Search the Community

hi Is this a meteorite or just a stone? IMG_5314.dng

Hello These are the adventures of myself and my dog Millie as we hunt for fossils and history along the Peace River. Our mode of travel is our 12’ Indian River Canoe, Balance. Im a 4th generation Polk county native, and Millie comes from a long line of Colorado ranch dogs. We do everything together. Including work, as I am a farrier for my day job, and the farm owners are more excited to see Millie than me! The goal of this journal is to document the learning along with the adventures. To go below our sieves, and learn why the river is presenting as it is. Other members have already posted pictures and info on every fossil I’m likely to find, but the river can still teach me/us why the hole I’m digging is delivering specific materials. Understanding what happened before what happened, happened. That’s what I want to know! Millie and I have been gifted this river and the ability to run it at a moments notice. That’s not the case for everyone. Even with access I still only get out for a morning or so a week. So this journal will also provide an avenue for those who can’t just jump in the boat with us. Jump in through this forum and help out along the way when you can/want. The more we learn the better the treasure!! Jp & Mille LET THE ADVENTURE BEGIN! Season opener - Oct 2023 water depth day of - 8’ and falling. Like most things I’m impatient about, starting Fossil hunting this year was rushed. Millie and I ran head on into a river that’s a solid 3’ too high for me to handle any real working conditions. There’s places to work. We just haven’t found many at these depths! Yet!! After work arrived and we got started towards the river. Late arrival and definitely some dark water running ahead but at this water height you just gotta keep the boat in the middle. Got in late but just in time for a welcome back from the Peace! We woke up ready! Well, I did. Camp and my “Field Office” ready. Now to get wet! Because of the water depth I tied leashes to all the heavy tools and tied some extra pool noodle to them. That way I could drop them and just pull up the leader. Brought the “Velvet Touch” probe. No stopping us now! “What” I was after wasn’t an option this trip. I had only two available spots in mind that would be under 4’ deep. Both those spots are in a very recent deposit that I’ve been getting lots of Pleistocene and some Pliocene mammal material from. I ended up finding the time frame expected, and possibly an extinct sand shark nursery area. The river had sifted one spot completely away during the last flood so I was left with only one place to put in effort! At 4’ it was at my cap for height. I’m 5’6’’ and I could only dig 2 feet down before I ran out of shovel. So I had to figure something out. First I tried to fill the sieve on the River bottom and lift it up. FAIL! never got it to stay put long enough to do anything productive before I’d loose it and it would pop up down stream pulling on the leash. Next I tried to lift the gravel to the sifter on the surface. There was so much water the shovel load was gone before I broke the surface! FAIL! At a max depth of 2 feet down I wasn’t going to be learning much about the geography or layers I needed to work through. So I shifted gears and decided to focus on just the top 2’ as effectively as I could. The third try ended up succeeding. I would loosen the riverbed into a loose filled hole that had collapsed on itself and then use my scoop on a pole thing to transfer the loose material up to the surface. Not the best method but I’m grateful to have been able to stand there all day. I’d work forward 3’ and over 1’ then back again. All at 2’ or less deep or I’d go under. I suppose if I feel like moving a bunch of river bed again we could come back here and go deeper! One of my questions about this area is what is it old enough to find within it? Another trip! Here’s the gratuitous highlights shot! Not a bad day! The alligator tooth got a yell but the sand tigers and mammal teeth got me really excited. Millie and I were exhausted and COLD! I learned a few things this weekend to put in the journal. Before that. Let’s eat! Steak for me and steak for Millie. Yumm. Lessons: 1. I need appropriate clothes. Like wet suit stuff. Can’t be under water like that all day again. I got chilly and had to warm up several times. 85deg out too! What I wear is fine for knee deep wading but definitely time to upgrade the wardrobe. (I did try my new dive boots and that was the only part of me that wasn’t cold) 2. Regular shovel handles are way too short. Amend as needed to your stature. I need a 12’ handle to dig a hole in this water. So I’m out! 3. Jack, (Shellseeker) is insane!! This was my first time hunting this deep and it’s right in his sweet spot. You’re an animal! He tried to assist my tool tuning but until you run out of shovel that’s a new feeling to adjust to. 4. At two feet deep this area is where I will come for younger land aged fauna and I can expect the standard peace river sharks teeth assemblage with a higher than usual volume of sand sharks teeth. This was a great day hunting and I learned a lot. Maybe not about what my intended question was or the areas I’ve been thinking of but a ton about gear and technique! KEEP THE FAITH AND TRY TO DO GOOD!! Jp & Millie Here are the finds from this trip and some info used to figure out the unknowns. sand shark and some Hemi Serra Peace River mix fun and unique things - The mammal molar ended up being a Giant Tapir. By shape and size 3rd or 4th premolar. No root. Should have given it away. Mixed bag bottom to top of left- Gator tooth gator tooth Crappy Barbra’s incisor Canine- size 22mm broken suggest coyote or smaller domestic dog. 25mm would be the target. Tiny molar - it’s broken but by the face and measurements it’s most likely a rodent. Camel type tooth frag. Upper right - various tiger shark species to identify with Florida fossil hunters PDF middle - two deer horn buttons. One I already had but these were found 5 feet apart. Same deer?!? Bottom right- Eocene snail and crab shell fragments. Those are 37.5 Mya.?? Snail identification was general to the Ocala formation results of similar snail species.

Hello fellow paleontology buffs! I have recently returned from a trip to the Venice area where I did some surface/ beach sifting for fossils. I need to get out and dive there next time. I would love to have some help identifying fossils that are tripping me up. I recognize that there are a LOT of them. Sorry!!! I organized them on to a PDF because there were a lot to look at, but please let me know if it does not open up and I will upload them as images instead. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge.

Teachers find fossils of extinct hippo-like mammals on the Oregon Coast John Ross Ferrara, KION6-News, Version 1, April 9, 2024 Teachers find fossils of extinct hippo-like mammals on the Oregon Coast John Ross Ferrara, KION6-News, Version 2, April 9, 2024 Yorus, Paul H.

It's a bone, I don't know what, it must be from a seal, dolphin or a big fish, or I don't know. This is a bone that was found in a formation from the early or middle Miocene. In that formation I have found dolphin bones, dolphin teeth, penguins, various shark, stingray, and fish teeth. I upload some photos, it is a little wet because I was cleaning it.

More of the same. Mostly sand tiger (our most common), a few cow sharks (my favorite; one missing serrations, but possibly a weird chip specific to that area. I'm starting to think the ones I am chasing are more fragile), gray shark, lemon, thresher, mako. The beach is attractive but tooth hunting uneven: a few teeth one day, a dozen the next, a few more the next (two or three hours around low tide each day). Coastal flooding (must be lots of rain upriver). Wind from the north (I hunt the south shores) brings in teeth but a lot of sand; south and west lowers water and uncovers teeth (although unpredictable). I cannot see well and stay near the water edge; most seem to look in the sand. Some days lots of small fossil bone chips and old glass. Minnows schooling and the beach is active (yet most fishing is a month away). Lots of people on the beach who come over to me to ID finds ("the blind leading the blind"). I find more teeth than most on the beach, but overall they seem to find nicer beach teeth. Have seen a beautiful glossy jet-black big sand tiger with cusps, many makos including one perfect one near 2" (5 cm), mostly sand tiger and "gray" shark teeth, and of course a few beautiful cow shark teeth (a big upper tooth and a nice lower lateral with six points and root). The weather has been usually warm (~80 F several days) and local beaches over-run with adults and toddlers (no teenagers who were the big teeth hunters 35 years ago; school closed this week).

Between 2020-23, two collectors who scuba dive for fossils throughout Florida and Georgia have recovered 5 chesapecten (including two paired valves) with morphological characteristics that signal a Miocene age. These characteristics include an acute byssal notch and a byssal fasciole that is strongly differentiated from the shell’s auricle in terms of sculpture and elevation. The largest of the adult shells also displays an active ctenolium. Additionally, one of the paired specimens displays significant gapes between valves when matched (the other pair was preserved as found by glue according to the collector and cannot be matched). These aforementioned traits are also emblatic of Miocene age for Chesapecten. These shells were recovered from the following areas in Georgia and Florida: Savannah River, Effingham County, Georgia (Collector 1) Specimen 1 (W = 108.0 mm) R valve L valve R valve - close up of byssal notch and fasciole (most of fasciole has been degraded) R valve - close up of ornamentation L valve - close up of ornamentation Profile Close up of matrix, gray sand Savannah River, Effingham County, Georgia (Collector 1) Specimen 2 (W = 101.6 mm) R valve R valve - interior R valve - close up of byssal notch and fasciole L valve - note barnacles are modern species, not fossilized L valve - interior L valve - close up of ornamentation on auricle Side profile of pair, showing gapes Front profile of pair, showing gapes Cumberland Island, Camden County Georgia (Collector 2) Specimen 3 (W = 114.3 mm) R valve, note encrustation is recent not fossilized R valve interior, thick shell apparent Close up of byssal notch and fasciole Close up of ctenolium, although modern encrustation makes it difficult to see what is going on in the ctenolium Close up of ornamentation St Mary’s River, Nassau County, Florida (Collector 2) Specimen 4 (W = 117.5 mm) R Valve R valve interior, active ctenolium and thick shell apparent Byssal notch and fasciole Close up of original sediment, note the olive and gray coloration Profile Suwanee River, Hamilton County, Florida (Collector 2) Specimen 5 (W = 69.9 mm) R valve, subadult specimen R valve interior, shell is thick for a subadult Unfortunately, stratigraphic data were not collected for these shells. However, among the Miocene strata from Coastal Georgia and NE Florida currently described in the literature, the Ebenezer Formation of Weems and Edwards (2001), of Upper Miocene (Tortonian age), appears to be the most suitable match based on the age of the Ebenezer and the characteristics of the shells found. The shells collected resemble Chesapecten middlesexensis of the Upper Miocene of Virginia and North Carolina. The Ebenezer was originally defined by Huddleston (1988) as a member of the Coosawhatchie Formation (Middle Miocene). Weems and Edwards later elevated it to formational rank based on differences in lithological and dinoflagellate composition compared to the rest of the Coosawhatchie. The Ebenezer formation consists of gray to olive-gray, fine- to medium-grained micaceous sand and stretches from South Carolina to NE Florida. Five mappable members are apparent and separable by distinct unconformities. The lower four members correspond to dinoflagellate zone DN 8, while the uppermost member corresponds to DN 9. Revision of the Ebenezer to Formational Rank from Weems and Edwards (2001) According to the dinoflagellate zonation of de Verteuil and Norris (1996), DN 8-9 aligns with the Little Cove Point Member (DN 8) and the Windmill Point Member (DN 9) of the St Mary’s Formation of Maryland and Virginia. Alignment of the Ebenezer to St Mary's Formation of MD and VA from Weems, Self-Trail and Edwards (2004) All specimens display similar characteristics which include an acute byssal notch, differentiated byssal fasciole, slightly inflated right valve, and a hinge size in adult specimens that is relatively small for adult chesapecten with the exception of Chesapecten covepointensis (DN 8 St Mary’s Formation) and in some cases Chesapecten santamaria (DN 9 St Mary’s Formation). Also, these shells could possibly be divided into two distinct variants although issues with preservation which appears to be somewhat better outside the Savannah River region may exaggerate these differences. Nevertheless, the Chesapecten collected outside of the Savannah River Region exhibit stronger, more raised ribs and have thicker, heavier shells compared to the specimens collected within the Savannah River region whose shells are thinner and ribs are lower and less pronounced. This is especially true of Specimen 1. Possibly that these variants originate from different members of the Ebenezer Formation. According to Weems and Edwards, “outside of the Savannah region, beds no older than dinoflagellate zone DN 9 occur”. This suggests that the shells collected outside of the Savannah River Region likely belong to Bed 5 of the Ebenezer Formation. Figure 3 of Weems and Edwards (2001) [shown below] suggests that someone scuba diving for fossils in the Savannah River is likely to collect in Bed 4. Therefore, it is possible that the Chesapecten specimens recovered from the Savannah River belong to Bed 4 of the Ebenezer Formation. This stratigraphic information aligns with the observed morphological differences among the specimens and tentatively supports the significance of these variations. Needless to say, more specimens are needed to confirm. Lateral Gradation of the Ebenezer from Georgia to Florida - Fig. 3 from Weems and Edwards (2001) Ward (1992) has remarked that the period between Chesapecten santamaria (DN 9) and Chesapecten middlesexensis (DN 10) represents a considerable loss of the fossil record in the stratigraphic succession of chesapecten. These Chesapecten, which bear a strong overall resemblance to Chesapecten middlesexensis while displaying traits of preceding species (smaller hinge, more differentiated byssal fasicole), could help bridge this apparent gap. Notably, no other Chesapecten in this age range outside of Maryland and Virginia have been reported in the literature. Personal Remarks The equivalency of these shells to the St Mary’s Formation, not the Eastover formation is surprising to me given the strong resemblance to C. middlesexensis. If anyone knows of any findings correlating DN 8-9 to the Eastover, or of the Ebenezer to DN 10 please let me know. Also, if anyone has any additional samples of similar shells from similar sites, even in SC please let me know. Thank you! References de Verteuil, L., and Norris, G., 1996, Miocene dinoflagellate stratigraphy and systematics of Maryland and Virginia: Micropaleontology, vol. 42 (Supplement), 172 p. Huddlestun, P.F., 1988, A revision of the lithostratigraphic units of the coastal plain of Georgia; the Miocene through the Holocene: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin, no. 104, 162 p. Ward, L.W, 1992, Molluscan biostratigraphy of the Miocene, Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain of North America, VMNH Memoirs, no 2, 152p. Weems, R.E, Edwards, L.E., 2001, Geology of Oligocene, Miocene, and younger deposits in the Coastal Area of Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey, no 131, 129 p. Weems, R.E, Self-Trail J., Edwards, L.E., 2004, Supergroup stratigraphy of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains (Middle? Jurassic through Holocene, eastern North America): Southeastern Geology, volume 42, p 191-216

Hey, been a while, so i decided to start a new topic for the new year. Headed out on Thursday 25/01 to the river shores in Antwerp again. First hunt of the year since i've worked non-stop so far and a contractor is rebuilding our house.. It was great being out again so i was already pleased on beforehand, finding some nice teeth made it even better 😁 here's some in situ pics.. Rolled C. hastalis C. hastalis in excellent shape my first Parotodus benedeni ever, not in great shape but an awesome find anyway 😀 Finally a complete 6cm C. hastalis VID20240125131132.mp4 And some random mammal teeth Had a great first hunt of the year, and I already feel like going back! oh yeah, here's the whole lot cleaned up.. Surprised about how many different species i got covered this time 😄 Grtz, Dries

I was lucky enough to trade some matrix with another collected from the famous shark tooth hill. I’ve identified them to the best of my ability and would love to show them off and get any feedback. Scale is mm! Thank you in advance! I’ll be more than happy to take different angles! C. planus tooth Charcharhinus sp. tooth Cat shark or hound shark? Galeorhinus sp. Mustelus sp. Squalus occidentalis

Greetings, Are all these from the same type of shark? I am trying to organize some of my finds over the years. Metric ruler.

Shown below is the tooth of a camelid, from the Miocene of the Bone Valley Member in Florida. It was sold as that of a Procamelus, but the Florida Museum page on the Palmetto Fauna doesn't list Procamelus as being present in it. The only camelids listed are Pleiolama, Hemiauchenia and Megatylopus. I personally believe the tooth to be from Hemiauchenia, but I have my doubts, particularly given the fact that I can't find much literature on the dentition of Pleiolama or Megatylopus for comparison online. The tooth also has an unusual ridge, as can be seen on the left in the first photo, which is a feature that doesn't appear to be present in the many Hemiauchenia specimens I can see, unless the ridge is a fragment of the most posterior projection of an M3. It is my understanding that @Harry Pristis is something of an expert on Floridian mammals. What do you make of the tooth? The tooth measures 2cm long (1.8cm if one disregards the projection of matrix on the right side of the tooth) and 2.4cm tall. Thanks in advance for any proposed ID's Othniel

The specimen was listed as a hatchet fish, however it looks more like a lantern fish to me. It was from an old collection. Age: Puente Formation, Miocene Location: California, Los Angeles, USA

Hello! I have been fossil hunting for quite a bit now and this is my first ever (what appears to me at least) fossilized bone! I would love just a general direction on what kind of animal it could’ve been- I know this area is very well-known for marine fossils, so of course my first thought would be some find of fish bone? Or I could be totally wrong, and it could be a more recent mammal! Any insight is so much appreciated- all I want to do is expand my knowledge. Thank you!

Found in Miocene period Monterey formation in Arroyo Seco canyon of Central California Coast Range. Trochita is an undescribed species known from this formation. Others are mostly Brachiopods (Discinisca lamellosa) which surprisingly is not extinct and still lives in some oceans, Scallops (Pectenidae), Venus Clams (Veneridae), Ark Shells (Anadara/Scapharca), and an unknown Moon Snail (Nacticidae). Most found in 2024, some in 2019. Added a few pics of the nice scenery in the canyon. Trochita specimen is noteworthy as being in good condition with surface detail and may get donated to the California Academy of Sciences collection.

Got some Lee Creek micro fossils I could use some help positively identifying. Tooth #1: Rhizoprionodon? Size 6mm Tooth #2: Some type of fish tooth? Tooth #3: Hoping for Rhincodon, but I don't think it is. Maybe a symphyseal tooth? It is laterally compressed though. Tooth #4: Thresher? Tooth #5: Mobula

Edit* Title changed to say shark skeletal elements ( previously said bones). This is an interesting topic that was brought up by my mentor and vertebrate paleontology professor during a lecture about a year ago. He mentioned that for some reason there seems to be a higher occurrence of shark bones and relative scarcity of teeth in the Astoria formation. That is the verbage he used. I am willing to bet this is some kind of collection bias where people just aren't recognizing the teeth as often as skeletal elements for some reason. I haven't been able to find information on Google scholar or really anywhere else that has provided information on depositional environments that would favor the preservation of shark skeletal elements over teeth, especially where there are plentiful well preserved invertebrate shells. Most of the fossils are locked in concretions or embedded in concrete-hard sandstone. There is intermittent softer sandstone and siltstone, but seems like most of the vertebrate and invertebrate fossils occur in the harder layers. This is something that has interested me as a research topic, but I haven't been able to make it out in awhile to do any collecting of my own. It would be interesting to set up a transect say from Newport to Lincoln City, take a group out and just collect fossils over a period of time across the transect to get an idea of fossil type, frequency, etc. And see if there really is something lending itself to a higher frequency of shark skeletal elements. On a side note it does seem like there is an usually high occurrence of young vertebrates such as pinnipeds and whales in the sections of the formation I've collected. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the matter as well as any additional insights you may be able to provide. What do you think?

I wonder if anyone could help me identify this equid fossil. Miocene of Tonopah, Nevada, I am told. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks!

I collected this bone earlier this week in an outcrop of the Calvert Formation (Early-Middle Miocene) in Maryland. I found several vertebrae in close proximity to each other that I have tentatively identified as dolphin. I will share them after I finish cleaning and prepping them. Next to one vertebra was this mystery bone. Any idea what it could be? Maybe part of the dolphin sternum? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Found this tiny shark tooth in some Lee Creek matrix. Any ideas?

Following up on the artificial tooth set I recently constructed for the Paleocene sand tiger shark Striatolamia striata, I decided to see if I could put one together for the Miocene snaggletooth, Hemipristis serra, using teeth I've collected along the Calvert Cliffs in Maryland. I haven't found a great resource for an H. serra dentition, but I consulted a few different sources to get a sense for the arrangement, including Fossilguy.com, J-elasmo (which has a dentition for the extant H. elongata), and various TFF threads. The resulting tooth set is below. While I've found quite a few H. serra teeth, their abundance from the cliffs isn't anywhere near that of S. striata from the Potomac River, so this one was a bit more challenging to construct. In addition to several fairly worn teeth in my set, some that I've slotted into various jaw positions are likely a bit more fanciful than the last one. The best extreme posteriors I've collected are proportionally too large, so I also had to use less good substitutes for those positions. The largest teeth below are about 1.25" inches in length. Most of these were collected from Matoaka Beach over the last year, but I found a few of them from Brownie's Beach and Calvert Cliffs State Park. The full tooth set: Quadrants: Finally, here are some better examples of extreme posterior teeth. Both of these are a tad over 0.7" long.

Found some nice Miocene period fish fossils in 2020. They have been ID'ed as Xyne grex (Extinct Herring Relative) but other and larger fish species fossils as well as shark teeth have been found there too. There is some Great info on this site here!: https://www.nautiloid.net/fossils/sites/jalama/jalama.html

Hey, going through some finds of last year i came across this tiny Hexanchid tooth. 0,9cm x 0,5cm, Miocene/Pliocene, Antwerp area, Belgium I've seen Hexanchid posterior teeth before and they look quite different.. (from the book 'Neogene Sharks of Antwerp' by Stephane Knoll) Could mine be juvenile Notorynchus or Hexanchus? Thx, Dries

Pictured below is an otolith from an indeterminate cetacean, from the Miocene of the Calvert Cliffs Formation. I've had this particular specimen in my collection for some time, but was under the impression that otoliths weren't diagnostic to any degree, but my research surrounding cetacean dentition for a dolphin tooth I plan to purchase soon has proved otherwise, so I thought it would be worth putting it to the experts. Unfortunately I can't find my ruler to provide a sense of scale for the photos, but the specimen is approximately 4cm long and 1.5cm tall. Thanks in advance for any proposals as to the origin of the fossil Othniel