RobinRFlores Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Ricketts Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 Fraid not! _________________________________ Wendell Ricketts Fossil News: The Journal of Avocational Paleontology http://fossilnews.org https://twitter.com/Fossil_News The "InvertebrateMe" blog http://invertebrateme.wordpress.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 This looks geologic to me, as well. ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Mud Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 Hi there, This is probably a trace fossil or burrow left behind by an animal before the mud or sediment turned to stone. Sonetimes (as might be the case here) a hard layer or concretion forms around the burrow. This is harder then the surrounding rock and erodes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 The conchoidal fractures of the transverse section view are suggesting a Silex type material, to me, so I think it could be a chert nodule, which sometimes could have a strange shape with a strange external texture due to the weathering process. Some examples here . " We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. " Thomas Mann My Library Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcordova Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 It seems geological in nature, I agree with that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 I'd agree geological, just a hole that's filled with with minerals I reckon. “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 The end view shows a typical chert appearance. 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...
RobinRFlores Posted August 2, 2017 Author Share Posted August 2, 2017 This was only a peice of the tusk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 Sorry, but the consensus here is that it is not a tusk. Have a look at some Google images of mammal tusks here for comparison. ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 I see some fractures that look almost conchoidal. The texture is in no way reminiscent of mammalian dental tissue. All kinds of processes can cause pipe-shaped(tubular) structures. edit: call me an idiot,but wouldn't the lack of curvature of the piece also be an indications it is NOT a tusk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raggedy Man Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 11 minutes ago, RobinRFlores said: This was only a peice of the tusk. This is not a piece of mammoth tusk. Sorry, but keep lookin ...I'm back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinRFlores Posted August 2, 2017 Author Share Posted August 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, Raggedy Man said: This is not a piece of mammoth tusk. Sorry, but keep lookin Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.