Maybe Gomph

[Shellseeker]

Actually this is to ID 3 items:

Up to this point I have never found Gomph. but this may be it. How does one differentiate between Mastodon and Gomph?

How does one differentiate between bear and jaguar canine? This one is 2.8 inches even missing the tip.

Now one I do not recognize at all. Found one almost exactly the same 6 months ago. It is 4.5 inches long, fossilized and might be tilly bone in consistency.

What is this?

[PrehistoricFlorida]

Congrats on your first piece of a gomph tooth. Post some more angles of the canine please.

[Shellseeker]

More photos of the Canine...

[Shellseeker]

Nate, Broken tip - pre-fossilization? Is it common?

[abyssunder]

gomphotheres - bunodont pattern of teeth
mammutids - zygodont pattern of teeth

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/63498-mastodon-or-gomphothere/?p=664438

Nice one, Jack !

[ynot]

Neat finds!!

Tony

[PrehistoricFlorida]

IMG_0805Canine.JPG

Nate, Broken tip - pre-fossilization? Is it common?

Can you post a pic of both the lingual and labial sides? With the tooth laying flat. You posted a decent picture of the lingual side, but not of the labial. The tip looks damaged from something other than feeding (i.e. after death). Edited May 8, 2016 by PrehistoricFlorida

[Fossil Claw]

Very nice finds!

[Shellseeker]

Additional Photos:

[PrehistoricFlorida]

It's a Tremarctine bear canine. Most likely Tremarctos floridanus, but could be a small Arctodus pristinus depending on the age of the site.

[jcbshark]

Very nice finds Jack! Congrats

[Shellseeker]

Exciting!!! Thanks for the ID Nate. We have confirmed finds of Hemiauchenia gracilis and, Nannippus peninsulatus, Eremotherium at this location, plus a tentative of P. garbani. I have always considered this site a mixture of Blancan and early Pleistocene. It has a lot of whale material also.

[jlar7607]

Jack that was supposed to be my bear canine Jack ! why did you have to find it !?

[jlar7607]

Very nice jack but do you remember the rule # 105-b instituted on 4-9-16 "the one calling the fossil even if found by someone else will receive ownership of said fossil". Need I remind you !? hmmm

[Shellseeker]

For those TFF members who may not realize it, Jlar7607 and I hunt frequently together, including at this location. While hunting and afterwards, we often "banter" about who besides the finder might have ownership rights based on the somewhat mythological and frequently quoted from memory: Queensbury ​47th Edition of the Fossil Hunter's rules of etiquette in the New World, specifically Florida Rivers and creeks.

An example might be : If the fossil hunter of the 1st part (me) finds a 4 plate segment of a mammoth tooth, and the fossil hunter of the 2nd part (Jlar) finds a nine plate segment of a VERY similar looking mammoth tooth, then who should be judged ownership of the entire 13 plate mammoth tooth? i.e Does chronological discovery time override the size of the segment found? Well, it is all adjudicated in the aforementioned Queensbury ... rules.. etc in Chapter 9 , paragraph 4 verse 5.

Jlar is attempting to invoke another rule (IF such rule actually exists...) the fossil hunter of the 2nd part (Jlar) managed to predict or wish/beg for a specific fossil (say an Arctodus pristinus Canine for example), does that predictive capability override in any fashion the actual ownership right of the fossil hunter of the 1st part (me) who actually found said fossil?

While these point may seem like trivial pursuits, they do carry some weight when dealing with Fossil Hunter relationships and etiquette out on the river. It is not always possible to remember the rules exactly!!

In the meantime, thanks to all the congratulatory and friendly comments on these finds. I am running a lucky streak with good friends, great locations, fantastic finds and I want to keep it going.... Shellseeker

[PrehistoricFlorida]

Exciting!!! Thanks for the ID Nate. We have confirmed finds of Hemiauchenia gracilis and, Nannippus peninsulatus, Eremotherium at this location, plus a tentative of P. garbani. I have always considered this site a mixture of Blancan and early Pleistocene. It has a lot of whale material also.

Blancan is early Pleistocene.

Given the age of the site, the tooth is most likely from a small female A. pristinus. T. floridanus is only known from the late middle Pleistocene to late Pleistocene.

[Shellseeker]

Nate,

Thanks for the ID. As good as I could anticipate...

On Blancan-Pleistocene, I have always been somewhat unsure: From Wikipedia

The start date of the Blancan has not been fully established. There is general agreement that it is between 4.9^[3] and 4.3 mya (million years ago).^[4] The often-cited GeoWhen database places it at 4.75 mya.^[1]

There is even stronger disagreement about the end of the Blancan. Some stratigraphers argue for the 1.808 mya date that corresponds better with the end of the Pliocene and the start of the Pleistocene (1.808 mya). This conforms with the extinction of Borophagus, Hypolagus, Paenemarmota, Plesippus, Nannippus, and Rhynchotherium faunal assemblage between 2.2 and 1.8 mya.^[2] Other paleontologists find continuity of the faunal assemblages well into the Pleistocene, and argue for an end date of 1.2 mya. This corresponds with the extinction of stegomastodons and related species and the appearance of mammoths in southern North America.^[5]

Sounds like there is an overlap -- and I as treating it like an Edge -- at 1.808

[PrehistoricFlorida]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. https://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/florida-vertebrate-fossils/land-mammal-ages/blancan/

I think it's safe to refer to this site as just Blancan.

[Al Dente]

. Some stratigraphers argue for the 1.808 mya date that corresponds better with the end of the Pliocene and the start of the Pleistocene (1.808 mya).

Dates for boundaries can get frustrating because boundaries are sometimes moved. The beginning of the Pleistocene was moved not too long ago to around 2.6 mya.