Mastodon tusk or petrified wood?

[Hunterc123]

I may have posted this before but its been a while. To start off, I've had this in my collection several years now and have always been unsure about what it was. My first guess had always been petrified wood but then recently I watched a video about mastodon tusk that had been found to the east of where I found this piece. The material looks very similar. I know it doesn't look the best, but preservation here isn't the best. Anyways, let me know what you guys think.

 

 

[JBkansas]

Looks like poorly preserved tusk.

Edited May 16, 2023 by JBkansas

[Hunterc123]

4 minutes ago, JBkansas said:

Looks like poorly preserved tusk.

I agree with you. I've just been getting mixed answers. Our climate is bad for preservation. Unless you uncover it straight from the dirt, good luck after a few thousand years.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Hunterc123

[Hunterc123]

Here's a closeup of the layers. Hard to make out anything but those might be the pattern?

[JohnJ]

We're all these fragments found together?

[Hunterc123]

18 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

We're all these fragments found together?

No, the big portion shown is the aforementioned one found to the east of where I found this one.

[Fossildude19]

And where was it found?

[fossilus]

Tusk growth, as I understand it, makes the dentin in the tusk look like a series of cones.

If the center hole is cone shaped, it would say to me that it is most likely a tusk.

[Hunterc123]

16 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

And where was it found?

Tunica hills in Louisiana. Known for ice age fossil deposits.

[JohnJ]

48 minutes ago, Hunterc123 said:

No, the big portion shown is the aforementioned one found to the east of where I found this one.

Do you have other views?

[Hunterc123]

6 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

Do you have other views?

I'll take more pictures when I get home but it doesn't get much better lol.

[JBkansas]

1 hour ago, Hunterc123 said:

No, the big portion shown is the aforementioned one found to the east of where I found this one.

So the semi complete tusk on the table is the one someone else found? Yours is the small fragment?

[Hunterc123]

28 minutes ago, JBkansas said:

So the semi complete tusk on the table is the one someone else found? Yours is the small fragment?

Yes.

[Hunterc123]

1 hour ago, JohnJ said:

Do you have other views?

Here's the other side and a good view of the hole.

[JohnJ]

Focused images of the outside and broken areas are useful too.

[Hunterc123]

10 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

Focused images of the outside and broken areas are useful too.

 

[Brandy Cole]

Unfortunately, the level of preservation here makes it very hard for me to say from these pictures.

 

I would say the multiple layers and shape would incline me toward tusk, but the texture does not resemble any Pleistocene tusk examples that I'm familiar with. The color and texture almost better resemble sandstone or bone than what I'd expect of tusk.

 

Also, I don't see any of the Schreger lines that I would hope to see to seal the deal as a tusk.

 

Still, those layers and shape are certainly suggestive.

 

I think you might be best served by taking it to an expert on the fossils found in that particular area who knows what to expect from their appearance.

 

 

[Meganeura]

1 minute ago, Brandy Cole said:

Unfortunately, the level of preservation here makes it very hard for me to say from these pictures.

 

I would say the multiple layers and shape would incline me toward tusk, but the texture does not resemble any Pleistocene tusk examples that I'm familiar with. The color and texture almost better resemble sandstone or bone than what I'd expect of tusk.

 

Also, I don't see any of the Schreger lines that I would hope to see to seal the deal as a tusk.

 

Still, those layers and shape are certainly suggestive.

 

I think you might be best served by taking it to an expert on the fossils found in that particular area who knows what to expect from their appearance.

 

 

Yeah I agree with Brandy here - the layers say tusk, but there's not even a HINT of schreger lines here which is throwing me off quite a bit. The hollow core is suspiciously tusk-like though.

[Hunterc123]

6 minutes ago, Brandy Cole said:

Unfortunately, the level of preservation here makes it very hard for me to say from these pictures.

 

I would say the multiple layers and shape would incline me toward tusk, but the texture does not resemble any Pleistocene tusk examples that I'm familiar with. The color and texture almost better resemble sandstone or bone than what I'd expect of tusk.

 

Also, I don't see any of the Schreger lines that I would hope to see to seal the deal as a tusk.

 

Still, those layers and shape are certainly suggestive.

 

I think you might be best served by taking it to an expert on the fossils found in that particular area who knows what to expect from their appearance.

 

 

Yeah I don't think we'll be able to reach any conclusions to be honest other than it might be a tusk but its very worn.  The same conclusion I came to several years ago and sat it on the shelf.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Hunterc123

[Hunterc123]

More pictures in bright light

[Carl]

I'm leaning toward it not being a tusk. The cross-section histology and the way it is eroding don't match what would be expected for ivory.

[Brandy Cole]

Possibly a cone in cone structure?

[Bone Daddy]

That is a weird one. I've found a lot of tusk material over the years, and some of the poorly-preserved stuff does loosely resemble this piece in question. But, like the others, I have reservations about it. If this was found on a beach or in somebody's residential backyard hole, I would say it's geological. If you found it in a spot that has also produced similar fossils, then that tips the scale a little towards fossil. One destructive method you could is try is cutting it to reveal an inner cross-section that might be more diagnostic than the eroded outer surfaces. 

 

Even if it turns out to be a leaverite, it's still a nice one. It's weirdness would have caught my eye and I would have done the same thing you did. 

 

[JohnJ]

Based on your new photos, I think this is likely a tufa rock formation.  They can form in areas where springs or seeps are found.  Pleistocene gravels sometimes rest on impervious rock layers that forces groundwater to move laterally in a network of 'tubes' and channels subject to the seasonal fluctuations in rainfall.  Erosion uncovers the tufa that sometimes forms in this damp network.  Search "tufa rock cross section" for examples that show similar structure. 

[Hunterc123]

9 hours ago, JohnJ said:

Based on your new photos, I think this is likely a tufa rock formation.  They can form in areas where springs or seeps are found.  Pleistocene gravels sometimes rest on impervious rock layers that forces groundwater to move laterally in a network of 'tubes' and channels subject to the seasonal fluctuations in rainfall.  Erosion uncovers the tufa that sometimes forms in this damp network.  Search "tufa rock cross section" for examples that show similar structure. 

Someone suggested the same, and I definitely believe its a possibility.