Part of a Crinoid or Part of a Tooth?

[dre464]

On Memorial Day weekend in 2015, my dad and I took a fossil hunting trip to Brownwood, Texas. One of our destinations was the Wilson Clay Pits. We discovered lots of great pieces, which I will eventually get around to posting. But one specimen has been floating in the back of my mind, and I would like some help in identifying it. At first, I thought it looked like a shark tooth, with the three sharp points. But then I decided that it might be some sort of crinoid calyx plate. Still, I have never seen a crinoid calyx plate with the three spines. Looking at examples of Peripristis sp. make me lean back toward a shark tooth.

I anyone has a suggestion, I would be very grateful...

Daniel

[Coelacanth]

Considering the fact that the deposit is Pennsylvanian-Permian, I theorize that the tooth belongs to some sort of hybodont shark, most likely Peripristis semicircularis. This shark is abundant at this locality. Alternately, it could (albeit unlikely) be some sort of Eugeneodontid tooth.

Pics:

Peripristis semicircularis:

Eugeneodontid:

[fossilized6s]

I agree Coelacanth.

You can see the root here:

[Fossildude19]

Excellent find!

That guy is tiny!

Well done.

I edited the pic to show the tooth more prominently.

Regards,

Edited January 20, 2016 by Fossildude19

[ZiggieCie]

Good catch.

[lissa318]

That is a great find!!! Congrats!

[sseth]

What a great find

[Carl]

I don't know, folks. The preservation seems wrong for a tooth from that area. Thair: are you out there? He's the one who will know.

[erose]

As Carl said the preservation is different than most from there. But the shape is intriguing and that place keeps coughing up weirder and weirder stuff. This one needs to be seen in hand I do think.

[Archie]

Wow that's a really cool tooth!

[Archie]

Quite similar to these petalodont teeth from the Permian of Oklahoma.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Archie

[dre464]

Thanks for the comments everyone! I'm constantly amazed by the vast amounts of knowledge floating around this website!

Coelacanth: I like your tentative ID of Peripristis. It truly does look like Peripristis, except that it only has three points on the crown. All of the examples I have seen have many more points. But this tooth looks whole. It doesn't look broken on either side. Is it possible that this is a "young" tooth, one not fully developed in the jaw? Did paleozoic sharks replace their teeth the way extant sharks do? Obviously I have no idea!

Fossildude 19: Thanks for the edit. Mine was pretty dark!

Carl and erose: You are both correct on it looking like weird preservation. That's one reason why I was so back and forth on the ID. It didn't look like a tooth!

Carl: I may send thair a message to see if he can look at the specimen...

erose: You said you might have to see this one "in hand". Would you like some more detailed photos, perhaps under the microscope?

Archie: Those do look very similar, and since the Wilson Clay Pits are Pennsylvanian/Permian, the timing is correct. Peripristis is a petalodont. It all seems to fit...

[Auspex]

Regarding the odd preservation, I will throw this out: could it be a "digested" tooth?

[JohnJ]

I would be interested in seeing more images from different angles. This would be odd preservation for a tooth from Wilson's Clay Pit.

[Archie]

That thought had also crossed my mind Auspex. Another couple of Petalodont's that may be worth looking into are Harpacodus and Agelodus (although I'm not sure if these are only found in Europe). Both of these can be fairly variable in the number of points along the crown and juvenile teeth do often have less points than adult teeth, these sharks/cartilaginous fish also shed teeth and replaced them as modern sharks do.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Archie

[dre464]

Digested tooth? That's thinking outside the box! Pretty cool theory. JohnJ, I will take a few more macro shots with my camera and a microscope to see if I can bring out any other details.

[Carl]

I do have my fingers crossed that it is a tooth!

[Pterodactyl]

Cool tooth.

[dre464]

I took several photos of the specimen, from several angles. I haven't had access to a microscope yet, though these pictures are quite close.

Do these help?

[JohnJ]

Thanks for the images.

I'll stick my neck out and say I don't think this is a tooth. The morphology and preservation seem wrong for that site. Not sure what it is a broken part of....

[dre464]

I keep going back to the crinoid calyx plate possibility.

Note the similarities to the "root" side of the unknown. The shape is very similar. Is it possible that this is part of a small crinoid calyx? I've never seen one with the spines...

Edited January 23, 2016 by dre464

[JohnJ]

I keep going back to the crinoid calyx plate possibility.

Calyx Plates 001 (scale).jpg Possible Tooth 0021.jpg

Note the similarities to the "root" side of the unknown. The shape is very similar. Is it possible that this is part of a small crinoid calyx? I've never seen one with the spines...

That makes a lot more sense.

[Auspex]

Your newest images are good; I will stay off the tooth bandwagon and devote my energy to other possibilities.

Looks more calcitic than phosphatic.

[Archie]

I'd still hedge my bet's with a petalodont tooth but I cant see any nutrient foramina on the "root" part

[Coelacanth]

@Archie - Ageleodus pectinatus teeth are typically somewhat smaller than what is pictured here. This appears to be about 7 mm wide, while the largest ageleodus tooth in my collection (Red Hill, PA) is about 3.5 mm wide.