Jump to content

Large ordovician tooth?


Jasper_M

Recommended Posts

First off, I don't know anything about paleontology. I found this fossil in Nicholas county Kentucky. It was about at the C in NiCholas county on the map. Sorry it's upside down, but Nicholas is 2 above bracken, assuming picture orientation. The fossil was 6-10 feet down. The first layer of fossils went down about 5 feet, maybe more, and we're tan and sandy. Below this layer was a gray layer, and this was several feet into that. Also, don't have enough file space to do enough pictures for inches, but it is about 11.5 centimeters long, or 4.53 inches.img_20190705_2037009_OufC3.thumb.jpg.e8ada9fa86dccf81759e9b7c9d4bc6bc.jpgIMG_20190705_204613524.thumb.jpg.d2f83819e9c260ebea872684d696bcf8.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No idea what it is, but the pyritization is nifty.  However, if it's Ordovician, it won't be a tooth, as teeth hadn't evolved yet.  

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'

George Santayana

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's confusing. The darker orange is listed in the Kentucky almanac as upper ordovician, and the light as middle.IMG_20190705_203741134.thumb.jpg.be5edecee5cfd3a4f3bcc7edc80a2dfd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't sure it was a tooth, but I don't know what else it would be, although I wouldn't know anyways. My Grandpa said teeth were very rare to find, but occasionally are found in the area. No credentials though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it may be a bryozoan encrusting on something. The something could be a horn coral based on the cone like shape but it is pretty hard to tell from the pictures and the fact that it is still embedded in rock and maybe a bit worn. Let’s see if anyone else can see something different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I doubt it is a fossil, or at least that it's identifiable as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, hemipristis said:

No idea what it is, but the pyritization is nifty.  However, if it's Ordovician, it won't be a tooth, as teeth hadn't evolved yet.  

Title is a little embarrassing now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ClearLake said:

I think it may be a bryozoan encrusting on something. The something could be a horn coral based on the cone like shape but it is pretty hard to tell from the pictures and the fact that it is still embedded in rock and maybe a bit worn. Let’s see if anyone else can see something different. 

What is a bryozoan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rockwood said:

Sorry, but I doubt it is a fossil, or at least that it's identifiable as such.

It is in an area with many other fossils, and nearby rocks showed trails in them, possibly from small creatures. Not a fossil as in it wasn't organic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jasper_M said:

It is in an area with many other fossils, and nearby rocks showed trails in them, possibly from small creatures. Not a fossil as in it wasn't organic?

I see nothing to indicate that it is organic. Slightly different concept, but it isn't a fossil until evidence says it's a fossil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s definitely not a tooth as hemipristis said. If it’s not something geological, and is a fossil, then it’s likely some form of sea life as fossils of coral, bryozoa, etc. are abundant here in Kentucky Ordovician rock. It’s hard to tell though exactly what it may be. Having it in hand may be the only way to tell for sure.

 

Honestly, this in your picture looks to be more identifiable as a fossil. Although it is still hard to tell what it is from the pictures. It could be a piece of a brachiopod/bivalve or maybe a piece of rugose horn coral. I’m thinking it looks more shell like, but septal grooves on horn coral can show up like that too. Especially when wet, which this appears to be.

 

E575919A-AA08-4440-970A-94886410C1E5.jpeg

A98F75CA-F668-4792-99F8-D0B36ADA14F5.jpeg

  • I found this Informative 1

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.  -Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't. -Bill Nye (The Science Guy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that what we are supposed to be identifying ? :unsure: 

If so put me down for never mind.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jasper_M said:

Title is a little embarrassing now

We've all been there.  No worries :P

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'

George Santayana

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rockwood said:

Is that what we are supposed to be identifying ? :unsure: 

If so put me down for never mind.  

 I don’t think it’s what the OP was wanting identified, but out of everything in the pic it’s what stands out the most as a fossil to me. Just wanted to point it out, in case the OP overlooked it. ;) 

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.  -Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't. -Bill Nye (The Science Guy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jasper_M said:

Title is a little embarrassing now

There's nothing embarrassing about asking questions that help you learn. Not asking the question and learning nothing from your experience would be embarrassing! Believe me, the rest of us on here are still learning too. I've stuck my foot in my mouth so many times already and I've only been here two months. Shake it off and move on.

 

It does look a bit like broken carapace, eh???

 

 

Mark.

 

Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see it, so I'm going to assume I forgot to post. Some small details. The rock as a whole has three layers. The first is basically mud. It is a smooth light gray. Below this is a thin dark sheet that appears to cover everything, but is most prevalent on the specimen. Below this is the actual rock, or fossil. There is a light gray patch on the specimen where the darker layer is chipped away. Through this rock is visible. It has minute shell fragments, so it may be filled in. In this picture it is dry.IMG_20190706_191618947.thumb.jpg.510fc2a6027c99586d3832b2b8b497da.jpgIMG_20190706_191637984.thumb.jpg.a2f7888fe2e86dc35919733ba0933177.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fossil appears to be a 3 dimensional solid, as bits of the muddy layer fell away from the pictured edge, indicating to me a boundary. This is also the only edge exposed. It does look like it could have been musalagenous, but I may just be imposing my own bias. In hand it does look very biotic, but yet again, very subjective.IMG_20190706_230424987.thumb.jpg.dc39d602f69db3c220e293cf23b35677.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are describing a fossiliferous lens, or something like it (not sure of the exact term). A chunk of sediment that was redeposited as a unit in some sort of event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, doushantuo said:

So an olistholith

edit: sorry:

allochem

For frosting on the top all right. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it have any implications if it is an allochem? Or that's just what happens? Any other details it would be helpful for me to check?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...