Sloth and Camelid

[Shellseeker]

Years ago I frequently hunted an isolated productive site with a good friend on Saturday because he was consumed with a day job. I returned to that site today and had one of my more successful recent hunts. 

He just happened to decide to return to the same general vicinity today and we met and hunted together for the 1st time in 20 months.  It was fun .. As fossil hunters sometimes do,  we talked about those Glory days years ago, when the finds were numerous and hunting was easy.. 

I do not have time today, tomorrow to photo and discuss finds. But I'll show a photo confirming the finds  and ask for an ID on 2 of them. 

 

1st the Camelid tooth possibly with a pathology. I believe it to be a lower left m3.  and there are only 2 choices in Florida.  Palaeolama mirafica or Hemiauchenia macrocephala.  

 

 

 

2nd is also a tooth,  and I am thinking Sloth... I have seen a lot of Sloth teeth and pushed I would say Harlans. Is this tooth pathological ? Which end is the chewing surface?  What is the semi_pointed thing sticking out the right side ?

 

I always feel blessed finding unusual fossils...   Jack

[Balance]

What a day! 
 

is that a really small medial phalanx or an absolute beast of a leg spur?!?

 

jealous! But also happy for you!  I see a bunch of goodies in there!!

 

jp

[Cris]

Great finds Jack and thanks for sharing!

I would go sloth on that tooth, and the hollow part would be the opposite to the occlusal surface. I think it may be a little too damaged to see where that surface actually was, but still a very nice find.

With the camelid tooth, I wonder if it just wore down strange due to a misalignment of teeth or something like that. I can see the odd part you're talking about.

[Shellseeker]

5 hours ago, Balance said:

What a day! 
is that a really small medial phalanx or an absolute beast of a leg spur?!?

jealous! But also happy for you!  I see a bunch of goodies in there!!

jp

Thanks, jp... The medial Phalanx

 

This Tortoise osteoderm is the largest I ever found.. At 1st I fantasized about Velociraptor.

[Shellseeker]

5 hours ago, Cris said:

Great finds Jack and thanks for sharing!

I would go sloth on that tooth, and the hollow part would be the opposite to the occlusal surface. I think it may be a little too damaged to see where that surface actually was, but still a very nice find.

With the camelid tooth, I wonder if it just wore down strange due to a misalignment of teeth or something like that. I can see the odd part you're talking about.

Thanks Cris, On the Sloth, It is just so strange not to see something like this...

or even one of Harry's juvenile teeth like upper left or lower right below....

 

On the Camelid tooth....

ere is a Palaeolama mirifica m3 from last February... Note that it is about 3/4 ths the size of yesterday's tooth. Makes me lean to Hemiauchenia.

[Shellseeker]

Here is a sorted photo of all finds.

 

172 shark teeth (109 Bull Dusky, 36 Tigers,  15 other, 8 Hemi, 4 Mako)... 

I wondered if this was a Sloth skin dermal...

 

Maybe a claw core... I can always imagine...

 

A couple of angles..

 

A very fun day.. On days when I do not find much, I have a decade of great memories to maintain perspective...

[Brandy Cole]

Some great finds, Jack! Even on your 'bad days,' you still find plenty to make me envy you!

[Harry Pristis]

 

Good images!  I think what you have here, Jack, is a severely-worn cow tooth.  That is, so worn that the isolated stylid basal attachment has disappeared.  It's not a camelid tooth.

  The cow tooth below is very worn, so worn that the stylid attachment is reduced to the loop you can see.  Your find is worn considerably beyond this tooth.

[Shellseeker]

2 hours ago, Harry Pristis said:

Good images!  I think what you have here, Jack, is a severely-worn cow tooth.  That is, so worn that the isolated stylid basal attachment has disappeared.  It's not a camelid tooth.

  The cow tooth below is very worn, so worn that the stylid attachment is reduced to the loop you can see.  Your find is worn considerably beyond this tooth.

 

Thanks Harry, 

I have just remeasured..  APL 35, Width 15, Height 36, Crown Height 11 mm. I'll send Photos & measurements to Richard Hulbert to attempt confirmation.  What ever the ID,  it seems to be an interesting tooth to keep. 

Do you think the tooth below is camelid ?

 

[Harry Pristis]

 

I think this is a bovid m3 also, Jack.  I have several of these homologous teeth in front of me at the moment, and bovid (cow) is the best match.  It's that third cusp that doesn't match the camelids and does better match the bovid form.

[Balance]

The Bos strikes again!! 
 

[Carl]

Not a sloth tooth. A sperm whale tooth, as far as I can tell.

[Harry Pristis]

22 minutes ago, Carl said:

Not a sloth tooth. A sperm whale tooth, as far as I can tell.

 

I think it is a sloth tooth.  Jack has it right when he posits a juvenile tooth.  These teeth don't erupt with occlusal wear; they are rounded before use.  The teeth in sloths erupt as simple cones and acquire the cusp pattern characteristic of each species through wear caused by movements of the masticatory muscles.  Further, the thin exterior shell of orthodentine is characteristic of xenarthrans.

[Harry Pristis]

Here are the ones I could hold to photograph, Jack.  Can you say which one or ones may be camel and which may be bovid?

[Shellseeker]

22 hours ago, Shellseeker said:

Thanks Harry, 

I have just remeasured..  APL 35, Width 15, Height 36, Crown Height 11 mm.

I'll send Photos & measurements to Richard Hulbert to attempt confirmation.  What ever the ID,  it seems to be an interesting tooth to keep. 

 xx

 

 

Quote

These are both llama, genus Hemiauchenia. Probably H. macrocephala, but there is a second, larger species in the Blancan, the appropriately named H. blancoensis.

Very heavily and somewhat pathologically worn left lower m3 and slightly worn right upper M1 or M2. The filagree that you mention is the beginning of the coat of cement.   Richard

Well,  @Harry Pristis,  I'll leave any follow up on the left lower m3 to your judgement.  On the right upper M1/M2,  I somehow convinced myself it was an M3,  but I'll try to figure out what Richard sees. 

[Shellseeker]

38 minutes ago, Harry Pristis said:

Here are the ones I could hold to photograph, Jack.  Can you say which one or ones may be camel and which may be bovid?

 

You are correct ,  Harry... I do not have a good rational for how to differentiate between Bos and Camelid.

1) I sort of depend on Camelids not having a stylid...

2) The other idea that Camelids have more of a "V" shape  and BOS a figure 8 , smile.

But providing differences that lead to true IDs I would find difficult...    Jack

[Carl]

18 hours ago, Harry Pristis said:

 

I think it is a sloth tooth.  Jack has it right when he posits a juvenile tooth.  These teeth don't erupt with occlusal wear; they are rounded before use.  The teeth in sloths erupt as simple cones and acquire the cusp pattern characteristic of each species through wear caused by movements of the masticatory muscles.  Further, the thin exterior shell of orthodentine is characteristic of xenarthrans.

I will absolutely default to your opinion. I retract my overly confident assertion. Thanks!

[Harry Pristis]

17 hours ago, Shellseeker said:

The filagree that you mention is the beginning of the coat of cement.   Richard

 

  I don't know the nature of the "filagree" on your camelid tooth, Jack.  But, I am surprised at the identification as "the beginning of the coat of cement."

  First, the coat of cementum is the last deposit on the tooth while still in the crypt.  This tooth is clearly erupted and worn; it can't be "the beginning."  A thin coat of cementum is lost quickly after eruption of the tooth.

  Second, camelids don't have a thick, supporting layer of cementum as do bovids and equus.  Have you ever before recovered a camel tooth with residual traces of cementum?  I haven't.

  Third, your very good image gives the impression that the filagree is IN the enamel, not overlaying it.  Again, this is my impression from the image.  What do you think?

[Shellseeker]

1 hour ago, Harry Pristis said:

I don't know the nature of the "filagree" on your camelid tooth, Jack.  But, I am surprised at the identification as "the beginning of the coat of cement."

  First, the coat of cementum is the last deposit on the tooth while still in the crypt.  This tooth is clearly erupted and worn; it can't be "the beginning."  A thin coat of cementum is lost quickly after eruption of the tooth.

  Second, camelids don't have a thick, supporting layer of cementum as do bovids and equus.  Have you ever before recovered a camel tooth with residual traces of cementum?  I haven't.

  Third, your very good image gives the impression that the filagree is IN the enamel, not overlaying it.  Again, this is my impression from the image.  What do you think?

Harry, 

Observations,  I wish you could hold it in your hand, but

1) I have never previously found any tooth that has this type of cementum.

2) More specifically, the left loph has slight wear from an opposing tooth

3) Tip of my fingernail moving across the surface encountered "bumps", so it seems that the "filagree" is on rather than in the surface

4) I am confused that there are NO roots... also the bottom of the enamel does not seem broken.  I had another person, who bought and sold fossils and was the President of my local fossil club suggested that this tooth was "in the crypt under  under another tooth that was being pushed out, and that is what caused the slight wear on the top of this tooth".  

 

I am way out of my depth of knowledge here,  Harry

 

[Harry Pristis]

  I was asking if you had recovered a camel tooth with any sort of remnant cementum, not necessarily with this filagree, Jack.  🤨

  I was suggesting that the filagree is raised enamel, that it is not a layer of different material on the enamel.  If it is raised enamel, the phenomenon occurred in the crypt.

  You have been mis-informed about the eruption of permanent teeth.  Osteoclasts destroy the roots of the deciduous tooth so that it falls out, then hydrostatic pressure from the surrounding tissue forces the permanent tooth into place.  This is the process for most mammals, including humans.  There is no pushing or wear on the tooth in the crypt.

  Your tooth has erupted and is worn.  Therefor it cannot be the "beginning" of a cementum layer, a step which happens in the tooth crypt.

  I cannot see the root of your tooth.  Do you think it is a deciduous tooth that has roots destroyed by osteoclasts?  That would explain the rootlessness and the wear, though not the filagree.

[Shellseeker]

Harry, 

I took a look at 10-15 Llama teeth.. Almost all of them have clean enamel without cementum.

Here is one that has something on the enamel.  So my general view is that Llama teeth have clean enamel.

 

I had this tooth where there was some discussion of cementum on the root area creeping up the enamel.

 

 

Photos of the Root area:

[Harry Pristis]

So, your experience is the same as mine -- no cementum.  I think Hulbert did not give your mystery a lot of thought.

It appears that your tooth did have roots.  The tooth must have been newly erupted considering how thin the roots were.  Filling in the pulp cavity, including the roots, with dentine is a process that continues during a lifetime.

1 hour ago, Shellseeker said:

Photos of the Root area: