen. I wonder if this is due to differences between the woolly and columbian mammoths? A photo of a columbian mammoth left humerus from Texas: The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichW9090 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Auspex, yes, there would be rhinos from those deposits - but they were much smaller than the bone in the OP. The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 For comparison: http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyc Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 73 lbs? Or 7.3lbs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foshunter Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Thanks for the additional photos. As Harry initially mentioned, it does appear to be the distal portion of a mammoth humerus. After seeing the new photos, I agree. However, it is interesting how much more slender it is compared to others I've seen. I wonder if this is due to differences between the woolly and columbian mammoths? A photo of a columbian mammoth left humerus from Texas: IMG_2955a.JPG John, You have set a new mark for fossil measurement. I have seen coins, dollar bills even a hundred used, coke cans, cig. lighters, and the best, a ruler but never a dog and a nice looking dog at that. Thanks for setting the mark higher for innovative fossil measuring-----Tom Grow Old Kicking And Screaming !!"Don't Tread On Me" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 John, You have set a new mark for fossil measurement. I have seen coins, dollar bills even a hundred used, coke cans, cig. lighters, and the best, a ruler but never a dog and a nice looking dog at that. Thanks for setting the mark higher for innovative fossil measuring-----Tom Thanks, Tom. Use what you have at the time...she's a cutie. I'm still fascinated by the slender nature of 'EskimoChef's' mammoth bone. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EskimoChef Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share Posted July 13, 2015 73 lbs? Or 7.3lbs? 73 lbs Also, does anyone know why it's so slender? I can post more measurements if needed. Thank you all for the replies, this is all very interesting to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichW9090 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 It is slender, but that is also partly a function of breakage and the angle of the photographs. The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now