digit Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 I did a little sorting through my collection of fossils from the Peace River last week. I don't get to go out there as often as some who live much closer (especially those who are retired and can go out as many times a week as their ibuprofen-laced bodies will let them). I have had enough trips of the years to have accumulated a few oddities here and there. I don't remember ever photographing and asking an opinion on an interesting little mammal tooth in my collection that is quite distinctive from my other finds. The occlusal surface is approximately 7 x 17 mm and the length of the roots are around 11 mm. It's a little beat-up from the river and well used and worn but I'm hoping it will ring a bell for the experts here. Cheers. -Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Wow Its so little!!! "Without fossils, no one would have ever dreamed that there were successive epochs in the formation of the earth" - Georges Cuvier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDudeCO Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 looks skunky to me. may even be too small for that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westcoast Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Really beautiful specimen and top class photo for such a small tooth. Lovely colours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted January 6, 2017 Author Share Posted January 6, 2017 The tooth is not large but definitely not the smallest I've pulled from the Peace River (I've got vole molars and rodent incisors ). I didn't take the photo with a scale (but provided dimensions textually instead). Here is a fingertip view to give you a general idea of its size. Cheers. -Ken P.S.: Skunk would be pretty cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilGuy1024 Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I'm leaning toward a lower premolar from a cat which would be very cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifbrindacier Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Yes, it looks like a cat's. Nice find. "On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) "We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes." In memory of Doren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I don't recognize this tooth. I'm pretty sure it isn't a cat tooth. It's got a crown like a p4, but roots like a carnassial. Check this one with Hulbert. 5 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...
Boesse Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 I agree with Harry that it's probably not a felid - it strikes me as being very canid-like. Though I imagine that Harry probably has lots of comparative material that this doesn't quite match. I do have a skunk skull, and pretty much all mustelids/mephitids/procyonids/taxideids have the classic "musteloid" molar with staggered cusps arranged in a bit of a zig-zag along a wider crown in occlusal view; in this case, the crowns are all aligned and the crown is much narrower. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted January 7, 2017 Author Share Posted January 7, 2017 Thanks for the info. I've sent photos over to Dr. Hulbert to see if he has an opinion. Will relay any comments from him. Cheers. -Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted January 9, 2017 Author Share Posted January 9, 2017 I've heard back from Dr. Hulbert. Here is his opinion of this specimen: The unidentified tooth is a premolar from a large carnivore, most likely a dire wolf. So canid and not felid--@Boesse was on the right track. Pretty cool to have had a Dire Wolf tooth hiding in my little collection for a few years. Cheers. -Ken 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellseeker Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Ken, Great Identification. Once Harry & Bobby agreed it was not cat, I was thinking canid, but maybe coyote. I am frequently confused by size. I tend to expect these carnivore teeth to be larger than they actually measure. I think the larger root implies canid, but that could be my error also from not comparing enough variations.. Sweet!! The White Queen ".... in her youth she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted January 9, 2017 Author Share Posted January 9, 2017 I'm pretty happy with having an unusual species in my collection. The size of the root would likely be pretty constant but the enamel crown is well worn down and this is likely from an individual who used this tooth well during a reasonable lifespan. A similar tooth from a younger individual would likely have looked a bit larger and been more easily identified. Cheers. -Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plantguy Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Hey Ken, Yep, as Jack said, a sweet fossil--good photos and thread! Regards, Chris 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