Here's An Easy One: Pleistocene Or Recent

[non-remanié]

OK this is probably a recent deer tooth, but I'll be damned if it doesn't look exactly like what a lot of Floridians seem to call Paleolama. If this is true, why are all the teeth that look like this out of the Peace River immediately called Paleolama when they could be much more recent? How do you guys tell especially considering that even the Pleistocene fossils from Florida are sometimes not very well permineralized?

[Harry Pristis]

OK this is probably a recent deer tooth, but I'll be damned if it doesn't look exactly like what a lot of Floridians seem to call Paleolama. If this is true, why are all the teeth that look like this out of the Peace River immediately called Paleolama when they could be much more recent? How do you guys tell especially considering that even the Pleistocene fossils from Florida are sometimes not very well permineralized?

Pretty tooth, Steve!

That's a whopper of a deer, I'd say. Among camels, only Paleolama has the crenulate enamel similar to cervids and giraffids.

If I had found that tooth in the Peace River, I'd have been proud of my unusual Paleolama tooth. As it is, why don't you tell us the story.

[PrehistoricFlorida]

far too big for deer.

[Gatorman]

Deer are much bigger up north, and I also think toothpuller has small hands makes the tooth seem larger than it really is. It does resemble a upper rear molar from a deer to me. Can't say the age without knowing where it was found it does look very old though.

[Harry Pristis]

Deer are much bigger up north, and I also think toothpuller has small hands makes the tooth seem larger than it really is. It does resemble a upper rear molar from a deer to me. Can't say the age without knowing where it was found it does look very old though.

I think I agree with Auriculatus as far as white-tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are concerned, New Jersey or Florida . . . certainly, it is too big to be a Florida white-tail.

There are, however, lots of other deer (cervids), including moose, elk, red deer, etc. Steve has not given us enough information to make any judgements about the tooth other than it's not a white-tail deer.

Since Steve has the book, THE FOSSIL VERTEBRATES OF FLORIDA, he knows all about Paleolama. I think he simply is trying to provoke conversation.

[non-remanié]

Well, I was trying to promote discussion on differentiating Pleistocene remains from recent, but I also really am not sure about the tooth. I’m definitely not putting a wager on it being Paleolama, by any means. I just can’t seem to tell for sure. It was found as float in a NJ stream. In general, we very rarely find anything recognizably Pleistocene in these streams, but there definitely is some mixed. In fact, I do have a confirmed worn deer-like vert that is most likely Pleistocene (or at least completely permineralized) from the same stream. We do find a ton of more recent deer, pig, cow, horse, etc teeth and bones and it often is very difficult to say for sure what the age is. Bones becomes permineralized very quickly in these iron rich streams that often cut through Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments rich in iron minerals. Usually I can tell right away if a tooth is recent, but this particular one is sort of in between. It does seem somewhat more solid than most of the recent teeth that fall apart or flake soon after drying. I have seen one definite Pleistocene tooth from a similar stream site in NJ and from its preservation there was no doubt that it was a Pleistocene fossil. This tooth definitely does not fit into that group though. But I have also seen some fragmentary Mastodon remains from NJ streams and some of them are not completely permineralized, sometimes even retaining a slight odor.

It seems a rather large deer to me, but I am by no means an expert. The size of the tooth is 1 5/8” x 1 3/8”. I have found many recent deer teeth in NJ streams and this one does dwarf all of them, but that could also be because this is an extreme molar or a tooth from a quite old deer. According to the NJ fish and wildlife website, the white-tailed deer is the only species of cervid currently found in NJ. Florida deer could very well be much smaller than the ones up here, I would not know anything about that. There is a possibility that this is from pre-colonial times in which there may have been larger cervids in NJ. NJ does boast the most complete Pleistocene Elk-moose specimen as well…. I have seen multiple pictures of teeth just about the same size as this one which are labeled Paleolama from Florida and this just looks exactly the same in every regard to me.

[Harry Pristis]

Well, I was trying to promote discussion on differentiating Pleistocene remains from recent, but I also really am not sure about the tooth. I’m definitely not putting a wager on it being Paleolama, by any means. I just can’t seem to tell for sure. It was found as float in a NJ stream. In general, we very rarely find anything recognizably Pleistocene in these streams, but there definitely is some mixed. In fact, I do have a confirmed worn deer-like vert that is most likely Pleistocene (or at least completely permineralized) from the same stream. We do find a ton of more recent deer, pig, cow, horse, etc teeth and bones and it often is very difficult to say for sure what the age is. Bones becomes permineralized very quickly in these iron rich streams that often cut through Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments rich in iron minerals. Usually I can tell right away if a tooth is recent, but this particular one is sort of in between. It does seem somewhat more solid than most of the recent teeth that fall apart or flake soon after drying. I have seen one definite Pleistocene tooth from a similar stream site in NJ and from its preservation there was no doubt that it was a Pleistocene fossil. This tooth definitely does not fit into that group though. But I have also seen some fragmentary Mastodon remains from NJ streams and some of them are not completely permineralized, sometimes even retaining a slight odor.

It seems a rather large deer to me, but I am by no means an expert. The size of the tooth is 1 5/8” x 1 3/8”. I have found many recent deer teeth in NJ streams and this one does dwarf all of them, but that could also be because this is an extreme molar or a tooth from a quite old deer. According to the NJ fish and wildlife website, the white-tailed deer is the only species of cervid currently found in NJ. Florida deer could very well be much smaller than the ones up here, I would not know anything about that. There is a possibility that this is from pre-colonial times in which there may have been larger cervids in NJ. NJ does boast the most complete Pleistocene Elk-moose specimen as well…. I have seen multiple pictures of teeth just about the same size as this one which are labeled Paleolama from Florida and this just looks exactly the same in every regard to me.

That's better, Steve. Now that we know where the tooth originated, we can do some deductive reasoning.

It is not Paleolama, since that is a southern form. That suggests that the tooth is from a cervid. There are a number of possibilities within this family -- moose, stag-moose, and so on. Your best bet is to find a comparison collection at a local museum and see what fits best.

As far as mineralization goes, it is unreliable for dating purposes. All but recent bones and teeth in Florida rivers are silicified by the abundant SiO2 in the groundwater (over most of the state, I think). We use the "match test" to check mineralization. If you can scorch a bone or tooth root with a lit match without producing nauseating fumes, the collagen is gone, replaced by silica.

It's a very interesting tooth. I hope you'll let us know what you find out about it!

----Harry Pristis

[non-remanié]

That's better, Steve. Now that we know where the tooth originated, we can do some deductive reasoning.

It is not Paleolama, since that is a southern form. That suggests that the tooth is from a cervid. There are a number of possibilities within this family -- moose, stag-moose, and so on. Your best bet is to find a comparison collection at a local museum and see what fits best.

As far as mineralization goes, it is unreliable for dating purposes. All but recent bones and teeth in Florida rivers are silicified by the abundant SiO2 in the groundwater (over most of the state, I think). We use the "match test" to check mineralization. If you can scortch a bone or tooth root with a lit match without producing nauseating fumes, the collagen is gone, replaced by silica.

It's a very interesting tooth. I hope you'll let us know what you find out about it!

----Harry Pristis

Oh the match test.... I am aware of it. Seems logical, but I have had very mixed results. I have a Mastodon specimen in my collection that would definitely fail the flame test. The inside of the bone is whitish and appears only slightly permineralized. The bone even has a slight odor. I did try the flame test on this tooth and the results were.... inconclusive. I have had worse fumes come off of definite miocene whale bone from the Calvert cliffs of Md.

I did miss in Hulbert's book where it says Paleolama was only a southern form, but I still would not rule it out altogether based on that. ~1000 miles of range difference doesn't seem impossible during an interglacial period. If Paleolama has only really been found in Florida and maybe a couple other southern states, then I would consider that very solid evidence. But I can't say it would be definitive.

I do think this tooth is likely cervid but I have no idea of the age. Unfortunately this is a low priority matter with me so I probably won't be reporting back soon. The Miocene land mammals as well as some other matters have to take precedence when I have comparison time. Right now, the NJSM is closed to all visitors anyway and the collection is in a state of disarray and temporary storage as they have been undergoing construction for years. I have no idea when it may be open again.

So, if you found this tooth in the Peace River, you would assume it is Paleolama since the deer in Florida are generally way too small, and Paleolama teeth are larger? Do you find completely replaced non-Pleistocene bones and teeth in the Peace River?

-steve

[Harry Pristis]

Oh the match test.... I am aware of it. Seems logical, but I have had very mixed results. I have a Mastodon specimen in my collection that would definitely fail the flame test. The inside of the bone is whitish and appears only slightly permineralized. The bone even has a slight odor. I did try the flame test on this tooth and the results were.... inconclusive. I have had worse fumes come off of definite miocene whale bone from the Calvert cliffs of Md.

Yes, Steve, that's why mineralization is unreliable for dating. All the match test can tell you is whether the bone is mineralized, not-mineralized, or somewhere in-between. If you find a not-mineralized bone where every other bit of bone is mineralized (or vice versa), you may draw an inference, but it is not iron-clad proof of anything.

I did miss in Hulbert's book where it says Paleolama was only a southern form, but I still would not rule it out altogether based on that. ~1000 miles of range difference doesn't seem impossible during an interglacial period. If Palaeolama has only really been found in Florida and maybe a couple other southern states, then I would consider that very solid evidence. But I can't say it would be definitive.

Since Hulbert only deals with Florida, I used Kurten & Anderson's PLEISTOCENE MAMMALS OF NORTH AMERICA as a basis for the assertion. Palaeolama arose in the Andes, migrated through Central America into California and the Gulf Coast. "Apparently, Palaeolama did not extend its range inland in North America...."

I do think this tooth is likely cervid but I have no idea of the age. Unfortunately this is a low priority matter with me so I probably won't be reporting back soon. The Miocene land mammals as well as some other matters have to take precedence when I have comparison time. Right now, the NJSM is closed to all visitors anyway and the collection is in a state of disarray and temporary storage as they have been undergoing construction for years. I have no idea when it may be open again.

Too bad. I guess you are a long way from the Smithsonian or the PRI in Ithica. (I think the PRI focus is on inverts, anyway; but, I'm not sure.) The simple way to handle the problem is to make casts of the tooth crown and send it to several museums.

So, if you found this tooth in the Peace River, you would assume it is Paleolama since the deer in Florida are generally way too small, and Paleolama teeth are larger? Do you find completely replaced non-Pleistocene bones and teeth in the Peace River?

-steve

If I found this tooth in the Peace River, I would be hauling my find up to the museum in Gainesville to indentify it using the comparative collection. Yes, Palaeolama is larger. Yes, Recent bones, but typically not Mio-Pliocene bones, may be not-mineralized in the Peace River.

------Harry Pristis

[non-remanié]

Yes, Steve, that's why mineralization is unreliable for dating. All the match test can tell you is whether the bone is mineralized, not-mineralized, or somewhere in-between. If you find a not-mineralized bone where every other bit of bone is mineralized (or vice versa), you may draw an inference, but it is not iron-clad proof of anything.

Thats what I figured. The main problem I have with it is that it is often relayed to somewhat newbies in fossils clubs in our area. Being a newbie probably means you don't even have enough knowledge to make an inference either way, since bone is not all over place at most fossils sites in NJ. So unreliability combined with not enough information to even make a decent inference is pretty silly if you ask me. Maybe it is just SOMETHING to shut up the people who continually ask "is this a fossil". If they were to find a Mastodon tooth or something it would be important enough and there wouldn't be any question about it.

Too bad. I guess you are a long way from the Smithsonian or the PRI in Ithica. (I think the PRI focus is on inverts, anyway; but, I'm not sure.) The simple way to handle the problem is to make casts of the tooth crown and send it to several museums.

If someone else can tell me that the tooth is definitely too large for a whitetail deer from NJ, then I will look into it further, but I am not even sure about that part.

[hedhunter72]

maybe elk? i know we had them in ohio up till the middle 1800s