Paleoworld-101 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Collected recently at a marine Cretaceous location near Richmond, QLD, Australia (Toolebuc Formation). 100 million years old. Fossils of both fish (some quite large) and pterosaurs are known from the location. There were also marine reptiles but i think fish or pterosaur are the only two possibilities in this case. I have a number of other definitive fish teeth from this location but they all look somewhat different which is why i am confused with this one. There appears to be a bit of bone attached to the bottom of the tooth, and maybe a little bit to one side of the specimen as well (the large object however i think is a worn belemnite). It measures 18 mm long, but note the tip of the tooth is broken. "In Africa, one can't help becoming caught up in the spine-chilling excitement of the hunt. Perhaps, it has something to do with a memory of a time gone by, when we were the prey, and our nights were filled with darkness..." -Eternal Enemies: Lions And Hyenas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 That is a nice find (whatever it is.). I would like to see the bone exposed a little better. It would probably help with an id on it. @LordTrilobite @hxmendoza @Troodon 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 More sharing options...
izak_ Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 and maybe @Mike from North Queensland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Very nice find would lean more towards fish but no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanDye Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 How exciting! A Pterosaur would be quite spectacular, more voices could shed some light on the ID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 I would lean towards fish as well. Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnBrewer Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Fish I think too John Map of UK fossil sites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paleoworld-101 Posted July 19, 2017 Author Share Posted July 19, 2017 What features are suggesting fish as opposed to pterosaur? "In Africa, one can't help becoming caught up in the spine-chilling excitement of the hunt. Perhaps, it has something to do with a memory of a time gone by, when we were the prey, and our nights were filled with darkness..." -Eternal Enemies: Lions And Hyenas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hxmendoza Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 I think its a fish tooth. Just can't say what kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase_E Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) I honestly think it could be from some species of lizard fish. They've been found around Australia, and they're also from around that 100 mya period. Edited July 21, 2017 by Chase_E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izak_ Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Chase_E said: I honestly think it could be from a lizardfish. They've been found around Australia, and they're also from around that 100 mya period. It could be, but putting a specific ID on it like that isn't possible. There are many other fish in the area, and it could be any one of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike from North Queensland Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 One of the several species of bony fish, some times they come with more of the jaw and other teeth attached. I do not think any one has found any pterosaur material complete with teeth in Australia so they can be used for comparison. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodrex Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 I would suggest that it could be part of a sawfish jaw. Woodward described some of these from the Toolebuc, but mostly regarded as miss-identified fish teeth. I don't think that they belong to the lizard fish either as they normally have a cutting edge either side of the tooth (kinda like a sharks tooth, not as wide though). I hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomotodon Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 I am leaning towards Enchodus sp. tooth. This tooth is definitely not thecodont, therefore it is not a reptile. Thecodont teeth, as present in all archosaurs, are located in the jaw sockets and are not a part of the jaw. This tooth, on the other hand, is completely attached to the jaw, in the same way as bony fish teeth. 1 The Tooth Fairy 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