Jump to content

Non-tooth from the Ernst Quarries.


MrR

Recommended Posts

I went on my first real dig yesterday at the Ernst Quarries of Bakersfield.  I won't say it was easy, but it was pretty rewarding. Aside from a bunch of very small shark's teeth, I found a fossilized piece of a stingray barb grinding-plate, and this particular piece. At first I thought it was a tooth from some ancient fish that had teeth that looked like tusks. After looking at it for a second more, I realized that it was something else. Crinoid came to mind.

 

Being a newbie, I just wanted to get verification of this pieces "crinoidness", or lack thereof. Is it a crinoid fossil, and is it common in places like Bakersfield oil country? Many thanks, learned fossil-folks, et. al. Cheers.

 

DSC06258.JPG

DSC06259.JPG

DSC06260.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

End view is a bit blurry. Can you take a clearer photo?

" 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

It's much better. Thank you for the photo. :)
I'm not sure of what it is, but there are some possibilities, like a cetacean tooth root or an infilled tubeworm. Wait other opinions.

" 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

Thanks, abyssunder. In another thread where I posted the group of teeth, etc., caldigger said it was a cetacean tooth, minus the tip. He provided a comparison image that looked right. That post is in response to a thread started by Kurt K. about Ernst Quarries in the section "Fossil Hunting Trips".  Thanks again.

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/89028-ernst-quarries-question/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the link. At least one of my thoughts might be right. :D

The light color of the specimen made me to consider that it could be a tubeworm.

" 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

So my "non-tooth" is really a tooth. :doh!:That will teach me for taking such a strong, and ignorant, stand with my subject title. Thanks to all for your learned input and comments. I wasn't expecting a whale tooth. Perhaps not as exciting to look at as the shiny sharks' teeth, but quite interesting, to be sure.

 

It would seem that shark-tooth enamel was better than whale enamel. Is that true, and why? Thanks ahead of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...