What's The Responsible Way Of Labeling Your Fossil If You Have Conflicting Ids?

[-Andy-]

Let's say you have a fossil tooth that you bought online.

For months you've been doing your due checks, using acetone rubs, taking pictures from as many angles as possible, letting other people handle it, as well as checking with as many experts on teeth as you possible can.

Unfortunately you can get no conclusive results. 1/3 of the experts you trust are adamant it's a fake. 1/3 swears it's real, and give you an ID for it. And the last 1/3 gives different IDs. Any further testing would mean damaging tests (e.g. cutting a small piece of it out) which you're unwilling to do.

What then? Ideally, we want to do responsible fossil labeling, because we want to avoid a cascading effect in which other collectors or even dealers base their own fossils on your potentially-wrong ID. (have seen it happen before to an expert I trusted. When I asked how he got his ID, he showed me a pic of MY fossil which I had a dubious ID on).

Would you

1) Leave your fossil unidentified, knowing you might never be able to be 100% positive on it, considering even respected experts cannot agree on it

2) Cherry pick off the current IDs, maybe add a '.cf' in front to indicate it's not a solid identification

3) Sell the darn fossil off, because dammit! This thing is more headache than it's worth.

Remember, all evidence from 3 sides are equally strong.

[Auspex]

Record all that which is known with certainty about the specimen, in pencil. Over time, more certainty may come to light.

[-Andy-]

Record all that which is known with certainty about the specimen, in pencil. Over time, more certainty may come to light.

Unfortunately even the very basics of the tooth can't be nailed down, considering there are museum curators who are absolutely sure it is a fake.

Well I guess the locality is the only sure thing.

[erose]

Setting the fake-versus-real question aside, I don't find it unusual at all to have two or more differing opinions for the ID. And if, as you say, the locality is a sure thing you are well ahead in the game. Go with the identification that makes the most sense to you. I often use the .cf or aff. qualifier between genus and species when I'm not sure as well. And sometimes (often actually) I just leave it at the genus level.

A good thing would be to notate who or what was the final reference for the ID so that someone else, or you, can re-evaluate it later comparing the old reference to newer sources or opinions.

[Opisthotriton]

Yes, record all of the different hypotheses, the evidence for or against them, and who said everything. That way a future person knows the history of identification and the uncertainty, and can try to continue the research into identifying it without having to start completely from the beginning. It also makes a very interesting story to go along with the specimen.

[jpc]

Yes, record all of the different hypotheses, the evidence for or against them, and who said everything. That way a future person knows the history of identification and the uncertainty, and can try to continue the research into identifying it without having to start completely from the beginning. It also makes a very interesting story to go along with the specimen.

Exactly...

[siteseer]

The question of fake or actual might need to be answered with an X-ray or CT scan.

As for ID, this happens with shark teeth too. Some tooth forms remain undescribed and some species have been demonstrated to be positional variants of already-described species. A tooth that clearly ranges outside the morphology of known species might still belong to a known species but it is abnormal enough to appear to justify a new name. It might be pathological or represent a rarely-found jaw position (e.g. symphyseal or parasymphyseal) or even a jaw position that was present in an ancestor but only rarely occurs in its descendants. It can be decades before a few similar teeth come to light and someone can offer a connection or at least a few possibilities.

Modern vertebrates have been named based mainly on whole bodies and their teeth have been often only generally described. Many fossil vertebrates (especially sharks and dinosaurs) have been often described based only on teeth. When a large teeth within a modern species are examined and compared, they sometimes show a much wider range of variation than allowed for fossil species.

Let's say you have a fossil tooth that you bought online.

For months you've been doing your due checks, using acetone rubs, taking pictures from as many angles as possible, letting other people handle it, as well as checking with as many experts on teeth as you possible can.

Unfortunately you can get no conclusive results. 1/3 of the experts you trust are adamant it's a fake. 1/3 swears it's real, and give you an ID for it. And the last 1/3 gives different IDs. Any further testing would mean damaging tests (e.g. cutting a small piece of it out) which you're unwilling to do.

What then? Ideally, we want to do responsible fossil labeling, because we want to avoid a cascading effect in which other collectors or even dealers base their own fossils on your potentially-wrong ID. (have seen it happen before to an expert I trusted. When I asked how he got his ID, he showed me a pic of MY fossil which I had a dubious ID on).

Would you

1) Leave your fossil unidentified, knowing you might never be able to be 100% positive on it, considering even respected experts cannot agree on it

2) Cherry pick off the current IDs, maybe add a '.cf' in front to indicate it's not a solid identification

3) Sell the darn fossil off, because dammit! This thing is more headache than it's worth.

Remember, all evidence from 3 sides are equally strong.

[Harry Pristis]

There is a discussion of the use of "cf" and "aff" here:

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/gallery/image/503-a-tentative-identification/