Tooth find in Upper Peninsula of Mi, Big tooth from unknown Options

[Robert]

I'd advise you (and anyone you know) to STOP going to this dentist!

LOL!

Remind me someday to tell you all my quack dentist stories. I've run into quite a few.

[Flashman]

Remind me someday to tell you all my quack dentist stories. I've run into quite a few.

Hey now, I was in dorms with some dental students, really nice guys, offered to share their bong with me on multiple occasions.

[Saskeptic]

I'd advise you (and anyone you know) to STOP going to this dentist!

You beat me to it. I started drafting this response and then somebody waltzed into my office with some sort of distracting question.

Merganser, trust the Apeman. Your "tooth" is not a tooth, and it's embarrassing for your dentist to conclude otherwise. (Of course, your dentist could be cut some slack for a lifetime looking at teeth rather than distal tibial epiphyses from large ungulates, but still.)

[socaldave]

You would think a dentist would know the difference between a tooth and and a non tooth bone?

[StoneyRocks]

....than distal tibial epiphyses from large ungulates....

Couldn't you just say leg bone of a deer?....

[Saskeptic]

Couldn't you just say leg bone of a deer?....

Strunk and White would've nailed me for not placing a comma between "distal" and "tibial."

[Apeman]

One last effort... only because I actually gathered these pics before I found what I thought was the clear clincher.

Since this forum (ideally) aims to face skepticism with solid evidence and logical arguments, and we shouldn't expect anyone to accept an 'appeal to authority' be that by your trusted dentist or by a shrouded (and overly-confident) bigfoot forum participant of unknown credentials, here is my reasoning.

There are four obvious characteristics of this object that help distinguish between a tooth and a bone:

1. The shape of the "upper" part of the object (as photographed) though seemingly odd and similar to a tooth actually matches (perfectly) the bottom end of the "shin" bone (tibia) of a cow-type animal. It is also the right size. The thin, sharpish point would probably be a little fragile for a cheek tooth but matches (almost perfectly) the malleolus (funny protruding process on the side of the ankle) of an ungulate tibia.

2. The upper part (above the 'crack') of the object is fairly evenly porous (has little holes, some for blood vessels) like a bone and not like a tooth, which would be solid enamel (except for carries/"cavities")- the hardest part of the body.

3. The object has a clear, even width (but undulating path), continuous, deep 'crack'- 100% consistent with a physis (bone separation at a growth plate) and totally inconsistent with the crown/root or cemento-enamel junction, which is normally an overlapping (rather than abutting) junction and is usually a very solid seam, not a perfectly even and visibly open gap (even in the grossly decayed pig tooth attached).

4. The object is visibly very hollow on the bottom, right up close to the top surface- like a bone and not a tooth. Though some teeth can be very open, especially at the base of the roots, it should be obvious that if this was a tooth it would probably be a little fragile and not very functional as a grinding molar in a large mammal.



The defense rests it's case (and really enjoyed this trial!)

Apeman

PS- For the record, I have absolutely nothing against dentists and, like all medical professionals, I greatly respect and appreciate their profession- including my own share of supporting some of their livelihoods. I do, however, find it inexcusable that any practicing dentist could have been so careless and/or ignorant of the very essence of his practice to blow this one. I would never expect my own dentist to identify this as an ungulate tibia or any other specific animal bone, but I'd hope he would at least recognize that it wasn't a tooth and also wouldn't be so arrogant as to be afraid to simply say "I have no idea"- if that was the case. That said, I was kidding about not going to see him. I'm sure he's a fine dentist, I just wouldn't rely on him for much outside of his normal daily activities...as it true for most people. Likewise, I'm also not offering to perform your next root canal!

Saskeptic- "waltzing" and "distracting"....aren't you a college professor?!

This post has been edited by Apeman: Nov 6 2009, 01:26 PM

[StoneyRocks]

between Saskeptic and Apeman, my dictionary's gettin a hell of a workout....

[Prehistoric Fish...]

I personally think Apeman is probably right (have since he posted his first work-up), but it wouldn't hurt to show it to a scientist or two. Eyeballing JPGs and the real thing in your hand does not always provide the same experience or conclusions. The worst that could happen is Merganser might meet some new people and develop a further interest in science (paleontology museums have that nasty side effect, for example). Apeman shouldn't feel that his conclusions are being ignored just because other opinions have been sought out. Its good science to try to have multiple "experts" examine evidence. Its just that we all have personal reasons to distrust dentists and meat processors.

This post has been edited by Prehistoric Fisherman: Nov 7 2009, 01:47 PM