Othniel C. Marsh Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 Below are two Pleistocene mammal teeth from "river gravels" in Florida. I have to further information on their age or locality, unfortunately. The left was merely identified as a "mammal tooth", and I strongly suspect it is from Trichechus manatus, but I have very little experience with mammal dentition and as such thought it would be best to check with someone with greater expertise in the field first. The right tooth was identified as a "peccary tooth", but given the fact that a number of tayassuids were present in Pleistocene Florida I wondered if the tooth could be identified to a genus, or better yet a species level. I will now take the liberty of "@ing in" a few people: @Harry Pristis and @Shellseeker Thanks in advance for any proposed ID's Othniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SawTooth Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 It would be much easier to identify your two teeth if each one was individual and up close, along with much better lighting, taking pictures outdoors with natural lighting can help with this. The left fossil is possibly tapir, as for the second I can't make out much detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellseeker Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 Manatee is not a strong suit because I do not find them.. #1 looks a little like dugong.. #2 is is modern pig or peccary... HARD to differentiate... This is peccary 3 The White Queen ".... in her youth she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 Cropped and brightened: Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS_Rex Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 The left looks similar to some unworn manatee teeth I’ve seen. The right, with its 4ish cusp and wear build, does look more peccary than pig. That’s just my opinion and mammals are not my strongest subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othniel C. Marsh Posted March 14 Author Share Posted March 14 (edited) 3 hours ago, SawTooth said: It would be much easier to identify your two teeth if each one was individual and up close, along with much better lighting, taking pictures outdoors with natural lighting can help with this. The left fossil is possibly tapir, as for the second I can't make out much detail. I did take them in natural light but it wasn't quite bright enough, hence I used flash as well. 3 hours ago, Shellseeker said: Manatee is not a strong suit because I do not find them.. #1 looks a little like dugong.. #2 is is modern pig or peccary... HARD to differentiate... This is peccary I'll have to do some more research on sirenian dentition, as I never considered Dugong. By peccary do you mean Dicotyles, Platygonus or Mylohyus, @Shellseeker? Edited March 14 by Othniel C. Marsh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellseeker Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 I have never found Dicotyles, I do not think it is in Florida's fossil record. I have found exactly one Platygonus tooth. I have found numerous modern wild pig teeth teeth and a few that I have managed to identify as Mylohyus. They tend to be found in the Peace River, but are pretty rare even there. 1 The White Queen ".... in her youth she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othniel C. Marsh Posted March 14 Author Share Posted March 14 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Shellseeker said: I have never found Dicotyles, I do not think it is in Florida's fossil record. Dicotyles is in fact represented in Florida's fossil record, but the only documented material was discovered quite recently, in 2009, and therefore it is safe to assume Dicotyles is very rare in Florida. Here's a paper on the matter: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257618845_Collared_peccary_Mammalia_Artiodactyla_Tayassuidae_Pecari_from_the_late_Pleistocene_of_Florida 34 minutes ago, Shellseeker said: I have found numerous modern wild pig teeth Modern wild pig as in Sus scrofa or S. domesticus? I didn't know either were in Florida during the Pleistocene. The only extant porcines in Florida I know of are those introduced by Europeans in the 1500s. Edited March 14 by Othniel C. Marsh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellseeker Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 5 hours ago, Othniel C. Marsh said: Dicotyles is in fact represented in Florida's fossil record, but the only documented material was discovered quite recently, in 2009, and therefore it is safe to assume Dicotyles is very rare in Florida. Here's a paper on the matter: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257618845_Collared_peccary_Mammalia_Artiodactyla_Tayassuidae_Pecari_from_the_late_Pleistocene_of_Florida Modern wild pig as in Sus scrofa or S. domesticus? I didn't know either were in Florida during the Pleistocene. The only extant porcines in Florida I know of are those introduced by Europeans in the 1500s. Thank you for the paper. To my knowledge , I have not found Dicotyles teeth. We have a huge number of wild pigs in Florida introduced by Europeans in the 1500s. Some of them can get quite large and aggressive. I believe them to be Sus scrofa. Obviously they die and contribute bones and teeth to the Peace River and every other place in Florida. I think that their teeth are very similar to Mylohyus. 1 The White Queen ".... in her youth she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othniel C. Marsh Posted March 15 Author Share Posted March 15 I have, after licking the pig tooth, discovered that it is indeed a fossil, which removes any representatives of Sus from consideration given their very (geologically) recent arrival in Florida. Dicotyles also appears to be immensely rare in Florida, and therefore it is very unlikely my tooth is from one. This leaves only Platygonus and Mylohyus as potential candidates for the tayassuid tooth. With regards to the sirenian tooth, what features lead you to identify it as Dugong as opposed to Trichechus, @Shellseeker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fin Lover Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 1 hour ago, Othniel C. Marsh said: I have, after licking the pig tooth, discovered that it is indeed a fossil, which removes any representatives of Sus from consideration given their very (geologically) recent arrival in Florida. Unfortunately, the lick test is not an accurate way to determine if something is a fossil...especially with teeth. 1 Fin Lover My favorite things about fossil hunting: getting out of my own head, getting into nature and, if I’m lucky, finding some cool souvenirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othniel C. Marsh Posted March 15 Author Share Posted March 15 Is there a means by which fossil teeth can be distinguished from recent ones (preferably without damaging the specimen)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellseeker Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 7 hours ago, Othniel C. Marsh said: I have, after licking the pig tooth, discovered that it is indeed a fossil, which removes any representatives of Sus from consideration given their very (geologically) recent arrival in Florida. Dicotyles also appears to be immensely rare in Florida, and therefore it is very unlikely my tooth is from one. This leaves only Platygonus and Mylohyus as potential candidates for the tayassuid tooth. With regards to the sirenian tooth, what features lead you to identify it as Dugong as opposed to Trichechus, @Shellseeker? Note the difference in my responses for the 2 teeth... On 3/14/2024 at 1:25 PM, Shellseeker said: Manatee is not a strong suit because I do not find them.. #1 looks a little like dugong.. #2 is is modern pig or peccary... HARD to differentiate... On #2 is a Statement that your tooth is Pig or Peccary.... that is an identification. The 1st sentence indicates that my identification of a Manatee tooth should be suspect, but that of the fauna I do find yours looks most like a Dugong... That is a suggestion to look up dugong molars and determine if you think they are similar. Your tooth is very worn but is essentially a square molar without roots, that has 4 humps, now worn down. If you found a Dugong tooth from the same position (m1) down to the same amount , it might look very similar just based on the fact that both are Sirenians. 1 The White Queen ".... in her youth she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandy Cole Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 8 hours ago, Othniel C. Marsh said: I have, after licking the pig tooth, discovered that it is indeed a fossil, As Fin Lover stated, this test has no bearing on whether a tooth is a fossil. Unfortunately, many Internet sites still falsely promote it, although I'm sure they're well-meaning. At most, licking may help differentiate porous from non-porous material. Porosity is a helpful factor in differentiating bone from rock. That's why some people suggesting licking things. However, not every porous object is bone, and not every bone is a fossil. Also, some rocks like limestone have a porous texture, which means they're not fossil, but they would seem like one if you're relying on the lick test. Then, since most of a tooth is enamel, and enamel isn't really supposed to be porous--that's why the test would be even less useful for teeth. On top of that, your tongue is really not much better than your eyes or fingers at determining whether an object is porous. And looking at/touching the object are preferred because they don't involve the same level of exposure to harmful substances and infections that comes from licking items. Any items that come from rivers are prone to harboring harmful parasites, bacteria, and viruses. Licking them is dangerous for those reasons. 7 hours ago, Othniel C. Marsh said: Is there a means by which fossil teeth can be distinguished from recent ones (preferably without damaging the specimen)? The only sure-fire way to confirm that a tooth is a fossil is to use its physical/visible characteristics to identify it to a species that is extinct in your area. However, occasionally the coloring of the cementum and crenellations in the enamel may be clues that a tooth is relatively old. If your tooth lacks enough detail to confirm the ID visually, then shellseeker may have narrowed the ID down as far as it can be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othniel C. Marsh Posted March 16 Author Share Posted March 16 6 hours ago, Shellseeker said: Note the difference in my responses for the 2 teeth... Apologies, I misinterpreted your original answer entirely. Your help is much appreciated. 12 hours ago, Fin Lover said: Unfortunately, the lick test is not an accurate way to determine if something is a fossil...especially with teeth. 5 hours ago, Brandy Cole said: As Fin Lover stated, this test has no bearing on whether a tooth is a fossil. I see. Thanks for informing me. 1 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