Tooth

[mainland fossils]

[Randyw]

I’m sorry but thats just a rock. No fossil of any kind

[Yoda]

I am also not seeing a tooth. 

It's a rock 

[Fossildude19]

No enamel, no tooth morphology.

+1 for regular river rock.

[mainland fossils]

So here are two pieces of petrified native NZ wood. Two totally differently treated pieces. One from a valley.... looks perfect because I never rolled down a river and made it to the rolling ocean and the other from the beach which has obviously done the miles. How can you guys expect everything to look perfect. I mean especially when it's fossilised in a country that had raging volcanos then disappeared under the ocean for a very long time. Soon different to your place guys so don't be so sure

But hey, who really knows by photos too... my Al will even express that lol

[Fossildude19]

Again, there is no tooth morphology.

Tumbled teeth still look like teeth. Your item is a rock.

And Artificial Intelligence IS TERRIBLE at identifying fossils. 

[shark57]

It's just a rock. It is not even shaped like a tooth. But you can always take it to a museum if you don't want to believe us.

[Coco]

We have some New Zealanders here, and your answer seems to show a poor opinion of the dozens and dozens of highly educated professional and amateur paleontologists with 20, 30, 40, 50 years of experience, even more, who haunt this SCIENTIFIC forum. For my part I have been doing paleontology for more than 40 years...

 

Leave AI and social media aside. The AI is totally unable to recognize a fossil and say what it is, as for social networks behaviors and responses are generally far from what we expect from a real thoughtful and scientific response.

 

Document, read, expolore. One does not become a professional or highly knowledgeable paleontologist without a minimum of work, observation and research.

 

Why ask us for our opinion if it is to refute them? If you don’t believe us, take your objects to a museum and show them to a professional paleontologist. And above all COME BACK GIVE US YOUR ANSWER (for info, it does not even happen 1 time out of 100 !).

 

Coco

Edited November 19, 2024 by Coco

[doushantuo]

Mainland, we  don 't  " expect " things to be perfect "

I'm well aware of New Zealand geology ( as probably  many others here are) and that knowledge does NOT affect my judgment in any way.

What you're showing  CAN  NOT be related to reasonable assumptions about mastication, cranial mechanics or trophic ecology/diet.

In short: not a piece of dentition

Edited November 19, 2024 by doushantuo

[Mahnmut]

Hi.

The special thing about fossils is that they have been preserved over deep time against all odds.

The majority of all teeth, bones and other parts of living things have not.

If a fossil is so eroded that no features at all remain to ID it, of course its still a fossil, but debating about it becomes somewhat moot.

Your find on the other hand looks like a rock that became a little bit toothlike due to colouring mineral stains and very general shape.

I can not from fotos decide for 100% if its not a very weathered tooth, but it misses all the important markers.

Thats my opinion based on fotos and my experience.

Best regards,

J

[jpc]

I have to agree that tis is not a tooth, for the reasons others already mentioned. 

30 years ago I spent 3 months in NZ.  Loved it.  One of the first things I bought down there was this book:

 

A Field guide to New Zealand Geology by Jocelyn Thornton.  Excelllent Book. 

 

 

 

 

[Ludwigia]

No this is not a tooth. Almost all of the things you've posted so far here in the forum are not the fossils which you believe them to be, as we've been trying to point out to you for some time now, but mostly just suggestively shaped stones. I would suggest that you take some time to learn some basics about geology and paleontology.