Andrew Fredericks Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 So I found this in a stream in New Jersey. Fossil shark teeth are common, along with Mosasaurs teeth, although they are less common. Dinsosaur bones are a rare occurance in this location. I think it is a Mosasaur tooth fragment and it’s large size (probably over 2 inches if complete) would put it in the range of Mosasaurs hoffmani, a species that has been found in the area but is very rare. It could also be a bone of some sort and not a tooth at all. I was hoping someone with more knowledge on the subject could shed some light on this find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Fredericks Posted July 22, 2018 Author Share Posted July 22, 2018 Other side... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indominus rex Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 Could we get some close ups and some better lighting pictures? Life started in the ocean. And so did my interest in fossils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 Welcome to TFF! Looks like an iron concretion to Me, but better pictures and end shots may change that opinion. 2 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...
Fossildude19 Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 Looks like a partial ghost shrimp claw to me. Not a mosasaur tooth. Pics cropped and brightened: Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 I agree with Tim, it is a decapod claw not a tooth. Still a nice find at that size. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Fredericks Posted July 23, 2018 Author Share Posted July 23, 2018 Thank you guys for the info and quick response! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 Sorry guys but I don’t see either a tooth or a crustacean. Possibly concretion or steinkern but, as suggested, we need more photos. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 I'm with @ynot & @erose: classic concretion from the brooks. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 I've only collected from Big Brook once, so I'll defer to those with vastly more experience. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Fredericks Posted July 24, 2018 Author Share Posted July 24, 2018 What type of pictures do you guys want, like what angles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 21 hours ago, Andrew Fredericks said: What type of pictures do you guys want, like what angles? Often an end view showing the cross section is very helpful. But basically, to use a draftsman's terms, we want all the orthographic projections: front, back, both sides, top and bottom. All six are not always required. You added scale and that is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Fredericks Posted July 25, 2018 Author Share Posted July 25, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Fredericks Posted July 25, 2018 Author Share Posted July 25, 2018 The other pictures are bigger than 3.95 MB. I don’t know what to do now, maybe someone knows what to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob L Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 On 7/22/2018 at 5:57 AM, Andrew Fredericks said: So I found this in a stream in New Jersey. Fossil shark teeth are common, along with Mosasaurs teeth, although they are less common. Dinsosaur bones are a rare occurance in this location. I think it is a Mosasaur tooth fragment and it’s large size (probably over 2 inches if complete) would put it in the range of Mosasaurs hoffmani, a species that has been found in the area but is very rare. It could also be a bone of some sort and not a tooth at all. I was hoping someone with more knowledge on the subject could shed some light on this find. I own a Mosasaurus Hoffmanni tooth and it looks very different from what I have, mine is complete. I'll put a picture of it below. I would think it might be a piece of a bone. Or it has to be the tip of a very very big Mosasaurus tooth, the tip of the tooth I have is darker. But not as black as what you got there. Good luck finding out what it is! Jacob "God creates dinosaurs, God destroys dinosaurs. God creates Man, Man destroys god. Man creates dinosaurs." - Dr. Ian Malcolm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 14 minutes ago, Andrew Fredericks said: The other pictures are bigger than 3.95 MB. I don’t know what to do now, maybe someone knows what to do You can crop the pictures or resize them. If You still get a "to big" notice try refreshing the page. 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...
GeschWhat Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 On 7/23/2018 at 9:46 AM, Carl said: I'm with @ynot & @erose: classic concretion from the brooks. Since you know the area I trust your assessment, but that sure does look like a coprolite. Hunting in that area would make me crazy (or should I say crazier)! 1 Lori www.areallycrappystory.com/fossils www.facebook.com/fossilpoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walt Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, GeschWhat said: Since you know the area I trust your assessment, but that sure does look like a coprolite. Hunting in that area would make me crazy (or should I say crazier)! So Lori, this begs the question: How do we know it isn't a coprolite? If a trained eye (yours) thinks it looks like one, and it is made from the same minerals that would have fossilized poo..... Someone has a tag at the end of their name that says, "if it looks like a duck...." Hope you don't think I am being a smart alec. Is there a grain or other telling features on the inside that would confirm it? 1 Everything is generated through your own will power ~ Ray Bradbury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeschWhat Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 16 minutes ago, Walt said: So Lori, this begs the question: How do we know it isn't a coprolite? If a trained eye (yours) thinks it looks like one, and it is made from the same minerals that would have fossilized poo..... Someone has a tag at the end of their name that says, "if it looks like a duck...." Hope you don't think I am being a smart alec. Is there a grain or other telling features on the inside that would confirm it? I don't. A lot of things look like coprolites but aren't. Somethings don't look like coprolites but are. You can usually tell if you get them under a microscope, but even then, sometimes it would come down to chemical analysis. Under the microscope, they would look very fine grained and homogeneous (with the exception of inclusions). If you scrape them, they would have a smooth almost waxy feel. All that said, it can be hard to tell anything definitive from photos. With this one, I trust @Carl's judgment. He is more knowledgeable than I when it comes to coprolites and concretions from this formation/area. He would likely lean toward the coprolite camp if there was any chance of it having anal origins. 2 Lori www.areallycrappystory.com/fossils www.facebook.com/fossilpoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 2 hours ago, Walt said: So Lori, this begs the question: How do we know it isn't a coprolite? If a trained eye (yours) thinks it looks like one, and it is made from the same minerals that would have fossilized poo..... Someone has a tag at the end of their name that says, "if it looks like a duck...." Hope you don't think I am being a smart alec. Is there a grain or other telling features on the inside that would confirm it? Although the photos are a bit dark and blurry, they show a few features of concretions from this area that coprolites from there don't show. There is a dark external surface and a lighter interior, the surface shows septarian-like fine cracks, and the interior has a sandy texture with mica bits. These faeatures are all consistent with the many concretions commonly found there. Virtually all of the coprolites are dark inside and out, have very different surficial cracks (if any), and have a typical fine-grained, phosphatic composition that shows a conchoidal fracture. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walt Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, Carl said: they show a few features of concretions from this area that coprolites from there don't show That makes sense. I have to remember to look at things both ways - not only what features a coprolite would have, but what features a coprolite wouldn't have. And I will be the first to admit that up until now I just assumed coprolite was simply a replacement of shape...and not of substance. And what Lori said of seeing indigestible food bits that were caught up in the original poo is fascinating as it surely offers a better insight into the creature's habits than any anatomical feature. Thanks you two for the education 2 Everything is generated through your own will power ~ Ray Bradbury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jersey Devil Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 It is a concretion. Those lines on the surface and texture are suggestive of that. “You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one.” ― Mikhail Tal 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