Jump to content
Andrew Fredericks

Mosasaurus hoffmani?

Recommended Posts

Andrew Fredericks

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.

C3D8832F-4C7C-435B-91B2-B1097ACE9621.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew Fredericks

Other side...

3A3DC412-9365-43C8-82B7-272DC95A352D.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
indominus rex

Could we get some close ups and some better lighting pictures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot

Welcome to TFF!

Looks like an iron concretion to Me, but better pictures and end shots may change that opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fossildude19

Looks like a partial ghost shrimp claw to me.  

Not a mosasaur tooth. 

Pics cropped and brightened:

 

3A3DC412-9365-43C8-82B7-272DC95A352D.jpeg.9744a0133c647f0bc89ff6ea4b5dfd9c.jpeg    C3D8832F-4C7C-435B-91B2-B1097ACE9621.jpeg.741b7e4f7e9ffdc2a941e1ce183cc7b1.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FossilDAWG

I agree with Tim, it is a decapod claw not a tooth.  Still a nice find at that size.

 

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew Fredericks

Thank you guys for the info and quick response!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erose

Sorry guys but I don’t see either a tooth or a crustacean. Possibly concretion or steinkern but, as suggested, we need more photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl

I'm with @ynot & @erose: classic concretion from the brooks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FossilDAWG

I've only collected from Big Brook once, so I'll defer to those with vastly more experience.

 

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew Fredericks

What type of pictures do you guys want, like what angles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erose
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew Fredericks

A3554B6C-85E1-4169-B8B9-8E9308805144.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew Fredericks

The other pictures are bigger than 3.95 MB. I don’t know what to do now, maybe someone knows what to do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jacob L
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.

C3D8832F-4C7C-435B-91B2-B1097ACE9621.jpeg

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! 

WhatsApp Image 2018-07-05 at 13.50.40.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GeschWhat
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)! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walt
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)! :D

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GeschWhat
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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walt
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 :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Jersey Devil

It is a concretion. Those lines on the surface and texture are suggestive of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×