Can we talk about the fossil tooth thing I found ? I’m geeking out here

mermaidshannon

Jr. Member
Aug 31, 2022
21
80
West coast for work til 2023
Detector(s) used
Intuition and tripping on things
Primary Interest:
Beach & Shallow Water Hunting
Well I went through charts and charts of every species known to the area as far back as I could to find a match on this tooth. This is the absolute closest I got. It’s important to note that when the rock broke some chips came off the fossil part as well as when I cleaned it up and gently filed the sides I discovered bone in the area I suspected it so I immediately stopped.
I have isolated the samples at matching orientations, I have also isolated and made blue transparent my fossil lay over the comparison tooth so that you may see how close it actually is.

Note that the overlay and the isolated cut were done before I gently cleaned and filed the debris from the fossil.

I think this is a pretty strong match and that’s not even factoring the slight damage done in the exact area it doesn’t perfectly line up.

Thing is , the yellow jasper was around here far back enough but the tooth doesn’t belong in the area. So it would be an interesting find to say the least.

281D54E2-B9EA-449A-905E-A8452684F3B7.png
 

Attachments

  • 0FB2FB10-6D70-46EE-A489-1358BAC81D43.jpeg
    0FB2FB10-6D70-46EE-A489-1358BAC81D43.jpeg
    161 KB · Views: 82
Last edited:
Upvote 6
OP
mermaidshannon

mermaidshannon

Jr. Member
Aug 31, 2022
21
80
West coast for work til 2023
Detector(s) used
Intuition and tripping on things
Primary Interest:
Beach & Shallow Water Hunting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #3
That's quite an analysis you did. I hope someone can help you.
You also might want to post it on the Fossil Forum.
I literally cannot find any other toothed anything that matches. Surely there’s a more reasonable explanation. I did post it there but it’ll prob just need carbon dating to be sure of anything.
 

Digger RJ

Gold Member
Aug 24, 2017
15,427
26,842
SW Missouri/Oklahoma
🥇 Banner finds
1
🏆 Honorable Mentions:
2
Detector(s) used
Minelab CTX 3030; Minelab Equinox 800;
XP Deus 2
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Well I went through charts and charts of every species known to the area as far back as I could to find a match on this tooth. This is the absolute closest I got. It’s important to note that when the rock broke some chips came off the fossil part as well as when I cleaned it up and gently filed the sides I discovered bone in the area I suspected it so I immediately stopped.
I have isolated the samples at matching orientations, I have also isolated and made blue transparent my fossil lay over the comparison tooth so that you may see how close it actually is.

Note that the overlay and the isolated cut were done before I gently cleaned and filed the debris from the fossil.

I think this is a pretty strong match and that’s not even factoring the slight damage done in the exact area it doesn’t perfectly line up.

Thing is , the yellow jasper was around here far back enough but the tooth doesn’t belong in the area. So it would be an interesting find to say the least.

View attachment 2044373
Cool!!! Congrats!!!! Hope someone can help.
 

WG2020

Sr. Member
Oct 9, 2018
456
656
SW Ohio
Detector(s) used
CTX 3030 and Equinox 800
Primary Interest:
Metal Detecting
Well I went through charts and charts of every species known to the area as far back as I could to find a match on this tooth. This is the absolute closest I got. It’s important to note that when the rock broke some chips came off the fossil part as well as when I cleaned it up and gently filed the sides I discovered bone in the area I suspected it so I immediately stopped.
I have isolated the samples at matching orientations, I have also isolated and made blue transparent my fossil lay over the comparison tooth so that you may see how close it actually is.

Note that the overlay and the isolated cut were done before I gently cleaned and filed the debris from the fossil.

I think this is a pretty strong match and that’s not even factoring the slight damage done in the exact area it doesn’t perfectly line up.

Thing is , the yellow jasper was around here far back enough but the tooth doesn’t belong in the area. So it would be an interesting find to say the least.

View attachment 2044373
Well I went through charts and charts of every species known to the area as far back as I could to find a match on this tooth. This is the absolute closest I got. It’s important to note that when the rock broke some chips came off the fossil part as well as when I cleaned it up and gently filed the sides I discovered bone in the area I suspected it so I immediately stopped.
I have isolated the samples at matching orientations, I have also isolated and made blue transparent my fossil lay over the comparison tooth so that you may see how close it actually is.

Note that the overlay and the isolated cut were done before I gently cleaned and filed the debris from the fossil.

I think this is a pretty strong match and that’s not even factoring the slight damage done in the exact area it doesn’t perfectly line up.

Thing is , the yellow jasper was around here far back enough but the tooth doesn’t belong in the area. So it would be an interesting find to say the least.

View attachment 2044373
MermaidShannon,

Welcome to TNet. Some very nice finds. Have you considered taking them to your nearest university or museum to let some of their folks to take a look. I have used these types of sources in the past and to a person them have provided valuable information and were happy to do so. Good luck with your hunts. Walt
 

releventchair

Gold Member
May 9, 2012
18,607
47,037
Primary Interest:
Other
Certainly a broken tooth. Ouch. And how?
A view of it's working surface might help. It looks well used but a view of it's surface would still help.
And a size reference.

Congrats on an oldie.
 

Red-Coat

Silver Member
Dec 23, 2019
3,789
11,980
Surrey, UK
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Welcome to Tnet.

I hate to be the naysayer here and pour cold water over your obvious enthusiasm, but I don’t think you have found a tooth of any kind. The way in which you have presented your find has also (unintentionally) misled some of the responders, I think.

Just to clarify, you found a picture on the net of a group of hominid teeth discovered in Southern China which may represent a previously unknown human ancestor tentatively named the Tongzi hominid. Those teeth are believed to be around 172,000 to 240,000 years old, with a morphology that doesn’t fit the traditional morphology of Homo erectus,

From that group picture, you have isolated one tooth which you believe has the same shape as what you found and Photoshop superimposed your find on top of it as a comparison, as well as picturing it alongside. The only teeth in your composite picture are from the web picture of the Tongzi finds. What you found may well have a similar shape to one of them, but it isn’t a tooth as far as I can tell. It only has an approximately similar shape, but no anatomical features to suggest a tooth. I’m not even convinced it’s a fossil.

Sorry, and I don’t know what it is, but it looks geological rather than palaeontological.
 
OP
mermaidshannon

mermaidshannon

Jr. Member
Aug 31, 2022
21
80
West coast for work til 2023
Detector(s) used
Intuition and tripping on things
Primary Interest:
Beach & Shallow Water Hunting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #12
MermaidShannon,

Welcome to TNet. Some very nice finds. Have you considered taking them to your nearest university or museum to let some of their folks to take a look. I have used these types of sources in the past and to a person them have provided valuable information and were happy to do so. Good luck with your hunts. Walt
I will!
 
OP
mermaidshannon

mermaidshannon

Jr. Member
Aug 31, 2022
21
80
West coast for work til 2023
Detector(s) used
Intuition and tripping on things
Primary Interest:
Beach & Shallow Water Hunting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #13
Welcome to Tnet.

I hate to be the naysayer here and pour cold water over your obvious enthusiasm, but I don’t think you have found a tooth of any kind. The way in which you have presented your find has also (unintentionally) misled some of the responders, I think.

Just to clarify, you found a picture on the net of a group of hominid teeth discovered in Southern China which may represent a previously unknown human ancestor tentatively named the Tongzi hominid. Those teeth are believed to be around 172,000 to 240,000 years old, with a morphology that doesn’t fit the traditional morphology of Homo erectus,

From that group picture, you have isolated one tooth which you believe has the same shape as what you found and Photoshop superimposed your find on top of it as a comparison, as well as picturing it alongside. The only teeth in your composite picture are from the web picture of the Tongzi finds. What you found may well have a similar shape to one of them, but it isn’t a tooth as far as I can tell. It only has an approximately similar shape, but no anatomical features to suggest a tooth. I’m not even convinced it’s a fossil.

Sorry, and I don’t know what it is, but it looks geological rather than palaeontological.
 
OP
mermaidshannon

mermaidshannon

Jr. Member
Aug 31, 2022
21
80
West coast for work til 2023
Detector(s) used
Intuition and tripping on things
Primary Interest:
Beach & Shallow Water Hunting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #14
That's quite an analysis you did. I hope someone can help you.
You also might want to post it on the Fossil Forum.
It’s being analatxe
Welcome to Tnet.

I hate to be the naysayer here and pour cold water over your obvious enthusiasm, but I don’t think you have found a tooth of any kind. The way in which you have presented your find has also (unintentionally) misled some of the responders, I think.

Just to clarify, you found a picture on the net of a group of hominid teeth discovered in Southern China which may represent a previously unknown human ancestor tentatively named the Tongzi hominid. Those teeth are believed to be around 172,000 to 240,000 years old, with a morphology that doesn’t fit the traditional morphology of Homo erectus,

From that group picture, you have isolated one tooth which you believe has the same shape as what you found and Photoshop superimposed your find on top of it as a comparison, as well as picturing it alongside. The only teeth in your composite picture are from the web picture of the Tongzi finds. What you found may well have a similar shape to one of them, but it isn’t a tooth as far as I can tell. It only has an approximately similar shape, but no anatomical features to suggest a tooth. I’m not even convinced it’s a fossil.

Sorry, and I don’t know what it is, but it looks geological rather than palaeontological.
thank you for pointing out that I worked really hard to find a tooth like what I might have although I feel kind of roasted but in the nicest way I know I don’t know enough about geology or paleontology to be upset about it. It’s being analyzed in person by experts now but they do believe it is possibly an tooth. Just not that old. We will know soon I guess but if it’s significant I don’t even know if I’ll get it back because I found it at the beach.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Discussions

Top