What Is This Fossil Found on a Beach in Victoria?

  • Thread starter Thread starter figjam616
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
A fossil resembling jaw and teeth was discovered on a beach in Venus Bay, Victoria, Australia. Initial observations suggest the teeth appear carnivorous, but further analysis is needed to determine its classification. The fossil's mineralization state is debated, with implications for dating; if it is still bone, carbon dating can be applied, but if mineralized, it cannot be accurately dated. The fossil may belong to a local mammal species, and consultation with a paleontologist is recommended. Additional discussions include comparisons to belemnites and speculation about the fossil's age, with estimates ranging from thousands to millions of years. A separate user found a potential fossil near the San Fernando mountain range in California, prompting suggestions to consult local paleontology departments for further investigation.
figjam616
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone!
The fossil was found on a beach in Victoria, Australia.
I have no idea what it is or how old, so if someone has an idea, let's hear it.
It "looks" like jaw/teeth. Also the teeth "look" carnivorous.
Cheers!

...trying to upload pics, but none of the icons work...
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
While editing post go to advanced mode, look for Managing attachments buttons below edit box.
 
Thanks for the help, but i click on 'edit' post i don't see any option for 'advanced mode'
 
The button says "Go Advanced".
 
Are you trying to attach a picture, as in upload it to the PF server, or link to a picture hosted elsewhere? The Icon that looks like a picture frame that says "insert image" is only for linking to a picture. To attach an image, you must scroll down to "Additional options", under "attach files", select "manage attachments", then follow instructions.

If you can't find the "Go Advanced" button next to the "Save" button, then just start a new thread and follow my instructions for the picture option you need.
 
The problem was none of the icons/buttons/fonts settings would do anything when clicked on.
However the problem has righted itself, so the website or my pc was having s*** fit at the time.
 
figjam616 said:
The problem was none of the icons/buttons/fonts settings would do anything when clicked on.
However the problem has righted itself, so the website or my pc was having s*** fit at the time.
So, will you be posting pictures?
 
Ok here we go...
 

Attachments

  • P10104671.jpg
    P10104671.jpg
    44.3 KB · Views: 625
  • P1010465.jpg
    P1010465.jpg
    37.2 KB · Views: 639
  • P1010462.jpg
    P1010462.jpg
    36 KB · Views: 620
another to judge the size
 

Attachments

  • P1010468.jpg
    P1010468.jpg
    45.7 KB · Views: 666
  • #10
Teeth! Did I guess correctly?

Seriously, nice set, where did you find them? I'm guessing you chipped the rock out between them?
 
  • #11
Evo said:
Teeth! Did I guess correctly?

Seriously, nice set, where did you find them? I'm guessing you chipped the rock out between them?

You sure did, well I'm pretty sure it is...
Nope haven't done anything to it. Found washed up on the beach, as is, In Venus Bay, Victoria, Australia.
Any clue on what it is?
 
  • #12
The question is relayed to an expert.
 
  • #13
No idea what it could be, but shape of teeth and their placement is always a very characteristic feature - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dentition#Dental_formula


[armchair analysis]
I hope Andre's expert will tell us more - the way I see it incisors are not present (most likely destroyed), then there are fangs - and then each half of the jaw looks different, even if they should be identical. Could be this particular specimen ignored his dentist for too long. I have a feeling molars looks wide, as if they were used for chewing and grinding, predators molars are more narrow as they are used as scissors. So it was either herbivore or omnivore. That's mostly speculation, but I would love to know how close/far I was :smile:
[/armchair analysis]
 
  • #14
So my expert, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/290/5499/2062 is not familiar with this species, which means that several 10,000s Pleistocene mammal species can be considered eliminated. He thinks that it could be from a local mammal species from the Australian fauna and he urges to consult a local paleonthologist. It could be interesting.
 
  • #15
Interesting...
Does he have an idea as to how old it might be? I've got no idea how long it takes to 'make' a fossil :rolleyes:
 
  • #16
In the first photograph the structures which resemble teeth look very much like belemnites which are fossilised squid type creatures.
 
  • #17
Meanwhile I have forwarded the pix to the senior fellow of the paleontologic section of the Australian museum.

http://tinypic.com/r/96ap6p/7
http://tinypic.com/r/2mwxm5l/7
http://tinypic.com/r/33yhkpu/7
http://tinypic.com/r/wi0yt1/7

(entered the links for easy access to all)

figjam616 said:
Interesting...
Does he have an idea as to how old it might be? I've got no idea how long it takes to 'make' a fossil :rolleyes:

Well, is this fossil partly or completely mineralized (petrified)? You can judge that by weight, bones are very light. It looks like it is petrified, but it's hard to judge from those pix.

If it's still bone, it's easy to carbon date. If it is mineralized it's not datable anymore. You can only estimate a minimum time required to mineralize, which is likely dependent on a lot of factors. Fossil bones in Northern Siberia can still be bones after more than 60,000 years, the maximum extend of carbon dating. However bones of a 40-50,000 year old fauna in the North Sea, can be partly mineralized. Bones in Florida seem to mineralize in 10,000 years, so that latter could be a reasonable guess for the minimum age, but it also means that it could be millions of years.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Andre said:
Well, is this fossil partly or completely mineralized (petrified)? You can judge that by weight, bones are very light. It looks like it is petrified, but it's hard to judge from those pix.

definately feels heavier than what normal bones of that size should, thanks for helping me out with this!

couple more closer pics
 

Attachments

  • P1010472.jpg
    P1010472.jpg
    36.9 KB · Views: 587
  • P1010471.jpg
    P1010471.jpg
    48.7 KB · Views: 558
  • P1010470.jpg
    P1010470.jpg
    34 KB · Views: 538
  • #19
some more...
 

Attachments

  • P1010474.jpg
    P1010474.jpg
    42.5 KB · Views: 515
  • P1010473.jpg
    P1010473.jpg
    38.9 KB · Views: 549
  • #20
Nice find - it might be the skull of something similar to a tapir.
 
  • #21
Andre said:
Meanwhile I have forwarded the pix to the senior fellow of the paleontologic section of the Australian museum.


Andre, have you heard anything back yet?
Cheers
 
  • #22
Sorry nothing yet, I'll try others.
 
  • #23
I have also stumbled across something that, in my mind, seems like an exciting find. As I looked down, I could see a clear shape of a large head and mouth. At the base of the head appeared to be a hollowed out area where a neck would have been. I found this after a heavy rain. I would grateful for someone to take a look at the attached photos and let me know if I'm out of my mind - which may very well be likely. The close up pic is of the mouth and what I would imagine are fossilized teeth.

Thanks for any reply.

Jerry

If you have trouble with the attachments, the pics can be viewed at the link below as well.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20848952@N02/sets/72157631134267906/
 

Attachments

  • headandneck1.jpg
    headandneck1.jpg
    110.8 KB · Views: 543
  • headandneck2.jpg
    headandneck2.jpg
    104.8 KB · Views: 552
  • cumouth.jpg
    cumouth.jpg
    113.8 KB · Views: 541
  • #24
Hi mcjerry, interesting find. It would help if you said where you found this.
 
  • #25
Hi mcjerry

Take a magnet and check that brown area. Looks like metal to me.

NQ :-)
 
  • #26
I was hiking near the San Fernando mountain range just outside of Los Angeles, California, US. I would guess maybe 500 to 600 feet above sea level. The region is a desert, remarkably dry, but a heavy rain had fallen a day or so before I discovered this. Thanks so much for taking a look. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.
 
  • #27
mcjerry said:
I was hiking near the San Fernando mountain range just outside of Los Angeles, California, US. I would guess maybe 500 to 600 feet above sea level. The region is a desert, remarkably dry, but a heavy rain had fallen a day or so before I discovered this. Thanks so much for taking a look. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.
Wow, very interesting. I have recently unearthed some fossils from much earlier than what yours would be and they had that weird orange coloring. Other fossils in nearby rocks were the expected white. I'm not sure what happened, I will probably contact the local university.

I suggest that you contact the paleontolgy department at a nearby university. Looks like a crocodile, doesn't it?
 
  • #28
Thanks for the comment. I will send the pics to a local university. So glad you see the same details of the croc. I'll post an update if I get any information.
 
  • #29
Sorry I don't think it is a croc, and those are not teeth. The structure looks as
if it is coated in a thick layer of iron, as in a concretion.
 
Back
Top