Search the Community

Please help me identify these finds from the bottom of a clay cliff in Warden Point, Isle of Sheppey a - 0.5cm thick, almost flat, smooth on the other side b - i think this is not a fossil but a handle of an old knife c - round in cross section d - this is hexagonal in cross section the remaining ones are all of the same kind and the beach was full of them, i guess they may not be fossils either but what are they?

Somerset fossil hunters 'need to be better informed' BBC News, July 27, 2021 United Kingdom Fossil Network Yours, Paul H.

Largest find of Jurassic starfish and relatives ever discovered in the UK excavated by Natural History Museum British Natural History Museum Part-time adventurers’: amateur fossil hunters get record haul in Cotswolds More than 1,000 scientifically significant specimens taken from former quarry after discovery. Miranda Bryant, The Guardian, July 20, 2021 Yours, Paul H.

Hi Guys, First of all, I'm not a fossil hunter, so forgive my vagueness. I stumbled across this about fifteen years ago whilst exploring an abandoned quarry in the North East of the UK. I can't remember exactly where it was, as I was only 15 at the time and had quite a poor sense of direction! It's quite interesting as it seems to have scales, and arm and a claw. Let me know what you guys think!

Hi all, I'm a British fossil hunter living and working in Colombia. Whenever I have free time I hop on the motorbike to Villa de Leyva or the Tatacoa Desert and start digging. I'm keen to meet people here with an interest in South American fossils and looking forward to learning from everyone here. Hope you've all had a good Christmas and New Year!

Hey everyone! Continuing from the other ID thread, I’d like to hear your opinions on another recent acquisition from the Oxford Clay: a group of associated metriorhynchid teeth. Now, there are several metriorhynchid taxa described from the Oxford Clay Formation: Gracilineustes leedsi, Ieldraan melkshamensis, Suchodus brachyrhynchus, Suchodus ?durobrivensis, Thalattosuchus superciliosus, and Tyrannoneustes lythrodectikos. Pretty much all of them have decent descriptions of their dentition available, so comparing these teeth to the literature facilitates the ID process quite a bit. First off: We’re examining 3 teeth, none of which are complete (all lacking the apex), but are seemingly unworn and thus have some distinctive diagnostic features preserved. They display weak to moderate mediolateral compression and some lingual curvature as well as free, smooth, and opposed carinae. The basic texture of the enamel is slightly rough or pitted on both lingual and labial surfaces. Tooth A is the larger of the more complete teeth. It preserves about half of the crown as well as part of the root. No constriction is apparent at the transition between root and crown. The tooth displays slight lingual and distal curvature. Slight ridges overlay the basic enamel texture. Labially, these striae are long, continuous, and become less numerous apically. Lingually they are shorter, more numerous, and show no apical reduction in the part preserved. On both surfaces the striae are similar in strength and separate (non-fusing and non-anastomosing). Tooth B is the smaller of the more complete teeth. It preserves a more apical portion of the crown than tooth A and no root. Again, the tooth displays slight lingual and distal curvature. There are no apparent striations on the labial surface. On the lingual surface, striae are distinctly apparent without magnification. Among these, some are continuous while the majority is singular or discontinuous. The striae are longest medially, some spanning the entire preserved length of the crown, and become shorter and less dense towards the carinae. Again, all striae are separate. Tooth C only preserves one anteroposterior half of the crown, the exact position of which is indeterminable through curvature. Similar to tooth A, parts of the root are preserved and show no constriction at the transition towards the crown. There are no conspicuous striations present on either surface. Since the teeth are relatively small, excluding taxa based on size alone isn’t possible. Therefore, we can best approach this ID by looking at the characteristic morphologies of each taxon: Gracilineustes leedsi ANDREWS 1913 The teeth of G. leedsi are conical, unfaceted, and display moderate to strong mediolateral compression and lingual curvature. Ornamentation occurs in the form of short, low apicobasal ridges that are barely visible with the naked eye. These are more abundant and strongly developed lingually, most numerous basally and become reduced apically, but do not interact with the carinae (YOUNG et al. 2013, 2015). Overall, G. leedsi appears to be a poor fit, as the striae in one tooth are not only very strongly developed, but also continuous along the length of the crown. Ieldraan melkshamensis FOFFA et al. 2017 The teeth of I. melkshamensis exhibit a unique morphology among metriorhynchids, in which the labial surface is divided into three distinct apicobasal planes. The central plane is distinctly fluted by five strongly developed troughs, a feature that is found in all known teeth of the species. Additionally, the teeth are ornamented by overlaying apicobasal striae. These are short, discontinuous, and occur on both lingual and labial surfaces, giving the enamel a rough appearance. Again, the ornamentation does not interact with the carinae (FOFFA et al. 2017). Like Gracilineustes, I. melkshamensis has to be considered a poor fit: The typical dental morphology of this species is not present, and the ornamentation differs quite a bit from what we see in these teeth. Suchodus brachyrhynchus EUDES-DESLONGCHAMPS 1867 The teeth of S. brachyrhnychus show a varying degree of mediolateral compression, weak in some teeth and strong in others (unspecified whether this is positional). Enamel ornamentation consists of weakly developed apicobasal ridges of unspecified extend on the lingual side, while the labial side is described to lack conspicuous ornamentation entirely (FOFFA et al. 2017, YOUNG et al. 2013). Again, as enamel striations in S. brachyrhynchus differ substantially from the ones seen in these teeth, this species seems to be an unlikely fit. Suchodus ?durobrivensis LYDEKKER 1890 The validity of this species has been disputed in the past, certain authors regard it as synonymous with S. brachyrhynchus, and I couldn’t find many references to it in more recent papers. ANDREWS 1913 calls this species ‘Metriorhynchus durobrivense’ – his description of the teeth as possessing a nearly smooth enamel with only slight ornamentation in the form of ‘extremely’ fine apicobasal ridges of unspecified extend certainly sounds similar to the general attributes of S. brachyrhynchus teeth. Varying descriptions of the teeth as mediolaterally compressed (sometimes this compression is specified to be ‘weak’) align with this as well (ANDREWS 1913, FOFFA et al. 2017). Regardless of whether S. brachyrhynchus and S. durobrivensis represent the same species, neither of their teeth show the morphology we are looking for and are a poor fit for this ID. Tyrannoneustes lythrodectikos YOUNG et al. 2013 The teeth of T. lythrodectikos are moderately to strongly mediolaterally compressed. The enamel lacks distinct ornamentation on both labial and lingual sides, except for the very base of the crown, where low, well-spaced, and short apicobasal ridges are present (FOFFA et al. 2017, YOUNG et al. 2013). T. lythrodectikos exhibits strongly reduced ornamentation, a condition not found in these teeth, and can therefore be disregarded as a possible ID. Thalattosuchus superciliosus YOUNG et al. 2020 Lastly, we must examine Thalattosuchus superciliosus. The YOUNG et al. 2020 paper on the description of the genus is unfortunately not openly accessible, yet detailed descriptions of the dentition exist in prior literature from when it was still assigned to ‘Metriorhynchus’ superciliosus. The teeth of this species are conical and curve lingually, sometimes with a certain degree of mediolateral compression (this condition is reportedly more apparent in newly erupted teeth). The ornamentation is strong, with short to moderately long apicobasal ridges that are distinctly visible on the lingual side, but less developed labially (newly erupted teeth feature strong ornamentation on both surfaces, suggesting that differences in ornamentation might be caused by wear). Ornamentation does not interact with the carinae. (ANDREWS 1913, VIGNAUD 1997, YOUNG et al. 2013). Overall, T. superciliosus appears to be a good ID for these teeth: The most extreme example of ornamentation observed in tooth B excludes all other taxa, but fits well with the typical dentition of this species. The variation between the teeth is easily explained by the natural variation that can be observed in individual metriorhynchids due to tooth position and wear. T. superciliosus has a relative abundance of specimens assigned to it, especially when compared to some of the other taxa, and thus our understanding of its dental characteristics is fortunately rather extensive. Considering everything, I'm rather confident in this ID. Still, I’d very much like to hear your thoughts! Especially if anyone has a PDF of the YOUNG et al. 2020 paper on Thalattosuchus, I’d really appreciate it! Thank you for your help! ADAMS-TRESMAN, S.M. (1978): The Callovian (Middle Jurassic) Marine Crocodile Metriorhynchus From Central England ANDREWS, C.W. (1913): A Descriptive Catalogue Of The Marine Reptiles Of The Oxford Clay - Part II FOFFA, D., YOUNG, M.T., BRUSATTE, S.L., GRAHAM, M.R. (2017): A New Metriorhynchid Crocodylomorph From The Oxford Clay Formation (Middle Jurassic) Of England, With Implications For The Origin And Diversification Of Geosaurini VIGNAUD, P. (1997): La Morphologie Dentaire Des Thalattosuchia (Crocodylia, Mesosuchia) YOUNG, M.T., DE ANDRADE, M.B., BRUSATTE, S.L., SAKAMOTO, M. (2013): The Oldest Known Metriorhynchid Super-Predator: A New Genus And Species From The Middle Jurassic Of England, With Implications For Serration And Mandibular Evolution In Predatious CLades YOUNG, M.T., BEATTY, B., STEEL, L. (2015): First Evidence Of Denticulated Dentition In Teleosaurid Crocodylomorphs

Does anyone know what this is because I have looked around and have know idea what it is. I mean it might be a rock. I cant remember where I found it apart from that it was in England. Any help would be appreciated identifying this. If you need any more photos just say. Thank you.

Hey everyone! I recently got a few marine reptile teeth from various formations in the UK, including this partial plesiosaur tooth from the Oxford Clay. The enamel is only partially preserved, but appears unworn and allows for a good look at the enamel ridges of this section. The curved, rather robust shape of the tooth and the irregular distribution of the pretty prominent enamel ridges made me move away from ichthyosaur or machimosaurid as an ID, and seemed more in line with the many plesiosaurs from this formation. But that's where it got more tricky. Since it's a small tooth (about 21mm in total) excluding taxa based on size alone isn't possible. I couldn't find much literature on the ontogenetic changes in enamel structure for most plesiosaurs from this formation, so assuming similar condiditions in both adult and juvenile individuals has to suffice (though I'm always open for more info!). Starting with the plesiosauroids, all Oxford Clay taxa are part of Cryptoclididae and have at times very detailed descriptions of their teeth available. Therefore we're able to use these as a reference point to compare this tooth against. BROWN 1981 describes teeth from all available species in detail: Cryptoclidus possesses teeth with greatly reduced ornamentation, to the point where usually labial ridges are missing entirely. Also, all lingual ridges in these teeth originate basally, neither of which is the case here. Muraenosaurus is described to have a higher number of labial ridges apically than basally and no prominent axial ridges, conditions that don't apply here: The ridge count is highest basally and is reduced apically, and axial carinae are seperate and distinguishable from the other ridges. OTERO et al. 2020 recovers Picrocleidus as the sister taxon to Muraenosaurus, so since there is no dental material assigned to Picrocleidus we have to assume a similar condition. Lastly, Tricleidus is supposed to possess teeth similar to Muraenosaurus, only with stronger and more numerous labial ridges than lingual ones. Again, neither of these conditions apply here: Ridges are more numerous lingually, and don't appear to be obviously different in strength (though I will have to examine and describe them individually in more detail). Overall, the relatively short, robust nature doesn't fit as well with Plesiosauroidea (though position is important), and the sometimes mentioned labio-lingually compressed shape of their teeth doesn't seem to apply here either, at least not in the parts preserved. Looking at the other resident plesiosaur group, the pliosaurids, the round cross-section and offset carinae are found in various taxa. Still, we can again exclude some from the start: According to KETCHUM & BENSON 2010, Peloneustes possesses teeth in which all ridges around the crown originate basally, which like mentioned before isn't the case. 'Pliosaurus' andrewsi likely represents a new taxon closest related to Peloneustes, but with no known dental material, so assuming a similar condition is the most resonable option for now. Descriptions of the teeth of Pachycostasaurus in NOÈ 2001 describe the enamel ridges as broad and sparse, but don't go into much detail. Yet, these conditions don't really seem to sit well with the structure of this tooth, in which ridges are at least in one region somewhat tightly grouped together. KETCHUM & BENSON 2011 describe a diagnostic condition in the teeth of Marmornectes, in which the enamel ridges only start in some distance to the carinae - this is somewhat true for one carina, but not the other, in which the carina is clearly distinguishable from the other ridges, yet isn't particularly spaced further away from the the ridges than they are from one another. This leaves Liopleurodon and Simolestes, neither of which typically show much labial ornamentation, yet this appears to be highly dependent on position and ontogeny. For example, ANDREWS 1918 describes teeth of Simolestes with comparatively extensive labial ornamentation even at considerable size. Overall, I know this ID is hard to pin down. I'd really like to hear your thoughts, and I can of course provide more detailed pictures if necessary. If anyone knows someone I could contact over this, I'd really appreciate it! Thank you for your help!

A new mineral has been discovered by scientists analysing a rock mined in Cornwall from Wheal Gorland mine in St Day about 220 years ago Kernowite: New mineral found on rock mined in Cornwall Miyawaki, R., Hatert, F., Pasero, M. and Mills, S.J., 2020. IMA Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification (CNMNC)–Newsletter 58. European Journal of Mineralogy, 32(6), pp.645-651. Kernowite - Cu2Fe3+(AsO4)(OH)4•4H2O Yours, Paul H.

In short, I'm trying to figure out exactly what was on the menu: fish or cephalopods. While sorting through some Oxford Clay fish coprolites, I came across this specimen. It was part of a batch purchased years ago. I must have just assumed the inclusions were fish vertebrae, but now I'm not too sure. I know some vertebrae from some fish fry can be hollow, but the texture/material of these inclusions look very different from anything I've seen (including vertebrae in Oxford Clay coprolites). Because of the color and layers, I'm thinking these may be chitinous. That said, I haven't seen enough fossilized chitinous material to be sure. The only thing I've seen are cephalopod hooks in coprolite (tiny and thin with no layers) and Arthropleura tergites (note layered because they weren't exposed to digestion?). I know back in the early 1800's, William Buckland thought some of the rings found in Blue Lias coprolites could be rings from the suckers of cephalopods, but acknowledged fish vertebrae should not be ruled out (On the Discovery of Coprolites, or Fossil Faeces, in the Lias at Lyme Regis, and in other Formations - Page 226). I have a number of specimens with that type of ring, but they are smaller and fossilization/mineralization isn't the same. So here are my questions: 1. Does anyone out there have any examples of beefy chitinous inclusions in coprolite? 2. Is there a quick test for chitin? 3. Has anyone seen vertebrae that look like these? 4. Has anyone seen fossilized rings from cephalopod suckers? Some extant squid have these, but their rings have little teeth/serrations on them. 5. Any other ideas what these could be? As always, thanks for looking! @MarcoSr, @DE&i, @Carl

New 'sea dragon' species discovered by amateur fossil hunter off English coast By Jack Guy, CNN, December 10, 2020 The open access paper is: Jacobs, M.L. and Martill, D.M., 2020. A new ophthalmosaurid ichthyosaur from the Upper Jurassic (Early Tithonian) Kimmeridge Clay of Dorset, UK, with implications for Late Jurassic ichthyosaur diversity. Plos one, 15(12), p.e0241700. Yours, Paul H.

Hi everyone! Today, a friend of mine from the Paleontology course at the University of Bristol and I went fossil hunting at the beach of Portishead, as we had heard it was an interesting and productive location. We were fairly confident that we would come home with at least some crinoid pieces, as these were meant to be rather abundant, but our real goal was to hopefully find some of the elusive eurypterid remains. It was about half an hour bus ride from the center of Bristol to Portishead, so it's relatively quick and easy for us to get there. It didn't take too long for us find our first few crinoid pieces in the rubble on the beach, and my friend managed to find a couple of decent spiriferid brachiopods by splitting some small rocks open. Unfortunately, it started to rain quite quickly, and after about an hour of searching the rain we decided to call it a day... so we didn't hunt for very long at all and hence didn't make any impressive finds. We didn't see any traces of fishes or eurypterids either which was a little disappointing, although also somewhat expected. Wishing to escape the rain, we found a little restaurant where we could sit inside and get a warm lunch, and afterwards we decided to just go back home as we were both tired, despite the very short hunt. So in terms of finds, we weren't very successful, but I did manage to snap some nice photos from the location. The geology of the place was really crazy and kind of all over the place, as you can see from the pictures here. Really interesting! We haven't yet covered this topic in my Geology course, but I suspect we will do that sometime soon, and then I will probably be more knowledgeable about what we're seeing actually means. But for now you'll still have to stick with my very amateur descriptions (stratigraphy can be a little complicated for a Pleistocene hunter as myself! ) This is the northern end of the location, Battery Point, where we are looking at several layers of the Portishead Formation. This is a Tournaisian-aged (Mississipian, early Carboniferous, approx 350 million years old) formation that is very rich in crinoids and corals. What's interesting to note is that the layers are not straight, but sit at approximately 30 degrees upwards. But that's pretty mild compared to the Devonian layers (as you will see a bit later). (Continued)

Hi everyone New here and have a 5yr old VERY interested in fossils. Found the attached on a local beach earlier today, North West - United Kingdom. Usually renowned for ammonites. Not sure if just pretty pattern or a fossil imprint. Any ideas or suggestions would be very much appreciated. The stone is approx 70mm but can get another photo with exact measurements later if that would help?

Hi everyone, I have here a shark tooth from the United Kingdom Eocene. It wasn't given to me with much more information. It's around 8mm and unserrated. Is it possible to narrow down a species?

Origin of British Crown Jewels’ diamond revealed Valentina Ruiz Leotaud, MiningCom, June 28, 2020 https://www.mining.com/origin-of-british-crown-jewels-diamond-revealed/ CLIPPIR diamonds = Cullinan–like, large, inclusion–poor, pure, irregular, and resorbed diamonds Smith, E.M., Shirey, S.B., Nestola, F., Bullock, E.S., Wang, J., Richardson, S.H. and Wang, W., 2016. Large gem diamonds from metallic liquid in Earth’s deep mantle. Science, 354(6318), pp.1403-1405. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311666698_Large_gem_diamonds_from_metallic_liquid_in_Earth's_deep_mantle https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Examples-of-rough-CLIPPIR-diamonds-from-the-Letseng-mine-Lesotho-GIA-copyright-credit_fig2_311666698 Yours, Paul H.

Everyone probably knows the theropod distal femur from the Taynton Limestone Formation of Oxfordshire that was illustrated by Robert Plot in 1677 and thought to be from a Roman war elephant or biblical giant, and which was dubbed " humanum"* by Richard Brookes in 1763. However, even though the femur illustrated by Plot (now missing) has often been considered to belong to Megalosaurus, but as noted in Halstead and Sarjeant (1993), this femur might belong to a theropod other than Megalosaurus, as Duriavenator, Magnosaurus, Iliosuchus, and Cruxicheiros co-existed lived in the same time and region as Megalosaurus. *" humanum" was not a binomial, but instead an anatomical label; see Halstead and Sarjeant (1993). Halstead, L. B.; Sarjeant, W. A. S. (1993). humanum Brookes - the earliest name for a dinosaur. Modern Geology 18: 221–224.

Hello, I recently got a hold of this tooth from an old collection in the UK. I am unsure if this tooth wouldve come from a ichthyosaur or a pliosaur since the root is absent and I'm not expert in this material, so any feedback that help figure this tooth out is appreciated.

British dinosaurs to feature on UK money for the first time By Josh Davis, Natural History Museum, February 2020 https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2020/february/british-dinosaurs-to-feature-on-coins.html Yours, Paul H.

Pooch sniffs out prehistoric prize: Canine discovers 250,000-year-old woolly rhino bone By Today, Today news, April 5, 2019 https://www.todaychan.com/2019/04/05/pooch-sniffs-out-prehistoric-prize-dog-discovers-250000-year-old-woolly-rhino-bone-2/ Yours, Paul H.

Death near the shoreline, not life on land December 13, 2018, Geological Society of America https://phys.org/news/2018-12-death-shoreline-life.html https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/gsoa-dnt121318.php Shillito, Anthony P. and Davies, Neil S. (2018) Death near the Shoreline, not Life on Land: Ordovician Arthropod Trackways in the Borrowdale Volcanic Group, UK. Geology. ISSN 0091-7613, 1943-2682 https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/47/1/55/567352/Death-near-the-shoreline-not-life-on-land GSA Data Repository 2019022 https://www.geosociety.org/datarepository/2019/2019022.pdf Yours, Paul H.

Hello I was wondering if anyone could identify this fragment, which I think might be a fragment of bone, but am unsure. I don't have a lot of knowledge when it comes to identifying Pleistocene fossils.

How a poor Victorian woman became a legendary fossil hunter Mary Anning was renowned as a ‘geological lioness’, with her discoveries including the first complete plesiosaur fossil. Now, centuries later, her town of Lyme Regis is putting up a long overdue statue of her, The Independent, November 2018 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mary-anning-fossils-palaeontology-lyme-regis-women-geology-statue-victorian-era-a8617936.html Yours, Paul H.

Fossil collector rescued after becoming trapped by landslide Fishermen dig injured man out of mud before he is airlifted to safety The Independent, November 2018 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fossil-collector-trapped-mud-landslide-cliffs-port-mulgrave-yorkshire-a8605461.html Yours, Paul H.