FrostbyteFossils Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 This bone fragment was sold as mammoth bone from holland. Is it actually mammoth or was that just a guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostbyteFossils Posted February 9, 2019 Author Share Posted February 9, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 My guess is that you will have to take their word for it. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 I agree. I don't think one can know if it's a mammoth for sure unless it was found associated with other mammoth bits. 3 Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostbyteFossils Posted February 9, 2019 Author Share Posted February 9, 2019 12 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said: I agree. I don't think one can know if it's a mammoth for sure unless it was found associated with other mammoth bits. Yeah, I had thought that. I'll have to just assume the sellers are right and that it is mammoth material Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 The colour looks correct for a North Sea fossil. But a fragment like this cannot be identified. Mammoth bones from Holland are fished up from the North Sea and so there is no context. There is no way to know if it's woolly mammoth or another animal from the same area unless there are clear identifiable features on the bone. So if it's indeed from Holland then the best you could say is that it's from a large mammal. There does seem to be some type of muscle attachment on the outer surface though. 3 Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 I guess it could have come up in a dredge that was full of identifiable mammoth bone, but that would only be taking someone's word for slightly increased odds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 12 minutes ago, Rockwood said: I guess it could have come up in a dredge that was full of identifiable mammoth bone, but that would only be taking someone's word for slightly increased odds. There You go mudding the water again. Even if this chunk was found in a pile of mammoth bone it would be irresponsible to call it mammoth, unless it could be reconstructed with other fragments into something with identifiable features. But since it is so worn down it would still be impossible to make sure the fragments went together. 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...
Rockwood Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, ynot said: There You go mudding the water again. Even if this chunk was found in a pile of mammoth bone it would be irresponsible to call it mammoth, unless it could be reconstructed with other fragments into something with identifiable features. But since it is so worn down it would still be impossible to make sure the fragments went together. Isn't that what I said ? Myself, if I knew the dredgers were knowledgeable of their waters, and knew their bones, I would trust their instincts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmoceras Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 7 hours ago, Rockwood said: My guess is that you will have to take their word for it. 34 minutes ago, Rockwood said: I guess it could have come up in a dredge that was full of identifiable mammoth bone, but that would only be taking someone's word for slightly increased odds. Its very common practice to give names to unidentifiable fragments to make them more marketable. I wouldn't take a sellers word for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, Kosmoceras said: Its very common practice to give names to unidentifiable fragments to make them more marketable. I wouldn't take a sellers word for it. I don't disagree. Perhaps I should be more aware that others may not share my interest in the purely conceptual though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmoceras Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 7 minutes ago, Rockwood said: Perhaps I should be more aware that others may not share my interest in the purely conceptual though. In that case I'd recommend labeling such a specimen as an unidentifiable mammal bone, and list some of the possibilities it could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 8 minutes ago, Kosmoceras said: In that case I'd recommend labeling such a specimen as an unidentifiable mammal bone, and list some of the possibilities it could be. Would be a lot easier than finding and interviewing the captain of the vessel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Rockwood said: Would be a lot easier than finding and interviewing the captain of the vessel. Depending on when it was found it might be easier or harder. There's not a lot of vessels that fish up fossils from the North Sea nowadays since they banned the type of bottom trawling that yeilded a lot of fossil catches. There's not a lot of fossils coming out of the North Sea anymore. It's not that the supply has dried up, no, the sea is still absolutely filled. But they banned that type of fishing because it was bad for the bottom dwelling fauna. 2 Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostbyteFossils Posted February 9, 2019 Author Share Posted February 9, 2019 Ok. Also, those "mammoth hairs" that people sell. Are they actually mammoth hair or fake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 21 minutes ago, FrostbyteFossils said: Ok. Also, those "mammoth hairs" that people sell. Are they actually mammoth hair or fake? Probably depends on just what people you are talking about, but my sense is that the supply is likely adequate to fill the demand with the real thing in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmoceras Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 38 minutes ago, FrostbyteFossils said: Ok. Also, those "mammoth hairs" that people sell. Are they actually mammoth hair or fake? There was some good info posted by Roger (painshill) in this thread a few years ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 1 hour ago, FrostbyteFossils said: Ok. Also, those "mammoth hairs" that people sell. Are they actually mammoth hair or fake? A bunch of them are likely real. But those aren't found in the North Sea of course. Those come from the frozen tundras of Siberia. 1 Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostbyteFossils Posted February 9, 2019 Author Share Posted February 9, 2019 31 minutes ago, LordTrilobite said: A bunch of them are likely real. But those aren't found in the North Sea of course. Those come from the frozen tundras of Siberia. Haha yeah. I doubt hair can survive long under water XD 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