Search the Community

My recent trip to the Fort Payne has me wondering how big do brachiopods get? So why not a thread to show off the largest ones we've found! Here's some of my monsters... First up Productus sp. from the Fort Payne, Lower Mississippain. I think this is Syringothyris sp. from the same formation as the other. I believe this is Rhipidomella sp. (same formation.) Lets see yours!

I found this about a year ago in upstate pennsylvania in a rock quarry. I am still stumped by it...

Hi, never posted before so please bare with. Found this fossil in a house clearance (Uk). It's sandy in colour across the surface and an off white (chalky) colour in exposed areas. Have included a tape measure in the pics for length (approx 10 inches). both sides (as shown) are deeply textured and it measures 3.1/4 in depth at its deepest but does taper down. (Hopefully shown in pics). Would really appreciate some help with this. PS each "segment" is divided by a very thin, but clear ridge/seam. Thanks all for your help Any more info required, I will do my best. Many thanks.

Hey all, a new member here and hoping someone on the site can help with estimating the value of a large ammonite I have and wanting to sell for my aging father. I'll post photographs to help if requested. The shell is approximately 27 inches by 22 inches. It was unearthed by my amateur fossil hunting father in Shasta County California in 1972. He has told me that it is one of the largest specimens found in the north state. Any guidance on this is greatly appreciated. Shannon

Well I was strolling through my buddies stone supply yard looking for nice sized rocks for the garden and I stumbled upon the coolest thing I have ever randomly found. A huge print! He charged me the cost of stone for it as long as he got to hold on to it for a bit to show his kids! I'm more than excited. I didn't have a tape measure with me but the print is about 2,1/2 to 3" inches at its deepest!

I dug this out of the shale rock beach by Georgian Bay, Ontario Canada, and I can't seem to identify this fossil. 450 myo. It seems to have a tail that would have been covered in overlapping shells, which turns into something that looks similar to an abdomen. Quarter for scale.

While spending the morning just at my honey hole of assorted Devonian debris, I came upon this very weathered fragment. I have good reason to suspect it is a trilobite cephalon fragment (weathered to the point of being almost exclusively a mold/cast). In terms of species I have a few ideas, but what makes me quite uncertain is the sheer size of this one. I have certainly never found very large Devonian trilobites in the past, so this one seems a bit of a perplexing one for me - if it is indeed a trilobite specimen and I'm not just getting my hopes up and seeing trilobite where some large brach and a bit of rock shaping might be.

Found this in North Texas in a spot that has produced bison and mammoth fossils before (currently have a mammoth ulna from the site). Due to its large size I'm thinking this one is mammoth as well, just not sure which bone it might be part of. Any comments or thoughts are more than welcome

hello, just wanted to show you guys this one, it is pretty good size, 12.5" in length, let me know what you think

The new shark species named 'paradoxodon,' or paradoxical teeth, comes from the fact that the shark appears to have emerged suddenly in the geologic record with a yet unresolved nearly 45-million-year gap from when Megalolamna possibly split from its closest relative Otodus. The international research team who based their discovery on fossilized teeth up to 4.5 centimeters (1.8 inches) tall found the teeth in California and North Carolina, Peru and Japan. Credit: Kenshu Shimada Megalolamna paradoxodon is the name of a new extinct shark described by an international research team who based their discovery on fossilized teeth up to 4.5 centimeters (1.8 inches) tall found from the eastern and western United States (California and North Carolina), Peru and Japan. The newly identified fossil shark lived during the early Miocene epoch about 20 million years ago and belongs to a shark group called Lamniformes, which includes the modern-day great white and mako sharks. More specifically, it belongs to Otodontidae, which contains the iconic extinct superpredator 'megalodon' or the 'megatoothed' shark, and as an otodontid, Megalolamna paradoxodon represents a close cousin of the megatoothed lineage, said Kenshu Shimada, a paleobiologist at DePaul University and research associate at the Sternberg Museum in Kansas. Certain dental features suggest its otodontid affinity, but in many other aspects, teeth of the new fossil shark look superficially like over-sized teeth of the modern-day salmon shark that belongs to the genus Lamna—hence the new genus Megalolamna, the researchers noted. The new species name 'paradoxodon,' or paradoxical teeth, comes from the fact that the shark appears to emerge suddenly in the geologic record with a yet unresolved nearly 45-million-year gap from when Megalolamna possibly split from its closest relative Otodus. Although smaller than members of the megatoothed lineage containing 'megalodon' that reached well over 10 meters (33 feet), Megalolamna paradoxodon is still an impressive shark estimated to be minimally equivalent to the size of a typical modern-day great white, roughly 4 meters (13 feet) in length. Living in the same ancient oceans megatoothed sharks inhabited, Megalolamna paradoxodon had grasping-type front teeth and cutting-type rear teeth likely used to seize and slice medium-sized fish. "It's quite remarkable that such a large lamniform shark with such a global distribution had evaded recognition until now, especially because there are numerous Miocene localities where fossil shark teeth are well sampled," said Shimada, lead author of the study. In classifying the new fossil shark, the research team also came to a conclusion that members of the megatoothed lineage, including 'megalodon,' ought to be classified into the genus Otodus, and not to its traditional genus Carcharocles. "The idea that megalodon and its close allies should be placed in Otodus is not new, but our study is the first of its kind that logically demonstrates the taxonomic proposition," Shimada noted. Because the megatoothed shark lineage simply represents a subset of Otodus, excluding megatoothed sharks would not reflect a full lineage for Otodus—an uncomfortable taxonomic condition referred to as 'non-monophyletic.' The inclusion of megatoothed sharks into Otodus would make the genus a much preferred complete lineage referred to as a 'monophyletic group' that is considered to be a next of kin to the new genus Megalolamna. The new study, "A new elusive otodontid shark (Lamniformes: Otodontidae) from the lower Miocene, and comments on the taxonomy of otodontid genera, including the 'megatoothed' clade," will appear in the forthcoming issue of the international scientific journal Historical Biology and online on Oct. 3. In addition to Shimada, other authors include Richard Chandler, North Carolina State University; Otto Lok Tao Lam, The University of Hong Kong; Takeshi Tanaka, Japan; and David Ward, The Natural History Museum, London. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-10-large-prehistoric-shark.html#jCp

http://m.imgur.com/a/IrS5R Just some info. I know nothing about fossils. I found it sticking out the side of a cliff. It was about to fall off after a rain washed some dirt away. Seems to maybe be part of a much bigger fossil in the cliff. Looks like teeth to me. Found in west Oklahoma

Fossil bought many years ago in a junk shop. Seller said it was from a ranch in central Texas. Can anyone ID it? It is a large bone with a socket. Thanks!

Hello, I am back! If you didn't know, I buy fossils on the internet sometimes. On EBay, I found a cheap vertabrae. It was only worth 5$ and they said it seemed fossilized, so why not buy it. I got it now, and it definitely is fossilized, just I have no clue what it belongs to. If anyone knows what it might be, tell me. Bye! -Con

This item here my mother bough years ago in arizona. large and heavy. looks like a bone. looks as if marrow has turned to crystal. any help with this would be appreciated thank you

Is anyone can help me to exam this fossil. is it real? or man made. if it is real, how many percentage of repair. thank you so much for the help.

I spotted this thing from a moving car in a forest preserve in Winnebago Co, northern IL. I unfortunately do not have much info regarding its origin, except that all of the bedrock in this area is Ordovician, and most of it is Galena and Platteville groups. I assume it's from a nearby quarry. I think it's a HUGE straight-shelled nautiloid, but I'd like some more opinions. If my guess is right though, how long do you suppose it might have been in its entirety?

I got this from a friends father that passed away, I have no info at all and I cannot find anything like it anywhere.