Jamie&Jimmy Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 May sound like a dumb question.... apologies for that. Found near Jacksonville Beach while hunting for shark teeth. "Maybe it's just a lot older" didn't seem to cover it. : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 i dont think it is a tooth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Sharks Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 If indeed it is a tooth, it looks to be a posterior judging by the root-blade ratio. It also looks to be heavily water-worn There's no limit to what you can accomplish when you're supposed to be doing something else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie&Jimmy Posted September 16, 2008 Author Share Posted September 16, 2008 Thoughts on what it would be other than a tooth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 flip it over, ill be able to tell if i see the other side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jax Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 Doesnt look like a tooth to me either. I find rocks like that here in Tx and I believe they are worn pyrite. Not sure what it would be in flordia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cris Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 I wouldn't doubt it being a tooth. We have waterworn teeth all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nicholas Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 Could it be a deformed or tumor tooth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie&Jimmy Posted September 16, 2008 Author Share Posted September 16, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrehistoricFlorida Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 If indeed a tooth, a reason for it being more worn than other teeth of the same age found in the same area would be that it may have eroded from the original matrix earlier than other teeth. www.PrehistoricFlorida.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 i guess it could be a tooth, its just so worn its hard to tell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Well, it's symmetrical enough to maybe be organic, but I just don't see much about it that is toothlike (other than being triangular). "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maryland Mike Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 It's hard to tell from the picture of the back side, but is that a round indentation in the center of the back? To me the back doesn't look tooth-like at all. Also, is the front really that metallic looking or is it just the lighting in the photograph? From the photos it almost looks like some kind of waterworn purse clasp, weird shaped zipper pull or something along that line. Does it seem heavy or light for it's size compared to other similar sized teeth. If it really is as metallic looking as the first photo makes it seem, can you run a metal detector past it and see if you get a reading? Carpe Diem, Carpe Somnium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Members SafariTom Posted September 19, 2008 New Members Share Posted September 19, 2008 Id say its a ballast stone ... looks like one to me ... Tom www.safaritom.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hybodus Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 It is not a tooth... it is a cool rock maybe a chunk of Hematite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie&Jimmy Posted September 20, 2008 Author Share Posted September 20, 2008 The official word from the Department of Vertebrate Paleontology at FMNH is that it is a fossilized mammalian epiphysis - not sure of species but perhaps raccoon or some type of cat. So not a tooth, but nonetheless a fossil and a relatively unique one. : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maryland Mike Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 Very cool. Thanks for sharing the ID. Carpe Diem, Carpe Somnium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 nice find!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilFreak Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 I definitely don't want to override the other opinions provided, especially since I'm a newbie. However, your peice (although more worn) reminds me of a couple of peices I found at Edisto Beach, SC. I've been told that these are some type of skulls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommabetts Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Thanks for sharing ID with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleoRon Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 I would have to agree that it looks like a fish cranial element. I have never seen an epiphysis that robust. All that I have seen from various species, terrestrial and marine, have been thin and delicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts