Help identifying a tooth?

[JasonDC]

Found this many years ago near the South Platte River in south western Nebraska.  Just threw it in mu box of rocks and forgot about it.

I am not sure it is an actual fossil.  Im sure it is a tooth, but ibdont recognize it as belonging to any type of cattle or big game animal, seems too small for a wooly mammoth.  Any help appreciated.  I am holding it in my hand in the photos for size reference.

[abyssunder]

Welcome to the Forum!
You have a nice horse upper cheek tooth.

[jcbshark]

I’m in the horse camp too

[JasonDC]

Ah, not familliar with horses, but i was right about it  not being fossilized then.

[PaleoNoel]

36 minutes ago, JasonDC said:

Ah, not familliar with horses, but i was right about it  not being fossilized then.

It could actually be fossilized, or at least a subfossil. Wild horses roamed America as recently as 8,000-12,000 years ago (going extinct with the rest of the megafauna at the end of the last glacial period) and domesticated ones were reintroduced by the Spanish through their exploration and conquest of North America.

[SULLY]

+1 on Mr. Ed

[JasonDC]

How would i determine if this has been fossilized or partially fossilized?  It feels heavy to hold, and the stuff filling in the folds and along some the creases are similar to rinds on some jade and agates.  Does not feel or look like an enamel. 

[ynot]

21 minutes ago, JasonDC said:

How would i determine if this has been fossilized or partially fossilized? 

The only way to be 100% sure would be to have a carbon 14 test done on it. (very expensive).

[The Amateur Paleontologist]

1 hour ago, JasonDC said:

How would i determine if this has been fossilized or partially fossilized? 

Does the tooth feel light or heavy?  

-Christian

Edited December 24, 2018 by The Amateur Paleontologist

[JasonDC]

Feels heavy,  like a piece of petrified wood the same size.

[ynot]

1 hour ago, The Amateur Paleontologist said:

Does the tooth feel light or heavy?  

-Christian

 

1 hour ago, JasonDC said:

Feels heavy,  like a piece of petrified wood the same size.

This is not a good definitive test for fossil or modern. (How many modern horse teeth have You held to know their weight.)

You can do a specific gravity test to see if it is "heavy" compared to a recent tooth. But even this will not be a 100% conclusive.

[SailingAlongToo]

Burn test?

 

Or my personal favorite, the "tink" or "tunk" test against your upper canine tooth. Tink its mineralized and tunk it's not. (Works for me about 90+% of the time. Seriously.)

[sixgill pete]

11 hours ago, SailingAlongToo said:

Burn test?

 

Or my personal favorite, the "tink" or "tunk" test against your upper canine tooth. Tink its mineralized and tunk it's not. (Works for me about 90+% of the time. Seriously.)

But what if it goes "tank" Jack? 

[Harry Pristis]

There seems to be endless misunderstanding about the term "fossilized."

"Fossilized" (along with "petrified") is a near meaningless term in this specialized forum. The term is often substituted for "mineralized" in describing a bone or tooth. But, fossilized doesn't always equate to mineralized because many fossils are NOT reinforced or replaced by minerals.

Bone is primarily composed of hydroxyapatite and collagen. Hydroxyapatite is an inorganic compound of calcium, phosphate, and hydroxide which is organized in a crystal latticework that gives bone (and teeth) structural rigidity. It preserves well as a fossil under some conditions.

Collagen is a fiberous protein that serves as connective tissue in bones and muscles. It does not preserve well in a fossil. As collagen decomposes, it may be replaced in the hydroxyapatite latticework by minerals from the depositional environment (e.g. silica dioxide dissolved in groundwater).

Bone reinforced with exogenous minerals is said to be "mineralized." If the bone components (including the hydroxyapatite) are entirely replaced by exogenous minerals such as silica, it is said to be "replaced by -". If a bone is mineralized, it is MORE LIKELY to be a fossil. If a bone is not mineralized, it is LESS LIKELY to be a fossil. No absolutes, only likelihoods, because there are exceptions.

In the case of leaves and wood, as with bones, permineralization depends on the circulation of mineral-saturated groundwater. If there is limited or no circulation (or no suitable minerals in solution), then there is no permineralization. BUT, the organic remains - the leaves, or wood, or bone - are still fossils ("fossilized" if you like).

A 'burn test' or 'match test' will indicate only whether there is collagen remaining in a bone -- scorched collagen has an awful smell. Briefly apply an open flame (I prefer a butane lighter) to an inconspicuous area of the object . . . you cannot keep a pin hot enough long enough to scorch collagen. Tooth enamel contains hydroxyapatite, but doesn't contain significant collagen, so the 'burn test' on tooth enamel would be a waste of time.

The 'click test' - tapping a putative fossil against your teeth - was a joke that caught on. There are plenty of other things in the environment against which you can click a bone. Don't put the remains of dead, decomposed animals in your mouth.  

 

In the case of this equus horse upper cheek tooth, there is no practical way to ascertain its age.  Beyond physical appearance and taphonomy, testing would involve lab work.  Specific gravity is an interesting approach to determining mineralization, but I suspect that sort of testing would require a series of similar teeth.  For now, JasonDC might wqnt to put the tooth in his comparison collection.

 

 

[JasonDC]

This has been a highly informational discussion so far, thank you everyone!