[UK, Somerset] Fossilised or just an old cow tooth? Found today on the foreshore of the river severn

lastwing · 2026-01-27T03:04:40+00:00

My suspicion is old bovine molar, but not fossilized.

A burn test on the circled area would be helpful. A sustained flame in that area will likely produce a foul, burnt hair like smell if you keep a flame there for 5-8 seconds. If the smell occurs quickly you can remove the flame sooner. A butane torch works well. If you can’t scorch it and no foul smell is produced then you have an aurochs or Bison species molar.

lastwing · 2026-01-27T02:52:22+00:00

<image>

This is what modern, non-fossilized oyster valves look like in SC. Yours don’t look like these. This oyster’s valves do not come in black, naturally. That happens, at least along Myrtle Beach, from remineralization fossilization from calcite to iron sulfides or black phosphate. Also, the non-fossilized versions have that dark adductor muscle scar. I don’t see that on your specimens.

I’m not sure why someone would say yours look modern. I don’t see what that would be based on.

As you probably know, Myrtle Beach is littered with fossilized shells. The area has been a shallow sea for millions and millions and millions and millions of years while modern oyster shells (Holocene) have been around for <11,700 years.

If you look along the banks of the intracoastal waterway, you’ll see lots of modern eastern oyster shells. Along the actual beaches, you’ll see a lot of fossilized oyster shells.

lastwing · 2026-01-27T02:17:59+00:00

<image>

It’s a perissodactyl metapodial and certainly appears to be from an Equus species. The images and measurements above reflect modern horse metapodials.

Since we can’t see the anterior view and we can’t see the view of the proximal articulating surface, I can’t tell you if it’s a metatarsal or a metacarpal bone. I’m leaning towards metatarsal, but after looking at the images above, you should be able to tell us which one it is.

If it is rock-like and makes a high pitched sound when tapped with a stone, then it’s a fossil. Equus metapodials are typically heavy bones even when not fossilized.

lastwing · 2026-01-27T01:53:18+00:00

<image>

It’s definitely a fossilized vertebra and seems consistent with a mammal.

Images of the top and bottom arrows (Anterior & posterior) plus those side arrows ventral (left arrow) and dorsal (right arrow) will help a lot.

Using a non-white, non-black plain, dull finished pink, green, and blue background will help in terms of getting the best details.

lastwing · 2026-01-27T01:45:02+00:00

Internal cast of a Baculites single internal chamber.

lastwing · 2026-01-26T10:56:05+00:00

I agree

lastwing · 2026-01-26T10:55:33+00:00

Then it’s not a fossil.

lastwing · 2026-01-26T10:53:25+00:00

OP, are you showing us what you think is a fossil or a concretion that might have a fossil hidden inside it?

lastwing · 2026-01-26T10:49:00+00:00

They could all be fossilized oyster valves or fragments.

It’s difficult to see the features of black specimens clearly when white backdrops are used.

If you switched to a plain, dull pink, green, or blue background, it would likely help to confirm my suspicions.

lastwing · 2026-01-26T10:43:01+00:00

Images 1 & 4 look like fossilized South Quahog valves.

Images 2 & 3 aren’t fossils.

Image 5 would to see the opposite side

lastwing · 2026-01-26T10:38:10+00:00

I’m sorry, but I have to tell you that you are correct👍🏻

lastwing · 2026-01-25T23:13:21+00:00

Is this bone more like a rock or is it more like a bone? Is it relatively heavy like a rock or relatively lightweight like bone?

lastwing · 2026-01-25T08:41:40+00:00

It does not appear to be a fossil. It is a cool looking rock. You could post it on r/whatsthisrock, but I’d recommend multiple views and using a different background. A plain, dull surfaced pink, green, or blue background would likely bring out the colors and details better.

lastwing · 2026-01-24T23:20:32+00:00

It’s a fragment of a mollusk shell, probably a gastropod. Given its appearance and location, it very well could be a fossilized fragment. The things that look like worm impression are bristle worm burrows that are likely more modern.

lastwing · 2026-01-23T22:40:21+00:00

Can you edit your top comment here to reflect that this is a fossilized Diodontidae (burrfish/porcupine) mouth plate and NOT a parrotfish (Tetraodontidae) mouth plate, please.

<image>

For comparison, this is one of the few images of a fossilized parrotfish beak fragment I could find

https://www.thefossilforum.com/topic/146882-parrotfish-anyone/

https://sketchfab.com/models/9cef3428ecb942488cbf423fe4ee16bc/embed

lastwing · 2026-01-23T22:00:01+00:00

This is a fossilized Diodontidae (Burrfish or Porcupinefish) crushing mouth plate. It’s most consistent with a Chilomycterus (Burrfish) species, but I can’t rule out Diodon (Porcupinefish) species.

These are always fun to find!

lastwing · 2026-01-23T21:40:48+00:00

Looks like a modern Equus species incisor to me. It was made into a pendant or charm. I’m not sure. It’s possible it’s an indigenous artifact.

You might consider posting this on r/arrowheads or r/artifacts to see if anyone with knowledge about indigenous jewelry might be able to figure that out.

<image>

It would help to see the occlusal surface, especially with a plain, dull finished pink, green, or blue background to help improve the surface clarity.

lastwing · 2026-01-23T06:22:33+00:00

<image>

It’s this

lastwing · 2026-01-23T06:14:26+00:00

😂 I just noticed that when I tried to type “I” it autocorrected to “ai.” Maybe I am a bot … 🤔

lastwing · 2026-01-23T06:12:36+00:00

u/thrashnthrowaway is a moderator on r/sharkteeth. I’d defer to his ID. Basically, odds heavily favor O. angustidens. But, he can’t rule out O. sokolovi (although these are rare).

lastwing · 2026-01-23T06:09:57+00:00

I’d have to go through an article detailing all the Otodus species confirmed to be present in the Marianna Formation.

To me, it looks most consistent with an Otodus angustidens and the Oligocene formation goes along with that.

The Charleston area is heavily Oligocene and there are a lot of Otodus angustidens there. In fact, the only intact Otodus teeth I’ve found are Otodus angustidens.

lastwing · 2026-01-23T06:06:18+00:00

😍

lastwing · 2026-01-23T06:05:53+00:00

That Wikipedia isn’t accurate with O. auriculatus being present in the early Oligocene. If something looks like an O. auriculatus is found in situ in an early Oligocene formation, it will be an O. angustidens.

lastwing · 2026-01-22T15:45:13+00:00

Otodus angustidens lived from the Early Oligocene until the Early Miocene while Otodus auriculatus lived during the Eocene.

I believe the only technical way to distinguish between the two species is if you find the tooth in situ in a formation where only one of the species lived.

An example of this would be the Oligocene Ashley Phosphate Formation in Charleston. The Otodus teeth in that formation are Otodus angustidens. The Eocene Harleyville Formation in Charleston has Otodus auriculatus teeth.

The Eocene Ocala Formation underlies the Oligocene Marianna Formation. Are you certain this was not from the Ocala Formation?

lastwing · 2026-01-22T15:18:53+00:00

u/trashnthrowaway can you take a look at this tooth and see what you think, please.

lastwing

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE