Search the Community

Found these weird spirals in this chunk of agatized rock. Devonian from Bradford beach in Milwaukee. Thanks!

Landscaping rocks. Paleozoic.

Found near the Whetstone Mountains, near Tucson, Arizona. I am very curious about the long, orange tube structures I found. Some folks told me they are just chert nodules. Others seem to think could be fossils. So, I took more photos to see if I can get more information on them. They were found right near some other fossils--fenestellid bryozoans, rhynchonellid brachiopods, gastropods. The area is littered with fossils. Several of these structures reveal a tube structure, which I think would be unusual in geology. A lot of these structures have a very similar shape. Many of the tube walls seem to have a similar and uniform thickness. Most are about as thick as a finger or thumb and range from 4 to 18 inches long. They could be much longer but there's no way to tell as they are broken at the ends. There are dozens of them in the area. I really have no expertise and I sure don’t mind anyone telling me I’m wrong. But I wanted to give you an idea of my thinking. Please let me know what you think--thanks. #1 shows a typical one #2,3,4 show the far ends of #1 #5 shows another one with a hollow tube structure #6 and 7 show two other structures # 8 shows a far end of #1 #9 shows another structure end #10 shows two that seem to be crossing each other

I don't remember where i found it but i guess it's from the only place i have ever find fossils (rudist fragments and echinoids). These come from Phthiotis, Greece. I know nothing about fossils so i need your help. This rock has a intense smell just like the other fossils i mentioned. However i don't know if this means that this is a fossil too or that it's just the way the rocks smell at the place where i found it. Could it be also a rudist? The only reason i'm not sure is that the rudist fragments i have found has this wavy shape at their top just like this rudist image As you can see the inside is a bit red so i'm also thinking that this could just be an old iron pipe but it also looks like a "normal" rock.

I was doing an initial cleaning of this piece to categorize, label and store for future preparation. I do this by brushing the loose dirt off with a natural bristled paint brush and then a quick cleaning with my dust collector to pick up some of the finer particles. This time, while using the dust collector, a little surprise popped out. My first thought was tube worm, well preserved and free enough for the suction to pull it out. Thankfully it didn’t detach! I was wondering if this is a common occurrence. Has anyone else experienced this? And do you agree that it’s most likely a tube worm? thanks! -Sean apologies for the standard measuring tape. I’ll get my act together…

Some of the fossils my son found amongst road base material. All are straight tube shapes in various sizes. I have sanded one as a cross section to show the pattern. Found in New South Wales, Australia.

New to geology, so excuse my paltry terminology. Description: Tubes, many branching, between 1-3cm in diameter, in places as thick as a forest root system, material very sandstone-y, surrounding material clay. from my research these seem like burrow casts of... worms? tetrapods? do burrow casts form in such abundance?

Here is a tubular structure that I am unaccustomed to finding in the Galena, Ordovician rocks of SE Minnesota. All thoughts are welcomed!!!

Hi I’m wondering if these are Tube Corals? I have a lot and found them in rocks and sand around my resort in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, not to far from where I found my fossilized crab claw.

Hi all! I’m hoping to solve a mystery. I find these objects pretty regularly along the San Mateo coast of Northern California. I’m not even sure they’re fossils, but the bluffs above the beach are part of the Purisima Formation with plenty of fossils from the late Miocene to early Pleistocene so I thought it would be worth a try. They look to be made of compacted sand, like a concrete, but laid down in layers, with a more robust top with lines that have some shell-like material. Most pieces I found have this triangular shape that look like they might have formed tubes. All the pieces I’ve found look like they would have a similar diameter. I’ve never found any smaller. They’re pretty uniform. And common. Since I first noticed them a couple of months ago I find them every time I’m on the beach. They could be the result of a geologic process, but I’ve asked every beachcomber, zoologist, and marine biologist I can can find and no one can tell me what they are.

Hello, I recorded this as fossil tube worms. as I recall from them same ballast.

Hi guys I was just wondering what this is as I recently received as an extra of something that I bought and I have no idea what it is and no information whatsoever, worm tube?

Found these tubes joined together by sediment, sand and shell particles and forming a small mound within Pleistocene marl deposits near the city of Rhodes (capital city of the island of Rhodes in Greece). Both fragments are about 10 cm in length and the diameter of the hollow parts is an average of 1-1.5 cm. In the second picture, a cross section of sorts, the tubes are half-formed/joined around a central point of sorts, while in the last pic which is a cross section of a single tube there appears to be a smaller tube within going all the way to the other end. A final observation is that the tubes diameter gradually shrinks (formed like elongated cones)

Snow is just melting but in the mean time I've split open one of the larger rocks I took home and discovered a new little guy. Probably a twig. If not it could be a tube worm. You can see brachiopods around on this rock, I do know it was a shallow Eocene ocean 50 million years ago. So let me know what you all think. Maybe its just a stick or maybe something more interesting Thanks for you time - John

UPDATE: August 20, 2013 - A new site for Wattieza - the world's oldest known tree Since posting this, the debate about "orthocone" versus "Devonian tree" has been settled. The Devonian tree experts have weighed in and confirm that these are Devonian tree shoots. They were growing in a swampy shallow marine environment similar to how modern mangroves grow. Since our original discovery - which represents an entirely and previously unknown site for Devonian Wattieza trees - my wife and I have collected more than a dozen separate fossils including some with surrounding substrate, from this site. I have cleaned most of the specimens and am taking closeup photos from all perspectives, now, to show such things as the central tube (called a stele) that runs through the core and the texture of the outer covering. In addition to Wattieza we have also discovered a separate Devonian plant species which we are attempting to evaluate and identify. Here is a photo from our SECOND site visit that shows the actual small Wattieza stump fossil that we collected, placed in front of a photo of the same fossil in the substrate as we found it. You can also see the adjacent "stick" which we currently believe is NOT part of the Wattieza stump - a separate closeup of the stick is included. We are currently looking at our several "stick" fossils and planning to cut one to look at the cross-section pattern, to try to determine the plant species. We feel that these finds have the potential to add new information about Devonian trees and plants, from this new site. It is also significant that we found these in a Devonian site where there are normally only marine fossils so we appear to have found a rare "island" of ideal conditions where young mangal Wattieza trees were growing in a paleosol where the conditions allowed fossilization. Geologically, these fossils are at the lower end of the "Tully limestone" formation. Our Devonian tree/plant finds confirm our thinking as "advanced amateur" paleontologists that as amateur fossil hunters we all can and should be using our time and knowledge to discover new sites and add to the fossil record. The small "army" of fossil hunters represented on The Fossil Forum have a unique opportunity to look in places where scientists may not have an opportunity - or inclination - to search. Once in awhile we discover something important, which seems to be the case here. OUR ORIGINAL POST Before I write our 4th of July trip report, I asked for some ID help with 3 tube shaped fossils we discovered at Tully, NY (Devonian, Hamilton Group) - the first opinion I received is that these are orthocone cephalopods. A contrary view is that these are Devonian trees! I modified the description slightly from the original post to reflect the current debate which has made this a "hot" topic. Have to admit, it's kind of cool that our first major fossil trip this year has sparked such an interesting discussion! Nan and I found these in situ sitting vertically in the substrate of a new construction site. I had found a few very large (2 inch diameter) cylinder shaped segments in the rubble that looked like cephalopod pieces and they were the largest we have seen to-date, so we were intrigued and started pulling away the substrate in the vertical walls exposed by the bulldozer. The first two fossils were found about a meter apart and the third was found about 300 meters away over a hill, but in the same level strata and depth. I'll do some minor cleaning, take better pix of the recovered fossils and segments, and add them soon - there appears to be a siphuncle structure running through the center, and other clues to the identity. Here is a quick view of how and where they were found - of course we realize it's very rare to find this type of fossil vertically embedded in the substrate. Nan found the first one, I found the next two and excavated all three - will provide more photos soon but hoped to get an ID first. The third sample had about 2/3 with the bottom portion missing. The first two appear to spread out slightly at the bottom. Several people suggested these could be trees and a few said other creatures but most people I talked to before posting this seem to agree they are orthocone cephalods. Aside from their size and shape (which is unusually large for the Tully shale so these are rare especially found in situ) - the primary convincing evidence is the siphon (siphuncle) protruding from the tip of the top of one of the specimens. This structure runs like a worm through the center - the other segments show holes in the center where the "wormlike body" ran through it. This argues against trees or other creatures but a few people claim that Devonian trees did have a similar center structure. The most confusing aspect is the lack of hard shell which should be present if this were a cephalopod - so what does that suggest? Another type of creature? Did they moult their shells and is this the "soft shelled" phase? Or is this a tree? Here is the top segment from the best specimen which clearly shows the siphuncle protruding at the center. In addition to the segmented tube shaped structures (they are all about the same diameter and length) there appear to be tentacle shaped structures on the left side although I didn't recover those when I extracted the tubes. Of course if this is a tree, then it is possible that those structures could be shoots. The tentacles or shoots were not recovered and are only shown in the photo which unfortunately limits the analysis. Here is how the debate seems to be shaping up: Pro Orthocone Cephalopod - These 3 specimens were found in what appears to be a Devonian marine environment where all of the fossils found there have been marine fossils. They have a small center "worm like" structure running through the center that looks like a siphuncle (siphon). They are all segmented and all the same approximate length and diameter. One was partially collapsed and distorted (some segments bulging outward). No one has suggested a cephalopod species that this might represent. Pro Devonian Tree - The horizontal strata where they were found contained very few if any marine fossils so they could be small young trees growing in the water. There is no trace of any shell fragments which is unusual if this is a cephalopod and the segments don't resemble cephalopod shells. There is a thin outer "skin" which could be consistent with ancient horsetail type bark. In the cross section of the segments, there are no concentric circles - in early trees there was pith, not traditional wood with concentric growth circles and some people have indicated that the first Devonian trees did have a similar center structure. The center core that looks like a siphuncle would be a core structure called a stele. Piranha suggests that this could be Wattieza sp., a prehistoric cladoxylopsid tree from the Middle Devonian that was discovered in Gilboa, New York which would be consistent with the location which was the Hamilton Group near Tully, NY. This genus has been called the earliest known trees. One of our goals for this fossil trip was to find something larger and distinctive/unusual and apparently we've done that. Another goal we've had since last year was to find a Devonian plant of some sort and it would be cool if that's what this turns out to be. I'll be just as happy if these are orthocones. The debate is hot on the ID for these and with all the attention and help from everyone, we should zone in soon. I'll take some more closeup photos this week and post them here. These are some of the largest fossils Nan and I have found so far and certainly the largest we have found in situ - it's fascinating that we found these exactly where they died and were preserved, 385 mya. I have to admit I felt like RomanK, who finds a lot of stunning in situ fossils and I have to admit, I was consciously trying to think like Roman and inspired by his example while searching for these fossils, which involved a lot of "excavation." UPDATE: NEW PHOTOS/CLOSEUPS At the end of this blog (page 3 and 4) I posted some new closeup images.

Hello, Looks like I don't know much, as this should be an easy ID. Thanks

I was hiking in Utah and found these. I think they are corals.

Hello everyone, it's my first post here. Recently around the Gulf at Muscat, Oman, I found this tube-like structure bind strongly to a rock after some digging with my hands under the water on a remote small beach (no signs of previous visits there.) There's no sand on that shore, instead a coarse-sand-like nature of very small shell and rock fragments. The start of this tubular structure is very narrow, and its radius increases as it appears to curl in a life-like form of some organism. Unfortunately the top appears missing when I found it.

Wondering if this shape is specific enough to identify who might have lived in this. Ideas? ~caroline

Found several curved pieces of compressed sandy looking material with a tube-like polished round opening. Several have a black shark tooth-like enamel on only part of the tube and some pieces have the same glossy sheen on the outside. One had a weird pattern below the sheen (second pic). They are all one to two inch pieces. Are these some type of worm casing? Any ideas?

Just ten minutes ago while walking along the river on campus, I came upon this rock with a tube-like piece. The rocks in this river are generally glacial till and more erosion-resistant limestone from the Devonian (Eifelian - Dundee Fm). The tube, about 1.5 inches long, is a bit too straight to be a worm burrow, lacks any of the segments of a crinoid, perhaps too thick to be the edge of a wide spirifer, and it appears next to a brach impression. I just want to be sure if it's geologic or not before I decide whether to keep it. I can try to put the microscope on it later to detect any closer details, and maybe see if I can remove some matrix. But perhaps someone here knows exactly what this is. EDIT: Texture is smooth and somewhat reminiscent to shell material. If it is a brach hinge, it may be sloping away from the edge of the rock as there is no trace of it on the edge. And, if a brach, an odd deposition!

Is there any way to tell what kind of tube worm this fossil was? This is my first tube worm collection! AWESOME!