Search the Community

Does it look like a Kimberella fossil negative, or is it something else?

Hi everyone, This fossil has always bothered me because of the way it felt in terms of weight and the cleanliness of the cut (there looks to have been some stabilizer added from the side, which I guess helps the case for authenticity). I only have one other fossil - what appears to be what was a very commonly sold Nemiana simplex - from a nearby region with a similar geology, and I could very well be wrong because it is indeed quite similar, albeit lighter with a more uniform grain. Since they're both Ediacaran in age and commercially not rare per se, I've always wondered if this Kimberella was legit given a fluctuating price tag that has been quite high in the past but seems to have levelled out in the mid range. As someone who once taught a diversity of life course, I am an absolute sucker for fossil items that include key moments in history, as well as evolutionary transitions. I've included pictures of the Kimberella in question, as well as a couple of items I place it next to because I'm a giant nerd and I like to imagine that this is the footprint left by some sort of mono- or poly-placophoran ("chitons") 600 million years ago. I wish I had some "smell shelly fauna" or traces left by an Aplacophoran to illustrate the molluscan "root" but alas this is it for now. The orange fossil shell is of a monoplacophoran named Proplina grandis (Gasconade formation, Missouri, Lower Ordovician) - unconcerned about its provenance - and a modern chiton from the Philippines. I know for a fact this quite popular seller misidentified a fossil fish sold to me as a madagascan coelacanth very, very early in my building of a fossil collection; this is also a reason I'd like to know if the provenance is legitimate; I've been hesitant to deal with them since and passed on many fossils as a result I'd probably only look to add a sea pen-like fossil from the region - unlikely due to the hefty price tag and commercial rarity - but I'd like to learn more about what to look out for nonetheless. As always, thanks for any insights the community might be able to provide! Cheers Marcus p.s. And happy fathers day!

I dont know if the ones in the photo is kimberella. The imprints and such that I am finding look exactly like kimberella. I need to find more clear examples for photographing but I for sure will be able to provide them eventually if not very soon. They could be other mollusks. Also I am not exactly where I said I am. If I am finding what I think I am finding I would imagine I would have many trespassers. I want my finds in the scientific community when they are ready. Here is an edited photo. Im not great at it but it helps see more of the markings on the side and back "flaps", as well as the shell or chitin like covering on its body. Kind of like a turtle. I am 100 percent certain it is a creature. The ID is to be determined. Thank you every one for the welcomes! I will work hard today on my photography skills in hopes to show you all what I see. Original introduction post.

I just had the opportunity to purchase a kimberella fossil for a good price but backed out at the last second because the seller was based in Russia and I wasn't sure about the legality surrounding White Sea specimens being imported to Canada where I live. I'm always wary of fossils being sold out of China and Russia. Has anyone purchased White Sea specimens directly from Russia? And what is the legality of them? It's hard to find a direct answer online.