Just Bob Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I am not even sure if these are fossils. They kind of look like a seed or a nut or maybe a fungus of some kind. The big one is hard as a rock and even the little one is very hard, i could not really brake it by hard with reasonable force. I fould them in a steam bed that was supposedly running through the Navesink/ Mount Laurel beds, i did not see any evidence of this though. Anyway i thougth they were curious looking. Hopefully someone can shed some light on what they may be. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Menser Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Interesting pieces but the pics are a bit too small for my old eyes... Be true to the reality you create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-remanié Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 The first might be a favosites coral from the Pleistocene wash, but I agree with Frank, bigger pictures would help greatly. ---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen--- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Bob Posted December 18, 2009 Author Share Posted December 18, 2009 Yeah i guess i down sized it a little to much. Maybe this will help. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 The top one is definitely a coral, possibly something like Favosites. Bits of well worn paleozoic fossils are fairly common in the gravels around there. They did not wash out of the Mt Laurel/Navesink they are from Pleistocene glacial debris. Gouged out and pushed down from outcrops much farther north. The small item looks like a mammal tooth. It could also be ice age but more likely recent. You need the mammal guys to speak up on that one. It could also be an oyster fragment from the Cretaceous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 I agree with the transported coral ID. And the mammal tooth ID. I think it's a vole? Definitely a small rodent. Most likely modern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Bob Posted December 18, 2009 Author Share Posted December 18, 2009 Thank you guys. I apreciate it. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Menser Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 The top one is definitely a coral, possibly something like Favosites. Bits of well worn paleozoic fossils are fairly common in the gravels around there. They did not wash out of the Mt Laurel/Navesink they are from Pleistocene glacial debris. Gouged out and pushed down from outcrops much farther north. The small item looks like a mammal tooth. It could also be ice age but more likely recent. You need the mammal guys to speak up on that one. It could also be an oyster fragment from the Cretaceous. Sounds about right to me, though that rodent tooth might be a bit older than modern.. Be true to the reality you create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now