NJ Possible Mastodon Find

[The Jersey Devil]

Hey everyone,

I have this possible Mastodon tooth “cone” from NJ. I know it is a fossil, meaning it’s got to be Cretaceous or Pleistocene because of the area it was found in, and it really doesn’t look like any Cretaceous bone I’ve seen from here.

 

That shiny inner stuff on the inside (the concave side) of the item reminds me of enamel; it led me to conclude that this is a partial “cone” of a mastodon tooth. I don’t know much at all about mammals, but it appears that the shiny stuff is what’s left of the enamel/cementum/whatever it’s called that would have been on the inside of the cone.

That inside part also has cracks running lengthwise and an uneven surface.

 

The outside layer (on the more convex side) of the possible mastodon tooth cone seems pretty worn away and may have had a whole entire layer of enamel covering it before the wear.

 

It’s about 1.5 inches. @non-remanié 

 

This possible remain will most likely look significantly different than fragments from other states because NJ’s preservation is usually different.

 

I’m going to tag some members that I think are experienced with Mastodon remains from other states. @Harry Pristis @PrehistoricFlorida @Shellseeker @digit @jcbshark @Gatorman @RickNC

 

Thanks guys!

 

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by The Jersey Devil

[mikeymig]

I'm voting, Not a Mastodon. 

[jcbshark]

looks more like a bone shard than enamel to me

[The Jersey Devil]

9 minutes ago, jcbshark said:

looks more like a bone shard than enamel to me

 

Does it look like Pleistocene bone to you?

[Harry Pristis]

 

I don't think it's mastodont enamel . . . the crazing suggests something else.

 

 

[The Jersey Devil]

16 minutes ago, Harry Pristis said:

 

I don't think it's mastodont enamel . . . the crazing suggests something else.

 

 

 

What exactly is crazing?

 

@Harry Pristis Edit: Does that mean that you still think it is a tooth of some sort?

Edited April 11, 2019 by The Jersey Devil

[DevonianDigger]

Crazing is the cracking of the enamel. Usually a network of fine cracks. It's a term also frequently used when describing the enamel finish on china.

[The Jersey Devil]

1 minute ago, DevonianDigger said:

Crazing is the cracking of the enamel. Usually a network of fine cracks. It's a term also frequently used when describing the enamel finish on china.

 

Thanks for the explanation. Are there any references you can suggest that show and explain the layers inside a mastodon tooth (like the enameloid, cementum, etc.)?

[Harry Pristis]

"Enameloid" is used to describe the hard layer of sharks teeth.  No cementum within mastodont teeth . . . the liner of the enamel is dentin.

 

 

[The Jersey Devil]

42 minutes ago, Harry Pristis said:

"Enameloid" is used to describe the hard layer of sharks teeth.  No cementum within mastodont teeth . . . the liner of the enamel is dentin.

 

 

 

That makes it clear. It makes sense now that my piece isn’t mastodon. Are there any Pleistocene teeth that look even remotely similar to the piece I posted?

[digit]

43 minutes ago, The Jersey Devil said:

Are there any Pleistocene teeth that look even remotely similar to the piece I posted?

It may very well be Pleistocene but I'm guessing more like bone than tooth.

 

It's an interesting find but, as I learned early on, not all interesting finds get identified.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[The Jersey Devil]

11 minutes ago, digit said:

It may very well be Pleistocene but I'm guessing more like bone than tooth.

 

It's an interesting find but, as I learned early on, not all interesting finds get identified.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

 

Thanks, I guess the only unusual thing about it is that “enamel” on the inner side. The reason why I’m very interested in figuring out what it is is because any Pleistocene finds from New Jersey are very rare (even a shard of mastodon enamel), the specimen itself isn’t anything special to somewhere where Pleistocene fossils are common.

[Shellseeker]

From this photo, I would have leaned Mammoth, I almost "see" a mammoth like edge upper/lower left. I can understand your initial impression. The "bone" structure is odd. If this were Florida, a dugong rib with hard dense fossilization would be my choice.

Dugong in Florida were middle to late miocene.

[digit]

22 minutes ago, The Jersey Devil said:

Thanks, I guess the only unusual thing about it is that “enamel” on the inner side. The reason why I’m very interested in figuring out what it is is because any Pleistocene finds from New Jersey are very rare (even a shard of mastodon enamel), the specimen itself isn’t anything special to somewhere where Pleistocene fossils are common.

Doesn't closely resemble anything identifiable from Florida so I can't be of much more help. Any museums up there with someone who knows the Pleistocene of NJ?

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[jcbshark]

5 hours ago, The Jersey Devil said:

 

Does it look like Pleistocene bone to you?

I couldn’t fathom a guess of what era it would be from

[The Jersey Devil]

3 hours ago, Shellseeker said:

From this photo, I would have leaned Mammoth, I almost "see" a mammoth like edge upper/lower left. I can understand your initial impression. The "bone" structure is odd. If this were Florida, a dugong rib with hard dense fossilization would be my choice.

Dugong in Florida were middle to late miocene.

 

Thanks, but it can’t be dugong or Mammoth because both of those didn’t exist in the NJ Pleistocene.

[The Jersey Devil]

2 hours ago, digit said:

Doesn't closely resemble anything identifiable from Florida so I can't be of much more help. Any museums up there with someone who knows the Pleistocene of NJ?

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

 

Yeah, there’s the NJSM, it’s likely that they know the Pleistocene well.

 

But what I’m interested in now is the idea of Carbon-dating it, but I heard it is expensive. If the test works it should be late Pleistocene, if not, then it is Cretaceous.

[jpevahouse]

Doesn't look like mastodon or necessarily bone. I assume this rock was found at Big Brook where similar concretions are very common. Pleistocene fossils have rarely been found there.

[The Jersey Devil]

1 hour ago, jpevahouse said:

Doesn't look like mastodon or necessarily bone. I assume this rock was found at Big Brook where similar concretions are very common. Pleistocene fossils have rarely been found there.

 

It isn’t Mastodon, but it definitely is a  fragment of either a bone or a tooth, probably of a bone, and is either Cretaceous or Pleistocene.

[frankh8147]

I don't have anything definitive to offer here but I'm not that sure it is fossilized.

 

Here is a bone from the same area (I assume) that matches yours in color (and also appeared to me to be mineralized). I had this looked at by professionals and am now convinced it is actually modern.  

 

Yours looks a little lighter in color but besides that, I do see some good similarities.

 

 

[The Jersey Devil]

21 minutes ago, frankh8147 said:

I don't have anything definitive to offer here but I'm not that sure it is fossilized.

 

Here is a bone from the same area (I assume) that matches yours in color (and also appeared to me to be mineralized). I had this looked at by professionals and am now convinced it is actually modern.  

 

Yours looks a little lighter in color but besides that, I do see some good similarities.

 

 

 

Hey Frank,

Your bone does have some similarities to mine, especially the “enamel” and the striations running across. Why exactly did the museum think that it is modern? I could see a chunk of modern deer bone that has been in the stream for awhile getting partially mineralized, but for complete mineralization it would probably take much longer.

Have you ever asked the NJSM about Carbon-dating?

[ynot]

1 hour ago, The Jersey Devil said:

I could see a chunk of modern deer bone that has been in the stream for awhile getting partially mineralized, but for complete mineralization it would probably take much longer.

I think You may be confusing mineralized with mineral stained.  It usually takes thousands (if not millions) of years for bone to be mineralized.  Bone can be stained in a few days.

[frankh8147]

2 hours ago, The Jersey Devil said:

 

Hey Frank,

Your bone does have some similarities to mine, especially the “enamel” and the striations running across. Why exactly did the museum think that it is modern? I could see a chunk of modern deer bone that has been in the stream for awhile getting partially mineralized, but for complete mineralization it would probably take much longer.

Have you ever asked the NJSM about Carbon-dating?

 

Joseph,

 

I brought this and a few more specimens with the same coloration. The preservation wasn't right and they all correlated to modern mammals. Since then, the bones have deteriorated slightly (where my bones that are clearly Cretaceous have not) so I fully agree with them.

 

My take on this (open to interpretation) on potential Pleistocene bone from Monmouth County is that unless something is diagnostically from a Pleistocene animal, it's not going to get identified as such. As stated by others, mineral staining is more severe here than in other locations and there is a long history of both domestic and feral animals whose bones end up up in the streams.

 

To take it a step further; every single fossil from the Pleistocene I have seen from this location is actually brown rather than black (of course the bone could be re-deposited but if that's the case, I give up). I'd be very interested in seeing a black fossil bone from this location that is diagnostically from a Pleistocene animal.

 

Again, this is all up for discussion but that's been my experience.

[ptychodus]

There were definitely mammoths in NJ.

Mastodons and Mammoths in Northern New Jersey

Posted on April 4, 2014by soothinghands01

 

In 1954 a hot dog vendor and sports shop owner in Highland Lakes, NJ wanted to expand his pond.  So he had it dredged. On February 19, 1954 the line operator Archibald McMurty thought he had pulled a large stump out of the pond that was surrounded by a swamp. What he discovered was part of a mastodon skull.  After McMurty pulled up a few more stumps of similar size the State Museum of New Jersey was called to inspect these stumps.

These stumps were not wood they were bone.  This was to be the third site of mastodon bones in Sussex County to date.  The first was in 1851 in present day Greendell, NJ.  This site only had a partial skeleton unlike the Highland Lakes site, which had a full skeleton and there was found another bone found suggesting that there could be another skeleton still in the pond. These artifacts were first known as the Ohberg Mastodon.  The Ohberg’s who owned the land and who were more than corporative with the archaeology team and the press would not let the dig continue.  They were finished with the attention of the press. The press brought the attention of the public to the fact that the Ohberg mastodon could have been and eventually was a full skeleton. The Ohberg mastodon was named Matilda after one of the Archaeologist’s new wife. Since the mid 1950’s there have been two other discoveries of mastodons in Sussex County. One in Hardyston near Sussex County Community College and one in Sparta, NJ during the construction of Route 15.

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by ptychodus
Not sure original statement was correct

[The Jersey Devil]

2 hours ago, ynot said:

I think You may be confusing mineralized with mineral stained.  It usually takes thousands (if not millions) of years for bone to be mineralized.  Bone can be stained in a few days.

 

Hi Tony, I confused the two on the last thread on which we talked about this. I tried to keep in mind what you said last time. I did mean to say mineralized. My bone in this thread is definitely mineralized, and it was suggested that it could actually be modern. What I had in mind after Frank’s comment is it could be a couple thousand years old, but not old enough to be Pleistocene. But actually after looking it over again, the preservation on my bone is different than on Frank’s, and I’m still not confident mine is modern.

 

Since it takes long for complete mineralization like you said and my bone is very mineralized, there’s probably a better chance of it just being a common Cretaceous fragment.