Recent find. Does not resemble any pictures of large animal teeth. Found in area of past mysterious animal activity.
http://i34.tinypic.com/2cfs57m.jpg http://i33.tinypic.com/29uzy4n.jpg http://i34.tinypic.com/2ljq63k.jpg

m

Hey merganser, welcome to the BFF. (Great handle, btw.)

Thanks for posting about this tooth. Looks like it should be analyzed by someone who knows what the heck they're doing. I imagine that the relevant flow of information should follow something like this:

1) Is it, in fact, a tooth?

2) If a tooth, what living North American animals (wild and domesticated, including humans) could be the source?

3) If no living animals match, what extinct North American mammals could be the source?

4) What is the age of the tooth?

5) If necessary for identification, can DNA be isolated from the tooth, and what does analysis suggest about the source?

To my untrained eye, it looks like it might be a good sized tooth with a uniform enamel exterior. That would rule out hoofed mammals except for hogs. So my initial, seat-of-the-pants list of suspects would be humans, hogs, and bears. The crown seems too high for all of those, but it's difficult to tell if the structure has been at all distorted by weathering, photography, etc.

BTW, if it is a tooth and it's dated to recent times and DNA analysis suggests that it's from something in our genus, though not our species, then I owe Huntster a steak and you're about to become very popular around here.

~Saskeptic

wow, bet he had one hellava dentist bill...

Is that tooth over an inch across?

Eliminate baby mastodon teeth and you might have a winner.

Interesting,
Did you find it?
Can we get a pic of it looking down at the crown?

I'm pretty certain it is not a tooth, sorry.

It looks to be the end of a long bone and the crack is a clear growth plate (so young'ish animal). It looks like the top in these images would be some portion of the articulating surface with the adjacent bone, but it looks a little broken there (as well as below) and is an odd shape so hard to tell. Top (and bottom) view would be helpful.

I'd guess something along the lines of an ungulate leg so first candidate in the woods would be a deer. One of the 'wrist' bones (top of linked photo) might have a similar funny, uneven surface... though I can't think of anything as seemingly sharp...but this fox tibia (see arrow) is kind of close (but would be smaller?)

Click to view attachment

-A

I'm gonna guess mule deer parts transplanted from WNC

Damn, I wanted it to be from a 8'11" tall Sasquatch, male, tending to blonde colored, named Bob.

interesting new thread

It looks like a small portion of a bear molar. Just a guess. I'm not a bear dentist.

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

I suppose we could speculate ad nauseum or simply wait for merganser to provide some more detail. I vote the latter.

That looks more like a bone than anything else.

Nailed it.

I vote the former. Including a small part of the ad nauseum. I would like to see more guesses. I hear what you are saying though... If merganser never finds out or never returns, it all be for nothing. But that is just for the end result, which I could really care less about unless it was completely unique. I'm hoping to read the different guesses and why people see it their own way. It's a fun way to learn.

Thanks for the vote of confidence!

I was trying to be polite before and even though I'm unsure of the exact species and bone I can assure everyone- IT IS NOT A TOOTH (it's a bone).

Click to view attachment

http://www.igs.net/~spykitten/P1010543.JPG

I retract my earlier caution on the type of animal and exact bone.

It's the distal end of an ungulate tibia- cow, deer, something like that.

Here is a cow tibia...pretty good match!

Click to view attachment

...boy that was fun procrastination for me!

Nice job!!!

Wait a minute...I think that "tooth" matches the indentations on the scattered bones of the missing Mt. St. Helens skier!!!!

Great eye, Apeman!

Yeah, but where are the saw marks???

Who says there has to be saw marks? It could be a result of predation, natural death, accident, etc.

Line looks too clean on the original base of the bone, plus it was an inside joke about the Burnette affair!

Ha! I was trying to head off a "Jacob's Creature" phenomenon. Shouldn't be a problem though, because you, Sir, have nailed it. Nice work.

Nice job Apeman...and all that with no arguments!

Yeah, no doubt for me Apeman. You nailed it.

Yeah, I was suspicious of it as a tooth for the porous look of it, looked more boney, but wondered if it was something to do with soil acidity. It didn't click until Apeman posted that I'd seen something very similar when I was a kid, we dug up a large lamb/mutton bone from the Sunday roast that the dog had buried 5 years previous.

Greetings all, I didn't think my post was accepted so hadn't returned. The "tooth" does resemble the cow tibia however the type of bone i.e., hard and smooth versus very soft and porous (root?) led me and others to tooth ID. Now i will be checking with wild game processor who handles all sorts of big game. Also plan to take it to my dentist for an assessment. I will report back with their ideas. Glad i checked back and found a good discussion.
merg

um have you checked for missing persons in the area that you found it (assuming you found it ) to makesure you might not have the bones from a missing human? it looks big for a human, but still id play it safe

great thread by the way

Update: OK I've taken the tooth like bone to my dentist and he calls it a tooth from a large animal of some kind. He felt it probably broke off versus being a skeletal remnant. He scraped the upper with a knife and it was very hard while the root like area was soft. My visit at the wild game processor again revealed "tooth from some large animal". The owners brother's guess was from a large wild hog which are not known in area. So I guess my next stop is a university biology dept.
Am working on new camera that should improve picture quality.
merg

Apeman, isn't a tooth a bone?

btw I tend to agree with your ID

In a biology dept. someone with a zoology background might have the necessary cross-species anatomy knowledge to make an identification, but other specialists probably would not (for example, a botonist)

A paleoanthropologist, or in a pinch a physical anthropologist, would be best if it is suspected to be hominid.

A paleontologist could be found in a geology department, preferably where a fossil collection/museum resides.

Sending the images to Dr. Jeff Meldrum might be the best approach from a BF perspective. Be polite, and probably be patient.

I suggest getting a receipt of some sort if the specimen is left with anyone, ask politely of course. A second opinion from another field of study would be advised as well, unless you are certain a correct identification has been made.

The suggestions made by others in this thread seemed fairly convincing so the conclusions of your local dentist and game processor were surprising. The wild hog comment is interesting as well. I've read that one or more times fossil "hominid" finds in North America were determined to be ancient pig teeth. Of course, the converse misidentification might take place if there were unknown hominid species in North America. These don't look particularly hominid to me, but I am not an expert. I spent some time on Google Images trying to find some good/similar shots of gorilla teeth/molars for comparison but finally gave up. But from what I recall they don't look like great ape teeth to me. Perhaps they are more damaged than I think they are. Or perhaps if you are more persistent you might just find something I missed.

Happy hunting,

PF

All I can say is WOW!!!!

Unless you are pulling our legs, I'd advise you (and anyone you know) to STOP going to this dentist! Luckily the game processor can't really hurt anyone and presumably doesn't have a medical/dental school to embarrass.

Stoney- that's actually a good question but the answer is no, a tooth is a not a bone. Among other differences each type of tissue originates from/is composed of different types of cells (osteoblasts for bone, ameloblasts for teeth). More simple answers here:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_teeth_bones.

Anyone with basic training in anatomy should be capable of determining this is a bone fragment and certainly not a tooth. I realize some of you still don't believe me, which is fine and fair, but as far as I'm concerned I was able to determine a) it is a bone, b.) it is a distal tibia, and c) it is almost definitely from a large ungulate- just from photos- which is why I'm shocked by the dentist story. Perhaps my background and experience with comparative anatomy better suits this type of puzzle but I honestly can't believe a dentist can mistake a bone fragment for a tooth.

I could offer lots of places to help but don't want to bias anything or have doubters hear anything other than totally independent confirmation. So I'll just sit back and keep quiet unless I find more time to screw around and put some more pictures together here, but I'm not sure I can do much better than above.

Apeman

LOL!

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.

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.)

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

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."

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.

Click to view attachment

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?!

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

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.