New member w/fossil fish

[tonyb300]

Hello fossil hunters, New guy with some prehistoric herring or something. Purchased in the 80's from some shopping mall science store that is no longer in existence. Just wondering if this is an easy ID as I think it might have been excavated hastily and maybe some fins, tails or details might be disrupted. I've tried to post up the biggest pic I can so I hope that makes IDing possible.

 

Thanks

 

[Huntonia]

Gosiutichthys I believe, however I may be wrong.

[thelivingdead531]

I agree. Here are some from my collection for comparison. Though, a while back, there was a discussion on whether Gosiutichthys were actually Knightia. I’m trying to find the post that lead me on a quest for answers about mine. I’ll post it if I can find it.

 

Editing: My memory made up a story. It wasn’t a discussion on whether Gosiutichthys were actually Knightia, but more on how to tell the differences between the two. Sorry, I didn’t mean to lie about that. 

[Fossildude19]

What is the size of the most complete fish?

 

They look like Gosiutichthys parvus to me, but measurements would help. 

[thelivingdead531]

Here is the post that helped me with my ID. Sorry it took so long.

[tonyb300]

Thx for the replies.

 

The center fish, which is missing the tail (the blur where the tail should be is remnants of a ribcage of another fish) is 2.5" and they all are about 1" in width at their widest point. Overall the whole piece is approx 4.5" wide & 4" ht.

Forgive my old school but I didn't have a metric handy.

 

When I looked up "Gosiutichthys" it led me to Osteichthyes, is that the family it's from?

 

Is this a common fossil?

 

Does it look hastily rendered from the material it was embedded?

 

Is several fish on one fossil more or less valuable than one?

 

Not looking to sell it at this time but would like to know as much as possible.

 

 

[tonyb300]

21 minutes ago, thelivingdead531 said:

Here is the post that helped me with my ID. Sorry it took so long.

Interesting, in that thread there is a chart with specs on 3 species and considering the average size of these fish being 3-4" would that imply that they are Knightia Alta?

[thelivingdead531]

5 minutes ago, tonyb300 said:

Interesting, in that thread there is a chart with specs on 3 species and considering the average size of these fish being 3-4" would that imply that they are Knightia Alta?

I believe that's the case. I also counted the anal fins and verts on my fish to help me come to my conclusion. If you're able to do so on yours  it would help with the identification. 

[Darktooth]

54 minutes ago, thelivingdead531 said:

 

 

Editing: My memory made up a story. It wasn’t a discussion on whether Gosiutichthys were actually Knightia, but more on how to tell the differences between the two. Sorry, I didn’t mean to lie about that. 

LYING TO THE FOSSIL FORUM!!! OOOOHHHH THE HORROR!!!!!! WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH YOU!

[thelivingdead531]

4 minutes ago, Darktooth said:

LYING TO THE FOSSIL FORUM!!! OOOOHHHH THE HORROR!!!!!! WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH YOU!

I suggest locking me up in a room of unguarded fossils for a few hours and then releasing me, no questions asked or checking of my pockets. 

[tonyb300]

As U can see from the pics discerning anal fins doesn't look possible but if verts means vertebra then I will take the time with a magnifier and count them. I did not see anything about vertebra on that chart, am I missing something?

[Fossildude19]

36 minutes ago, tonyb300 said:

Is this a common fossil?

 

Does it look hastily rendered from the material it was embedded?

 

Is several fish on one fossil more or less valuable than one?

 

Not looking to sell it at this time but would like to know as much as possible.

 

These are fairly common from the Green River Formation, in Wyoming. 

They are slightly less common than Knightia eocaena or Diplomystus dentatus.

 

It isn't "hastily rendered". The language we would use would be poorly prepared, or extracted from the matrix, depending on the type of fossil.

It looks like the preservation on your piece just was not as good as some other fossils. 

 

Several fossil fish is kind of cool, but more so if they are complete. 

Value of fossils is usually based on the condition of the fossil and the preservation. The better the preservation, the more desirable the fossil.

 

That said, we don't offer valuation of fossils, as a rule, here on the Forum.

 

 

EDIT:  This post has the correct chart.

 

 

[thelivingdead531]

1 minute ago, tonyb300 said:

As U can see from the pics discerning anal fins doesn't look possible but if verts means vertebra then I will take the time with a magnifier and count them. I did not see anything about vertebra on that chart, am I missing something?

Nope, I just have a terrible memory apparently.  I did count anal fins and something else on the list though. I think I should be sent to TFF timeout now.

[Darktooth]

20 minutes ago, thelivingdead531 said:

I suggest locking me up in a room of unguarded fossils for a few hours and then releasing me, no questions asked or checking of my pockets. 

 

8 minutes ago, thelivingdead531 said:

Nope, I just have a terrible memory apparently.  I did count anal fins and something else on the list though. I think I should be sent to TFF timeout now.

Oh boy! We need to find out who has the absolute worst fossil collection and lock you up with with that!

[tonyb300]

8 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

These are fairly common from the Green River Formation, in Wyoming. 

They are slightly less common than Knightia eocaena or Diplomystus dentatus.

 

It isn't "hastily rendered". The language we would use would be poorly prepared, or extracted from the matrix, depending on the type of fossil.

It looks like the preservation on your piece just was not as good as some other fossils. 

 

Several fossil fish is kind of cool, but more so if they are complete. 

Value of fossils is usually based on the condition of the fossil and the preservation. The better the preservation, the more desirable the fossil.

 

That said, we don't offer valuation of fossils, as a rule, here on the Forum.

 

 

EDIT:  This post has the correct chart.

 

 

Nice, thx for addressing those questions and I understand your policy about valuation, just wanted to gauge it roughly. I've seen some extremely well prepared and extracted fish fossils that have virtually all the details intact which are highly valuable, this piece seems to be preserved and extracted what I would consider average but at least it's real and I've come close to ID'ing it.

 

So I guess I what close in my first assumption of prehistoric herring  ......... I wonder if they made good bait.

[tonyb300]

Based on the size of 3-4" and vertebra count (approx 32 verts before broken tail of most complete fish) I guess Knightia Alta is the safest bet. Right?

 

thx for the input.

 

 

[thelivingdead531]

11 minutes ago, tonyb300 said:

Based on the size of 3-4" and vertebra count (approx 32 verts before broken tail of most complete fish) I guess Knightia Alta is the safest bet. Right?

 

thx for the input.

 

 

Personally, that’s what I’d put my money on, especially based on size and my own experience. I’ve been known to be wrong though (as seen above ).

 

27 minutes ago, Darktooth said:

 

Oh boy! We need to find out who has the absolute worst fossil collection and lock you up with with that!

At this point, you guys might want to lock me in a padded room, as it seems I’m losing my marbles! 

[jpc]

without doing the fins and verts counting, the preservation looks like Fontenelle Fish (named after the site).  The Fontenelle Fish are all Gosiutichtyes.  

[tonyb300]

3 hours ago, jpc said:

without doing the fins and verts counting, the preservation looks like Fontenelle Fish (named after the site).  The Fontenelle Fish are all Gosiutichtyes.  

I've looked at the pics and I don't deny they look a lot similar but the size is way off, my fish are 3-4" and the Fontenelle are 50-70mm.

I count the verts at 30-40 but no fins to work with, the specs point to Knightia Alta from the chart, but the head and eye shape are similar to the ones you suggest.

Is this an odd occurrence?

[Fossildude19]

9 hours ago, tonyb300 said:

I've looked at the pics and I don't deny they look a lot similar but the size is way off, my fish are 3-4" and the Fontenelle are 50-70mm.

I count the verts at 30-40 but no fins to work with, the specs point to Knightia Alta from the chart, but the head and eye shape are similar to the ones you suggest.

Is this an odd occurrence?

Not really. They could very well be Knightia alta. 

I think your examples are too poorly preserved to really be able to be positive.