Frank Menser Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Interesting day today. The Paleontologist fossil prepper I have been waiting to see for a couple months arrived and went over some of my unIDed material. He confirmed the Mastodon tooth fragments I have from the GMR were indeed that. Of particular interest was the tooth (below) from the GMR that appeared on this forum back in March and sparked some speculation. He is going to show the pics to his colleges, but his opinion was that this is a Smilodon Gracilis tooth, or to be precise, a section of the upper tooth and root. If this is confirmed it places this species well to the north of its range which is known to extend to S. Carolina. Be true to the reality you create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 hmmm i cant wait to see what the others say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleoRon Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 A pic of the other side of the specimen would be helpful but from the pics you have posted I still think it's walrus or possibly whale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Menser Posted April 14, 2009 Author Share Posted April 14, 2009 attachment=23445:IMG_4220.JPG] Here's the other side and a couple more end views. More than 50% of the tooth is present, which shows it to be far too slender to be a sloth tooth. Also, the curve is wrong. The curve is an exact match for a sabercat. The reason I was anxious for this guy to see the tooth is because he has a Masters and has collected and assembled sabrecats for the museums. I am also very interested in what the people he works with will say. As far as whale teeth go, seen and collected a lot of them. Nothing at all like this tooth. Note that none have the curve this has. Walrus was ruled out last time this thread ran-again this tooth frag is too slender and curved. [ Be true to the reality you create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleoRon Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 That pic of the other side did the trick. It's a piece of walrus tusk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 ok, look, here's the deal. i pretty much have a policy of never being "sure" what most little pieces of things are or aren't. why? well, it isn't necessary to be sure of everything, and i don't like being wrong. but at any rate, when trying to evaluate teeth pieces, i first tend to look at texture, and how they mineralized. in the current example, it does not look like enamel to me, and it also doesn't look like dentin. and it clearly doesn't look like cementum, or bone. for this reason, an ivory-type material does come to mind as the next most likely thing. beyond that, i would not say what it is. but i will say that i'd bet tj's collection that it isn't a normal tooth with enamel from anything. walrus fits into the category of things it could be from. smilodon does not, in my mind. having said all that, i am not the walrus, i have not assembled smilodon skulls, i don't have a masters, and the people i work with would look at me very strangely if i asked their opinion on this matter. but i did stay at a hypothetical inn last nite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Menser Posted April 14, 2009 Author Share Posted April 14, 2009 [ attachment=23468:Hoplohon...iver__SD.JPG] PaleoRon, This is turning into a case of, "no it's not, yes it is." I thought this was a Sloth tooth when I first found it. Walrus was rulled out early as the shape, the curve and even the grain is wrong. A walrus tusk of that size is more than twice as thick as this is. If you look at the edge on shot more than 50% of the tooth is present so we know this. The tooth is more blade-like than tusk-like. I can only say I wish you were here so you could have comparred (like we did) the tooth with the walrus and the cats pictured above, because frankly it's a different thing when you are holding it in your hand. I am curious, what makes you think this is walrus? ? Be true to the reality you create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barefootgirl Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I just wanted to comment on the other "Cat" in the picture. Cats are supposed to have fur and he/she looks miserable without it. Poor Kitty. In formal logic, a contradiction is the signal of defeat: but in the evolution of real knowledge, it marks the first step in progress toward victory. Alfred North Whithead 'Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Menser Posted April 14, 2009 Author Share Posted April 14, 2009 That's a Sphynx Cat. We have three. Be true to the reality you create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I can't remember what I said about this last time, but as far as walrus goes - Extinct walrus from the N. Atlantic (Ontocetus emmonsi) did not have tusks that were as 'inflated' (i.e. with a round cross section). Additionally, their tusks were much more curved than modern walrus (Odobenus rosmarus). In fact, the tusks of the N. Atlantic Ontocetus emmonsi had tusks with identical curvature to this specimen. The skull you were comparing it with is Odobenus, and thus not the best thing to compare it with as far as walruses go (but you work with what you've got). Additionally, the medial surface of walrus tusks are often flat, so morphology alone at this point cannot rule out walrus. The real kicker, which is what I suspect PaleoRon jumped at, is the different type of dentine in the middle of the tooth. The photo of the other side shows a different type of dentine, which has a different pattern in the photo. Walruses have a 'core' of globular dentine in their tusk. If you can see little 1-3mm 'blobs' of dentine, which I can almost make out in the photo, then it is 100% walrus. This type of dental tissue is unique to derived walruses (Tribe Odobenini, which includes Ontocetus, Valenictus, and Odobenus). After seeing that side, I am fairly convinced that this tusk represents Ontocetus emmonsi (formerly known as Alachtherium). In any event, I think walruses are way more interesting than Machairodontids any way. Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Menser Posted April 14, 2009 Author Share Posted April 14, 2009 Boesse, Thanks for the info, gives us a definite road to look down. The tooth has a definite difference between the smooth outer layer which is approx 1cm thick and the center (also 1 cm). I cannot make out any globules, just a rough bumpy texture, but then this has been in the river a long time and fairly polished on that side. Probably would be a lot more conclusive in person with someone with better eyes than mine. The grain on out side of the Odobennus tusk was nothing like this. I am anxious to see if Ontocetus emmonsi is closer. Been unable to find tusk photos on line, but am looking in my books. My expert will be back on Thursday and I will go over it again with him then. Be true to the reality you create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleoRon Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I just went through some boxes and I managed to find some of my walrus material. Most of the pics are of pieces from GMR but the one that looks like a cat "sabre" is from a river in N.C. The river specimen looks nearly complete but it has lost almost all of the outer layer with only a few slivers left. One not so great pic shows the "bubbly" formation of the core material. There have been several types of walrus through the ages that had variations on tusk size and shape. The near complete specimen I saw from GMR was fairly strongly curved just like the pieces I have, and also your specimen. Keep in mind that if your "expert" is not familiar with the different species of walrus he will not recognise what he has never seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleoRon Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Continued . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Frank . . . I've gone over your more recent images, and I believe that the tooth fragment does not appear to be a cat saber. Neither the exterior nor the broken interior resembles anything cat-like, in my estimation. For a cat saber, I would have wanted some evidence of serrations or of a smooth, narrow pulp cavity. The texture also appears wrong for a cat. I cannot say absolutely that it is walrus, but Ron and Bobby have made reasonable arguments. Having eliminated all other possibilities, and choosing between walrus tusk and cat saber, all the evidence suggests walrus to me. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 really, this is what's so great about this forum. the expertise; the comparative specimens. i am so eternally grateful to al gore and anson for making this possible. oh, and you brainiacs - you know who you are... coo coo ca choo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greel Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I just went through some boxes and I managed to find some of my walrus material. Most of the pics are of pieces from GMR but the one that looks like a cat "sabre" is from a river in N.C. The river specimen looks nearly complete but it has lost almost all of the outer layer with only a few slivers left. One not so great pic shows the "bubbly" formation of the core material. There have bee n several types of walrus through the ages that had variations on tusk size and shape. The near complete specimen I saw from GMR was fairly strongly curved just like the pieces I have, and also your specimen. Keep in mind that if your "expert" is not familiar with the different species of walrus he will not recognise what he has never seen. PaleoRon, Is the sabre cat tooth the last two pics, while all above those, walrus? Fantastic fossils and information. I appreciate your efforts on educating the forum. Thanks. -greel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Menser Posted April 14, 2009 Author Share Posted April 14, 2009 Frankly, this is what I was hoping for when I joined this forum. One thing I have learned in my time working with exotic snakes is not to jump on an ID unless there is compelling evidence to back it up. I may seem obstinate, but I do like to see proof or a reasonable arguement in support of a statement, not just, "I say it is." I can clearly see from the pics where Ron and Bobby are coming from. Of the cross section shots the third pic looks most like it, but no sign of any globules like in the last shot. Unfortunately, there are no serations visable if they were there as what would be the cutting edge of this tooth is the most damaged. Also my expert says the piece looks to be mostly root. As for him, most of his work has been with Sabers from the mid west. He has also worked with Smilodons. Don't know how much he knows on walrus. On the external shots 1 & 2 are curved pretty close to this. None of the pics have the same external texture (grain), which is very close to the sabercat fossils I have here. Given that there are several varieties of walrus, this variance suggests that it could be a different species than what is shown in Ron's pics. Judging by the amount of the outter cross section present, complete it would measure 1 1/4" high x 3/8" thick My expert is taking this to his boss who is (to my understanding) one of the top "cat" men. He should be able to rule out sabers if this is the case. In all, I would have to say (not being an expert in this area) that there are some pretty good arguements presented here to support Walrus. I do regret that you all are not here to pour over this thing in person. Ironically, those pics Ron posted confirm the ID of another piece I collected near my home as definitely a walrus tusk... I really thank you guys for taking the time to "get into this." Be true to the reality you create. 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