Fossil ID needed

[Kimi64]

Hi everyone,

I was doing a beach cleanup on Sunday along the Port Tobacco River, & I noticed this little rock sitting next to an old beer can. It is 3 cm wide at it's widest point. The whitish grey color made it a challenge to photograph, so I added a slight wash to it. Any help with an ID would be greatly appreciated. I looked at many images of worms last night, but I didn't see anything with the same shape or length, & without knowing the age of the rock, I am not sure how to identify it. While it is whited out in the middle, when I look at it under a magnifying glass I can see that the horizontal lines extend through almost the whole length of the ovalish shape. This photo was magnified 2x. Thanks for looking! 

[Fossildude19]

Looks like some shell bits and cross-sections. 

Not sure you can narrow it down more than that.   

 

Contrasted:

 

[Kimi64]

Hi FD, when I am looking at it, it looks way more like worm burrows & an oval shaped wormish creature sitting in the lower left quadrant. I have plenty of shell trace fossils, & this really doesn't resemble any of them. But if that is what it turns out to be, it is still interesting to find that along the Port Tobacco. 

[minnbuckeye]

I just don't see the oval, striated object being a trace fossil. Probably a fossil though. As "FD" says, shell bits are a possibility. 

 

Mike

[FossilNerd]

I agree with @Fossildude19 in that it looks a lot like shell bits from this picture. The piece in the bottom left seems to show a valve and evidence of plications.  To the right of this piece I see cross sections of other shell bits and pieces.

 

That being said... Things are hard to ID from pictures (and especially from just one).  Maybe a few more pictures from other views will show us differently. 
 

[doushantuo]

There is a passing resemblance to Naktodemasis bowni*, which is probably not significant.

*basically non-marine

Out of stratigraphic and sedimentological context,and with some information missing, this will be hard to ID properly

[Kimi64]

2 hours ago, minnbuckeye said:

I just don't see the oval, striated object being a trace fossil. Probably a fossil though. As "FD" says, shell bits are a possibility. 

 

Mike

Thanks, I will correct that. I mislabeled it as a trace fossil only because it has the faintest appearance of any fossil that I have found or handled so far. Definitely didn't see anything like this in my historical geology lab classes.

[Plax]

You need to picture what a whole shell would look like either partially covered in stone or ground down and viewed in cross section. I see two fairly obvious shells. One partially exposed the other viewed in cross section. This may be a piece of indurated Aquia Formation is that's exposed in the general area you collected this. Also keep in mind that paleozoics occasionally show up in river gravel in the area.