Jump to content

I think this is a tooth but what kind?


ET-REX

Recommended Posts

I found this tooth at work in the sand in Northwest, IA. My sister had found one very simular to this one but allot smaller about 45 minutes from where I found this one at a quarry in Southeast, SD. She said it was from a prehistoric shark that only ate shelled mollusks thus the texture of the tooth that appears to be for grinding. Long story short my sister is wrong allot so I'd like to get some facts on here. I have other fossils that have yet to be identified that I will post soon. Thank you.

20180710_165506.jpg

20180710_165517.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not sure if thats a tooth or not..kinda looks like part of a Gonioceras, but thats just a guess on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, ET-REX said:

She said it was from a prehistoric shark that only ate shelled mollusks thus the texture of the tooth that appears to be for grinding. Long story short my sister is wrong allot so I'd like to get some facts on here.

She is referring to Ptychodus, which did probably mainly eat shelled creatures (aka durophagus). This does look similar but I don’t think it is one.

“...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

JimB88, I've seen quite a few Goniocera fossils and this is quite different from all that I've seen. WhodamanHD, yeah I looked into it and what my sister has is definitely a Ptychodus tooth but mine is much different. ynot, I have an extensive petrified wood collection and nothing looks even remotely simular but who knows. The shape is fairly symmetrical and the grooves are perfectly spaces. Chances it could be a scale of some sort?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

She is referring to Ptychodus, which did probably mainly eat shelled creatures (aka durophagus). This does look similar but I don’t think it is one.

There were actually quite a few Bradyodont sharks with crusher teeth (more of them then the fish eating variety actually.) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "backside" has conchoidal fracture and does not look like tooth. Do a hardness test; scratch it with a knifeblade. What happens? I bet that it is chert that may have replaced wood. Most teeth are phosphatic and are scratched by knives. 

 

It it also could be a piece of layered phosphatic chert that has differentially weathered, similar to Monterey chert in Northern and Central California.

 

My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned.   

See my Arizona Paleontology Guide    link  The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, JimB88 said:

There were actually quite a few Bradyodont sharks with crusher teeth (more of them then the fish eating variety actually.) ;)

Not to split hairs but I believe they are not sharks. I bet there are other durophagus sharks though.

“...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

14 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

 

Not to split hairs but I believe they are not sharks. I bet there are other durophagus sharks though.

Helodus and its kin led to the Hybodont sharks. The term Bradyodont refers to the structures in the teeth, and is not an indicator that they are all related. Some in fact were chimeraiformes and others were sharks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ET-REX said:

if it scratches it is a tooth and if it does not it is chert?

No, it is not a tooth.

DPSammonite was just pointing out that most teeth fossils are softer than a knife, but there are a lot of minerals that are softer also.

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

5 minutes ago, JimB88 said:

Helodus and its kin led to the Hybodont sharks. The term Bradyodont refers to the structures in the teeth, and is not an indicator that they are all related. Some in fact were chimeraiformes and others were sharks.

Really, this isn’t my subject so I wouldn’t know. I just google Bradyodont and the internet says it refers to bradyodonti, an order of chondrichthyians (not inside selachimorpha which is what sharks are) or chaemeras. The internet, however, is known to be wrong, so I’ll take your word for it.

“...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

1 hour ago, ET-REX said:

So DPS Ammonite, if it scratches it is a tooth and if it does not it is chert?

If it scratches, it moves the needle toward the phosphatic stone camp (tooth?). If it does not scratch, chert is likely. Teeth are most often phosphatic rock than chert. This is not a definitive test for a tooth. It is test to ID the rock.

My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned.   

See my Arizona Paleontology Guide    link  The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...