Jump to content

haastone

Recommended Posts

M502.jpg 
 
Hayward is on the Cambrian/Precambrian section of Wisconsin. So unless trilobites had teeth like that, common sense says it is a rock. Quite a bit of time had to go by before there were animals with teeth. And it is highly unlikely glaciers brought loess from the proper aged rock and deposited it in Hayward. Maybe, just maybe, it is a tooth from one of the fishes from the Fishing Hall of Fame in Hayward!!!
 
museum-10.jpg

museum-10

museum-10
museum-11.jpg

museum-11

museum-11
museum-12.jpg

museum-12

museum-12

 

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

How can I find out if this it a petrified fossil or just earth.....Where can I go, I will save the money it takes.....My thoughts are gar, maybe reptile, possibly shark. How can I dna this to know for sure?.?.?:):)

20190321_014711 (1).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, haastone said:

How can I dna this to know for sure?.?.?:):)

It would take a serious paradigm shift to consider this as being possible even.

Museums are good places to look for paleontologists, and there's nothing like a good in hand inspection though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, haastone said:

How can I find out if this it a petrified fossil or just earth.....

Has a vague shape of a shark tooth, but is missing other key features.

Sorry but it is a rock that looks like something it is not.

 

  • I found this Informative 1

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

Heres the deal with this,

Hayward, Wisconsin is in a place, where the sediment is SO old, that there wasn't anything on land. (debatable by some) 
There were no sharks either. They would evolve wayyy later in the early Devonian. And even the newest sediment in the whole state of Wisconsin, the Silurian, is too old to have sharks

So on the other hypothesis that this was 90 years old or something:
Only bullsharks have been found in Wisconsin, in the Mississippi river. Not sure if they have been there 90 years ago (see photo below) 

But I will say that specimen you have there looks like it is solid rock. And I mean hard rock. 
To become permineralized like that, it would need WELL over 90 years. And because we know for all of history, the ground you walk on is Cambrian - Precambrian (before flippin trilobites)
I would agree that this is a suggestive rock. If it were 90 years old, it would not be permineralized 

So now onto the more further out hypothesis:
Maybe during the Glacial period, sediment was carried from north in Ontario by Chatham (which is late Devonian (during the period of sharks) ) 
and this sediment contained a permineralized shark tooth from a new undiscovered species (or now unrecognizable due to exposure from the elements). Which then was left behind by the glaciers that once covered the US and left a water worn shark tooth from this time in the sediments.
People enjoy a good puzzle of course. After wearing down a tooth using an editing software, I worn down the edges to looks similar to your specimen. 

You do understand the likely-hood of one tooth from Canada, being washed down by glaciers and then you finding it and posting it online is 1 in 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 right?
I'll let you decide though. Usually in geology it isn't what is right or wrong, it is what is probable and improbable. 

20051022%20215.jpg

4662301582_720b4ac256_b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this I understand, I'm thinking, its much older.  Actually 250 million years old possibly.  My whole theory is that maybe its a reptile.  Here's the thing...  Sandstone does not stick to slate or lava rock under compression, at least this is what I've learned so far.  If I was to show you this in person, it is clearly 2 different types of rock or mineral or what ever it is.  For this to erode the way it has, I'd have to say is impossible.  I'd like to see if it's possible to scrape some it off to determine is there is any oceanic cell structure or any cell structure what so ever.  If its positive then I'll donate to science.  Otherwise its being made into a neckless and that is that.  I'm a guy that found a weird looking rock.  Also do not have a 10 million dollar microscope.  If there is a small fee to pay to test it for dna, I'm certainly game.  If not then maybe 10 or 20 years from now, my kids will have a 20 dollar microscope that might be able to see cell structures in old rocks?....

 

I'm not a scientist,

Nate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend is a teacher at Wheaton university with a double doctorate in geology.  He would love to check it out, but it being such a small specimen, there's no way to pull funding for this.  Plus it's said its a fossil, further more he studies rocks and minerals.  Kinda tells me if the rock guy say he doesn't want to look at it and to take it to a bone person then where does that leave us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, haastone said:

Here's the thing...  Sandstone does not stick to slate or lava rock under compression, at least this is what I've learned so far.  

That dog just isn't going to hunt.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's in a petrification state and it's a prehistoric tooth.  Where and who do I need to take this to.  Someone please answer at least that?

Then I buy beer for all! Love is the most powerful force!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, haastone said:

Where and who do I need to take this to. 

If the Field Museum in Chicago is out for some reason you might try your state geologist.

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, haastone said:

All of this I understand, I'm thinking, its much older.  Actually 250 million years old possibly.  My whole theory is that maybe its a reptile.  Here's the thing...  Sandstone does not stick to slate or lava rock under compression, at least this is what I've learned so far.  If I was to show you this in person, it is clearly 2 different types of rock or mineral or what ever it is.  For this to erode the way it has, I'd have to say is impossible.  I'd like to see if it's possible to scrape some it off to determine is there is any oceanic cell structure or any cell structure what so ever.  If its positive then I'll donate to science.  Otherwise its being made into a neckless and that is that.  I'm a guy that found a weird looking rock.  Also do not have a 10 million dollar microscope.  If there is a small fee to pay to test it for dna, I'm certainly game.  If not then maybe 10 or 20 years from now, my kids will have a 20 dollar microscope that might be able to see cell structures in old rocks?....

 

I'm not a scientist,

Nate

Well, I am not a scientist either but I did study Geology in College and I work at a Fossil / Mineral shop as well. I sell teeth every day. We sell reptile, dinosaur, shark you name it. I also hunt for my own fossils and sift through probably 1000's of look alikes in the field.

However, I don't know of any reptile that has that kind of tooth. The shape should be cylindrical with no shark like Basal. I could get behind you on the "This looks uncannily like a shark tooth" but the reptile tooth is a 100% no for me. If you could provide me a list of some prehistoric reptile teeth that look like this I would be grateful. Also 250 million years ago would be Permian / Triassic. The closest state and province near you, Minnesota and Ontario Canada don't have Permian - Triassic. None of the sediments are that young all around you. I mean, not even all the way north to the top of Quebec has Permian - Triassic. Hell I didn't even see Carboniferous.  This couldn't be an amphibian tooth either. The structure of amphibian teeth is similar to that of a reptile. 

You mentioned it is two different types of rocks but, here it looks like one rock(see picture below I included of your rock). A way you could test if they are separate rocks is using moh's hardness scale and scratching both ends but, I still see one rock. Of course at different angles in different lights, any rock can be shinier on one side than the other of capture light in different ways. If truly this were two types of rocks, it would mean two things, One, you would not need to position it in different angles or change the lighting to show it is different and Two, it would confirm this was not a fossil, because no fossil I have ever seen becomes petrified in the basal with sandstone and then petrified in the tooth and enamel with slate.

I included below a picture of me holding various teeth. The first is from a Marine Reptile called a Mosasaur. Do you see how pithy and porous the root is on both of those teeth. The other things about marine or terrestrial reptiles is they never have a shark like shape. The enamel is shiny, so shiny I can see the window pane in the tooth. If I stick the basal of the tooth to my tongue, it absorbs the water hence, sticking to my tongue without effort. A rock would not stick to your tongue if indeed you let it hang off. The tooth also has serrations (not necessary but a rock never has serrations.) It looks like a tooth. Teeth are usually in good quality and detail, even the water, pressure and heat worn teeth have good details. 

TLDR
1. Your entire area all around you for 2800 miles north (where glaciers might have brought something) is too old to have reptile teeth
2. There is no enamel on your rock
3. The basal has no pours, holes or any bone like structure at all (even visible on the marine reptile I posted below)
4. Your rock has no Serrations ( I know makos don't either but it decreases the chances of it being a tooth, as serrations would indicate an organic origin) 
5. Too rounded to be a shark tooth, too robust of a base to be a reptile or amphibian tooth.
6. Wisconsin has 1 kind of shark, it is nothing similar to a bullshark.
7. Your local area is older than or the same as the very first explosion of life, meaning reptiles, amphibians and even sharks did not exist yet for hundreds of millions of years later.
8. It is certainly not modern because it could not be permineralized this quickly
9. I know you want to take it in somewhere. That place would be with a museum. However for now, you could try sticking it to your tongue and seeing if it falls off when given the opportunity. Lay it on a table and without touching it, try to pick it up using only your tongue. do not cup your tongue around it, but let your tongue stay flat. 
 

1.jpg

2.jpg

4.jpg

20190321_014536.thumb.jpg.86f644c41e3679e52a0ca8deb75dd303.jpg

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Fossildude19 locked this topic

I have to agree that this is a suggestively shaped rock. It happens. Way more often than you think. 

Many years of experience here telling you this. 

You still are not convinced, then bring it to a local university or museum, and have a paleontologist look at it. 

 

I think it is probably best that we agree to disagree here. :) 

I will be locking this topic, as no further commenting will change the original poster's opinion. 

We wish @haastone the best of luck in finding out what he has.   

 

 

  • I found this Informative 2

    Tim    VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...