Mysterious molar

[Pablo2427]

Hello, I'm new in this forum

I'd like to start up with a question about a molar teeth I hope some of you could answer

 

I found this tooth in middle Miocene strata, and I don't know what it is. The first thing I thought was that it was just a simple tooth from a present animal, but I can't math my tooth with wolfs, foxes nor dogs.

I thought then about it being Miocene old and I wonder if it could be Amphicyon or Hemicyon, which I know that have been found in a nearby locality. I can't found enogh material on the internet to clarify this, so a little help would be awesome.

I think it is a milk tooth because the root nor any signal of it has been preserved.

 

Thanks in advance!

[jpc]

the photos are very fuzzy.  

[ynot]

Welcome to TFF!

It would help to get an id if You can post better pictures, the ones You posted are very blurry.

[Kane]

Welcome aboard!

 

This does look tooth-like, but we would need to see clearer pictures as others have said, as fossil teeth identification requires being able to see more clear diagnostic details. Any chance to retake and repost these photos to help out for a more precise ID?

[Harry Pristis]

I don't think this is a tooth.

[jpc]

Harry, are you perchance seeing a distal tibia epiphysis?  Or something along those lines? 

[caldigger]

Looking at your avatar, I'd say that's kind of an extreme method of excavating fossils!  Yep, better/ clearer pictures are needed to do much IDing.

[Harry Pristis]

2 hours ago, jpc said:

Harry, are you perchance seeing a distal tibia epiphysis?  Or something along those lines? 

 

Yes, jpc, something like that,  though I can't name the bone yet.

[fossilized6s]

5 hours ago, jpc said:

Harry, are you perchance seeing a distal tibia epiphysis?  Or something along those lines? 

My thoughts exactly

[Pablo2427]

I send some better pictues of the piece I posted yesterday on the questions and answers forum.

As I said, I think it is a deciduous molar from a canid or ursid. I don't know whether or not it is from a real specimen or a fossil, beacuse I cant see any break mark on it in order to analyse the dentine structure(in case it is a tooth). Im an amateur fossil collector but I dont have much experience on mammals teeth, and that why I'm asking.

I post here some better pictures of it.

 

[Pablo2427]

[Kane]

Initial Q&A topic moved to Fossil ID and merged with this topic.

 

[jpc]

Harry is right... this is not a tooth.  It might be a cubonavicular bone from the rear leg of a deer.

I defer to Harry for a more correct identification.    

[Harry Pristis]

48 minutes ago, jpc said:

Harry is right... this is not a tooth.  It might be a cubonavicular bone from the rear leg of a deer.

I defer to Harry for a more correct identification.    

 

Thanks a bunch, jpc!   We agree that this is not a tooth.  Now, I'm not even sure it's a bone.  I can identify no characteristic of bone, the material, other than smooth convolutions with no obvious function.  It may simply be a water-sculpted limestone pebble.  A few drops of white vinegar might tell the tale.

[jpc]

Hmmmm... the plot thickens.  

[Pablo2427]

No

I had already done the chlorhidric acid proof  yesterday in order to ensure that it was bone and it did not react.

It's not limestone

 

[doushantuo]

what's the NLMA where you found it? 

Is it Vallesian?Turolian?

[Pablo2427]

This is the back part

It may help on the classification

 

[Pablo2427]

Sorry for the blurry photo...

 

For what I know not all mammals have the cuboid and the navicular fused into the cubonavicular. In fact I think only artiodactyls, am I right?

I have been looking for it and it really seems a cervid cubonavicular. And I have all been looking for cervid in nearby same age locations and found Micromeryx, a really small cervid, whose cubonavicular may be quite similar to my piece. Unfortunately, I havent found any photos nor pdfs of this animals cubonavicular...

 

Thanks for the help, I was stucked thinking it was a molar even though I could not verify it that I would never imagine it could be such a different bone.

Sometimes we tend to be really stubborn when classifying...

[doushantuo]

this contains Micromeryx

[doushantuo]

ditto

[doushantuo]

enespanol

[doushantuo]

spanishagain

[Pablo2427]

Oh thanks

That pdfs are awesome

The size is the one of a Micromerix specimen, or at list quite similar. And the cubonavicular is really similar to the Miotragoceras one, but half sized.

Thanks for your help

[Pablo2427]

One last question about this piece.

I've been thinking about it these days and, isn't it really well preserved for being Miocne -old. I mean, it has no signs of erosion at all and seems to be a really delicated specimen...

I am suspecting it may be from an actual sheep or goat, they are also artiodactyls. What do you think?