Jump to content

Maybe a shiney bone or...


Shellseeker

Recommended Posts

Just a strange pattern on this likely bone -- looking for TFF members to comment.  I look for it being ivory but did not see the schreger lines. Thanks for all commentsIMG_2820.thumb.JPG.0becd531d55ef4a6f27ae640271cc544.JPGTuskblowup.thumb.jpg.7220e42eff02d4fe10ebcec6a3858d72.jpgIMG_2867enh.thumb.jpg.8273a06a8fc372e32a2a36ba1ad8c235.jpg

The White Queen  ".... in her youth she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what you mean. It doesn't look like a load carrying structure does it ?

Perhaps the end of a long bone with the articulations worn off ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just happened to think of something that reminds me of this structure. The lung fish tooth I purchased recently. Not that I'm suggesting that, but perhaps it does suggest tooth of some sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rockwood said:

I see what you mean. It doesn't look like a load carrying structure does it ?

Perhaps the end of a long bone with the articulations worn off ?

EXACTLY,  I have never seen a fossilized long bone that looks like this.. Solidly fossilized Dugong ribs do not look like this. Mammoth ribs and fractured large bones show differentiation into the marrow, but still do not look like this. There seems to be a very thin outer covering and then a pulpy marrow or dentine.

I hope that others have seen something like this and have a suggestion on type of fossilization that might deliver this result.   Thanks for your suggestion.  Jack

IMG_2867enh2.jpg.0776ab7d45ed697b468975a0a3113ea2.jpg

The White Queen  ".... in her youth she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lori, Rockwood  you may be correct.  I have seen some deformed bones recently.  This might be a type of deformed or pathological bone. If no fossil hunters have seen similar patterns, it would point to rarity.

Doushantuo, I looked up Hunter Schreger because I do not know if it was one scientist or 2 (Hunter and Schreger) and Wikipedia did not help. Agree that they should get credit for the science.  I was surprised that HSBs are present in human incisors.  Learn something new

WHAT WAS SCHREGER"S FIRST NAME?

Abstract

Hunter-Schreger bands are an optical phenomenon observed in mammalian tooth enamel. Familiar to all current and former students of dental histology, this optical phenomenon appears as alternating patterns of dark and light bands when cut enamel is viewed under reflected light. The discovery of this important feature of mammalian enamel has been historically credited to two eighteenth-century investigators, Hunter and Schreger. A re-evaluation of the evidence would suggest that the bands were observed almost seventy years earlier by a French scientist, Gabriel-Philippe de la Hire, and subsequently confirmed by the famous French dentist Pierre Fauchard. This article reviews the contribution of de la Hire, as well as that of Fauchard, Hunter and Schreger, to the early recognition among the scientific community of what would now be referred to as 'enamel microstructure'.

 

The White Queen  ".... in her youth she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Shellseeker said:

...WHAT WAS SCHREGER"S FIRST NAME?...

 

 

Bernhard Nathanael Gottlob Schreger

 

QUOTE:

Two of the most respected names in 19th century odontology, Bernhard Schreger and Richard Owen, are associated with the history and scientific analysis of ivory.  Schreger is credited with the description of Hunter-Schreger Bands in enamel.

 

Espinoza, E.O.N., & Mann, M.J. (1993)

The history and significance of the Schreger Pattern in Proboscidean ivory characterization.

Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 32(3):241-248

 

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming that the pathological bone hypothesis is correct, I wonder if it is possible that the similarities between tooth and bone, as disparate as they may seem, actually have an underlying genetic connection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

Assuming that the pathological bone hypothesis is correct, I wonder if it is possible that the similarities between tooth and bone, as disparate as they may seem, actually have an underlying genetic connection. 

One of the early experiments in jawed fish gets arthritis in a scale near it's mouth. Vois la (forgive me co co) a tooth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rockwood said:

One of the early experiments in jawed fish gets arthritis in a scale near it's mouth. Vois la (forgive me co co) a tooth. 

A tooth is a genetic abnormality, where arthritis is a disease.

Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys."

Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough."

 

My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection

My favorite thread on TFF.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ynot said:

A tooth is a genetic abnormality, where arthritis is a disease.

Are you speaking of the genetics of the underlying cause.

I really don't know. It's just fun to speculate. I have a feeling things may have been more conceptually connected in the early days. Perhaps the answers aren't so far out of reach with the advances that are coming from the field today.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...