White river coprolite?!

[joshuajbelanger]

Well, went out hunting today in one of my white river spots.

I picked up this bad boy, and I have to say, I’m fairly happy with this find.  

It’s quite obviously coprolite. 

So, what’s it from?  Anyone familiar with white river coprolites?  I was thinking oreodont, but it looks a little too big and I can’t find examples online.

 

If this isn’t coprolite, please enlighten me.

[Rockwood]

I think you are enlightened now, to the extent that it is a coprolite, but @GeschWhat @Carl are two experts to ask if they are around.

[MarcoSr]

I've donated a good number of Coprolites from Nebraska from the White River fauna to the New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science.  None of them had the shape or texture of your specimen. See the below pictures of individual specimens (30mm to 50mm) and a group picture of one of my donations.  Note the large specimens with the red X in the group picture turned out to be geologic.  They had a texture similar to your specimen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marco Sr.

[Rockwood]

Shoot !

[MarcoSr]

If your specimen is a coprolite, it is extremely unlikely that it was from an Oreodont if Oreodonts were truly herbivores.  The chemical composition of herbivores' coprolites is not conducive to fossilization so they are extremely rare in the White River.  The herbivore coprolites that I have seen resemble modern cow pies.

 

Marco Sr.

[joshuajbelanger]

Maybe I’ll put it under a stereo microscope and see what’s there.  I haven’t found anything remotely close to this at my spot.  It just looks so much like coprolite, but I know geology can make some tricky rocks.

[GeschWhat]

I agree with @MarcoSr. The examples shown are they type that are usually found from the White River Fm. It does appear to be a carnivore coprolite. If so, it is a shape that is rarely seen from that strata. Whatever you do, don't put consolidant on it. Hard to tell what it is from. You can usually only tell what was eaten. That said, any turtle remains found in the area? Based on the lack of inclusions, that would be my best guess.

[joshuajbelanger]

1 hour ago, GeschWhat said:

I agree with @MarcoSr. The examples shown are they type that are usually found from the White River Fm. It does appear to be a carnivore coprolite. If so, it is a shape that is rarely seen from that strata. Whatever you do, don't put consolidant on it. Hard to tell what it is from. You can usually only tell what was eaten. That said, any turtle remains found in the area? Based on the lack of inclusions, that would be my best guess.

Actually, a ton of turtle remains are found in the area.  Turtle and tortoise, so much so that I just leave the shells alone.  They are far too brittle and a pain in the but to put back together.  Doesn’t seem awful big for turtle?

[joshuajbelanger]

Also, @GeschWhat, thank you for the tip not to put consolidate in it!  I’m a huge fan of Butvar. I checked out tortoise coprolite and darned if that doesn’t look pretty similar.

[Rockwood]

9 hours ago, MarcoSr said:

Note the large specimens with the red X in the group picture turned out to be geologic.  They had a texture similar to your specimen.

The geology didn't happen to be a fresh water (turtlie) environment, just enough off from the norm in coprolite preservation ? 

[MarcoSr]

3 hours ago, Rockwood said:

The geology didn't happen to be a fresh water (turtlie) environment, just enough off from the norm in coprolite preservation ? 

 

There are a lot of specimens for sale labeled as fossil turtle coprolites especially from the state of Washington and from Madagascar.  I have a friend, a USGS emeritus, who has written a good amount on turtle fossils, and I asked him awhile back about these specimens.  He said that he seriously doubted that they were turtle coprolites because turtle excrement is so loose and watery.  He believed that most of these specimens if not all were geologic.    So I'm not sold on fossil turtle coprolites.  My sons' Nebraska ranch has tons of tortoise fossils and also some turtle fossils.  We haven't seen a specimen like in this post before from the ranch.  However, I'm still open to the specimen being a coprolite due to its shape.

 

There is also controversy on whether a lot of the specimens being sold as dinosaur coprolites are really coprolites and not geologic.  If the specimens don't have inclusions, you really need to do a chemical analysis to get an idea of what you really have.

 

I suggest that @joshuajbelanger  send some pictures to Spencer Lucas at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science and get his opinion.  If he PMs me I can give him Spencer's e-mail.  The NMMNH&S has one of the largest coprolite collections in the world.  I've donated over 20,000 marine and terrestrial coprolites to date and have another 40,000 or so that I'll eventually donate.

 

Marco Sr.

[joshuajbelanger]

I would love to send pictures to Spencer Lucas, but I also don’t want to be a bother.  If he’s willing to take a look and has the time, I’ll more than happily oblige.  I’m curious as to what geological phenomena can cause this?  I don’t doubt that it’s possible, but I can almost see it being a burrow cast over something natural.  Then again, I’m a geologist, I should know better!  Lol.  
 

I took a look under the stereomicroscope and it does appear to have inclusions.  Nothing stands out to me like bone or teeth, but there’s something there.

 

@MarcoSr How can a chemical analysis determine if a specimen is coprolite? I’m under the assumption that fecal matter follows the same rules of fossilization as anything else, wouldn’t the original poop be completely replaced by other minerals(in this case anyway?). So wouldn’t a chemical analysis be pointless in determining if it is fecal matter?  Just curious.

 

Also, how in the heck do you have so much fossil poop?  By my count you would have to find a piece of coprolite every day for over 164 years!?!?  Lol-seriously though, how does one come into the possession of 60,000 pieces of coprolite?

[Rockwood]

1 hour ago, joshuajbelanger said:

 I’m curious as to what geological phenomena can cause this?

I think dewatering through vents in a less permeable sediment layer is a prime suspect.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

12 hours ago, GeschWhat said:

That said, any turtle remains found in the area? Based on the lack of inclusions, that would be my best guess.

 

7 hours ago, MarcoSr said:

There are a lot of specimens for sale labeled as fossil turtle coprolites especially from the state of Washington and from Madagascar.  I have a friend, a USGS emeritus, who has written a good amount on turtle fossils, and I asked him awhile back about these specimens.  He said that he seriously doubted that they were turtle coprolites because turtle excrement is so loose and watery.  He believed that most of these specimens if not all were geologic.

This was also my first impression when looking at the fossil: very similar to the turtle coprolites I know from Washington. However, much like MarcoSr, I've never been too convinced. Then again, I mainly dabble in the occasional marine coprolite, so what do I know

 

What throws me off of this being a coprolite, though, is the texture. Most coprolites I've seen seem to have a rather smooth surface texture, sometimes with fracture lines running through it. This is also what I'm seeing in MarcoSr's examples. I also find it hard to imagine the sand running through it in such narrow channels as it does. Though there are far more knowledgeable people here, to me this therefore doesn't look like a coprolite.

 

The shape does appear oddly winding, however. Which makes me think: anybody have any idea what a colonite looks like? The only reference I've been able to come up with after a quick search is that on Oceans of Kansas, which, however, concerns marine specimens. Those are much smoother and less winding than coprolites that have passed through the intestinal track, though, so, then again, may be not (they did trigger me wondering about an odd pebble I picked up in Lyme Regis as a child, drop-shaped and filled with fish scales, but not a coprolite - need to check this out when I next get access to it)...

 

Probably not much by way of contribution, but just my 2cts.

[GeschWhat]

5 hours ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

 

This was also my first impression when looking at the fossil: very similar to the turtle coprolites I know from Washington. However, much like MarcoSr, I've never been too convinced. Then again, I mainly dabble in the occasional marine coprolite, so what do I know

 

What throws me off of this being a coprolite, though, is the texture. Most coprolites I've seen seem to have a rather smooth surface texture, sometimes with fracture lines running through it. This is also what I'm seeing in MarcoSr's examples. I also find it hard to imagine the sand running through it in such narrow channels as it does. Though there are far more knowledgeable people here, to me this therefore doesn't look like a coprolite.

 

The shape does appear oddly winding, however. Which makes me think: anybody have any idea what a colonite looks like? The only reference I've been able to come up with after a quick search is that on Oceans of Kansas, which, however, concerns marine specimens. Those are much smoother and less winding than coprolites that have passed through the intestinal track, though, so, then again, may be not (they did trigger me wondering about an odd pebble I picked up in Lyme Regis as a child, drop-shaped and filled with fish scales, but not a coprolite - need to check this out when I next get access to it)...

 

Probably not much by way of contribution, but just my 2cts.

I believe those from Washington State are geologic as well. Especially since there are no body fossils found in the area. Some argue that they are cololites because many have the same shape. But why would the colon contents preserve and not the body. It just doesn't make sense to me. This specimen on the other hand comes from a fossiliferous location, has the right shape and appears to be phosphatic.

 

I have come across coprolites with a variety of textures, not necessarily from the White River Formation, but from within other formations. It all depends upon the amount of decomposition prior to burial. It looks like this may have gone through some decomposition prior to being preserved. 

 

Cololites are tricky. For the most part, the only way you can identify one for sure is if it is found in the body cavity of an animal. 

 

I'd be interested to see what you found at Lyme Regis when you come across it  again. If you post it, please tag me. 

8 hours ago, joshuajbelanger said:

I took a look under the stereomicroscope and it does appear to have inclusions.  Nothing stands out to me like bone or teeth, but there’s something there.

 

@MarcoSr How can a chemical analysis determine if a specimen is coprolite? I’m under the assumption that fecal matter follows the same rules of fossilization as anything else, wouldn’t the original poop be completely replaced by other minerals(in this case anyway?). So wouldn’t a chemical analysis be pointless in determining if it is fecal matter?  Just curious.

 

Can you post a photo through your stereo microscope? It can be a bit tricky, but I do it using my cell phone. I would love to see the inclusions.

 

Chemical analysis will determine if the coprolite is made up of calcium phosphate. Carnivore coprolite (the most commonly preserved) is has a high percentage of this mineral. It is the same mineral found in bones. 

[GeschWhat]

9 hours ago, joshuajbelanger said:

I’m curious as to what geological phenomena can cause this?

If I remember correctly, with regard to the siderite pseudocoprolites, they are usually found in seismically active areas. Iron-rich mud is pushed through fissures. 

[jpc]

9 hours ago, joshuajbelanger said:

 

 

Also, how in the heck do you have so much fossil poop?  By my count you would have to find a piece of coprolite every day for over 164 years!?!?  Lol-seriously though, how does one come into the possession of 60,000 pieces of coprolite?

To answer this one, coprolites are very common in the White River, at least where I go they are.  Marco's area as well, I imagine.  

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

55 minutes ago, GeschWhat said:

I believe those from Washington State are geologic as well. Especially since there are no body fossils found in the area. Some argue that they are cololites because many have the same shape. But why would the colon contents preserve and not the body. It just doesn't make sense to me. This specimen on the other hand comes from a fossiliferous location, has the right shape and appears to be phosphatic.

 

I have come across coprolites with a variety of textures, not necessarily from the White River Formation, but from within other formations. It all depends upon the amount of decomposition prior to burial. It looks like this may have gone through some decomposition prior to being preserved. 

 

Cololites are tricky. For the most part, the only way you can identify one for sure is if it is found in the body cavity of an animal. 

 

I'd be interested to see what you found at Lyme Regis when you come across it  again. If you post it, please tag me. 

Can you post a photo through your stereo microscope? It can be a bit tricky, but I do it using my cell phone. I would love to see the inclusions.

 

Chemical analysis will determine if the coprolite is made up of calcium phosphate. Carnivore coprolite (the most commonly preserved) is has a high percentage of this mineral. It is the same mineral found in bones. 

Hmm, I wonder though... If coprolites and colon material would preserve in sandy soil - which, at least archaeologically speaking, I think they could - bones would normally leach away. In those cases, you;d end up with just the coprolites and colonites, but without any bone material to supplement them. In general I believe coprolites preserve rather easily, don't they?

 

How can you tell from a photograph/visual inspection whether a fossil is phosphatic or not? I mean, if phosphatic, that would certainly increase my support for the piece being a coprolite

 

Once I get access to the piece from Lyme Regis again, I'll let you know. It could be a while, though, as I didn't bring the piece with me when I picked up most of my collection from my parents' house (where I had it stored) when I went by there last May. And now with Covid, it's once again become tricky to travel between France and the Netherlands. But, presuming I won't forget, I'll send you a PM Not through a stereomicroscope, though, as I don't have one yet (don't even have the proper fossil prepping gear yet, as we've moved houses too frequently and can't store it here), but I can try the phone-attached microscope I bought some time back. Works quite decently, and allows you to take the required pictures to boot

 

Makes sense, what you said about the chemical analysis, by the way. I would've just thought phosphate, but that might indeed not be specific enough. But the presence of bone should indeed be detectable, even after the bone has fossilised.

[MarcoSr]

14 hours ago, joshuajbelanger said:

I would love to send pictures to Spencer Lucas, but I also don’t want to be a bother.  If he’s willing to take a look and has the time, I’ll more than happily oblige.  I’m curious as to what geological phenomena can cause this?  I don’t doubt that it’s possible, but I can almost see it being a burrow cast over something natural.  Then again, I’m a geologist, I should know better!  Lol.  
 

I took a look under the stereomicroscope and it does appear to have inclusions.  Nothing stands out to me like bone or teeth, but there’s something there.

 

@MarcoSr How can a chemical analysis determine if a specimen is coprolite? I’m under the assumption that fecal matter follows the same rules of fossilization as anything else, wouldn’t the original poop be completely replaced by other minerals(in this case anyway?). So wouldn’t a chemical analysis be pointless in determining if it is fecal matter?  Just curious.

 

Also, how in the heck do you have so much fossil poop?  By my count you would have to find a piece of coprolite every day for over 164 years!?!?  Lol-seriously though, how does one come into the possession of 60,000 pieces of coprolite?

 

5 hours ago, GeschWhat said:

Chemical analysis will determine if the coprolite is made up of calcium phosphate. Carnivore coprolite (the most commonly preserved) is has a high percentage of this mineral. It is the same mineral found in bones. 

 

Lori answers your question above on why chemical analysis.  Below is a chemical analysis of two marine fish coprolites that I donated to NMMNH&S.  You can see the high calcium and phosphorus content.

 

 

Profile of the Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) analysis of (LGP-H569) in an Oval coprolite.

 

 

 

 

 

Profile of the Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) analysis of (LGP-H571) Segmented coprolite.

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, jpc said:

To answer this one, coprolites are very common in the White River, at least where I go they are.  Marco's area as well, I imagine.  

 

 

With regard to how many Coprolites I have collected, Jean-Pierre above answers for the terrestrial coprolites that I have found on my sons' Nebraska White River fauna ranch.  They are very common.

 

With respect to the marine coprolites that I have collected, marine faunas can have prolific numbers of fish coprolites.  When I took matrix from the Eocene Nanjemoy Formation in Virginia, I could pull out up to a thousand complete or nearly complete fish coprolites from the processed matrix at home.  There were many thousands more small coprolite pieces that I didn't bother to pull out.  Each of the plates below (9 inches in diameter) hold the fish coprolites from a single trip.

 

 

 

 

 

Marco Sr.

[joshuajbelanger]

Well, when I originally posted this picture, I never thought I would be given so much information.  I’m very curious about this piece now.  All I can say is that I have seen nothing like this at that site.  It seems this one would need a chemical analysis to be conclusive, and I doubt that will happen.  
 

Whatever it is, a turd or a pseudoturd, it’s cool and will be displayed with the rest of my white river stuff.

 

i don’t know if this helps, but I found it basically on top of these bones in the picture.  I haven’t fully reassembled and consolidated them yet, and I have no idea what they are.  

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

1 hour ago, joshuajbelanger said:

i don’t know if this helps, but I found it basically on top of these bones in the picture.  I haven’t fully reassembled and consolidated them yet, and I have no idea what they are.  

Ribs, may be? If so, it'd be important to know if the fossil originally posted was found on the in- or outside of them, as if on the inside, it could still point to colonite, as I've now come to understand. For that association to be made,  though, we'd also need to be sure the rest of the skeleton around that area was articulated, as it could otherwise just be colluvium (or otherwise collated deposit).

[GeschWhat]

On 9/28/2020 at 10:48 AM, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

Hmm, I wonder though... If coprolites and colon material would preserve in sandy soil - which, at least archaeologically speaking, I think they could - bones would normally leach away. In those cases, you;d end up with just the coprolites and colonites, but without any bone material to supplement them. In general I believe coprolites preserve rather easily, don't they?

 

How can you tell from a photograph/visual inspection whether a fossil is phosphatic or not? I mean, if phosphatic, that would certainly increase my support for the piece being a coprolite

Carnivore coprolite is pretty much the same as bone chemically. If bone would leach away, coprolite surely would since it (and other soft tissue) doesn't have the supporting structure bone does. Bone fossilizes much more readily. It takes very special conditions to preserve coprolite. As fecal matter is similar to soft tissue, it decomposes, erodes (rain) and/or consumed relatively quickly. It is actually pretty rare (and underappreciated). However, it is more common in some areas than others - even within the same formations. 

 

You can't always tell if something is phosphatic from a photograph. A lot of it comes down to familiarity with what coprolites look like from various formations...which can also vary. You can usually tell by putting it under a microscope. Coprolites, with the exception of their inclusions, are pretty homogenous and very fine grained. They also feel very smooth to the touch. However, the exterior can be gritty if matrix is present. I have quite a few that are in my "I just don't know pile." 

 

 

 

 

[brad2274]

Nice find, I'm sending that pic to a lab i work with, the paleontologists there will enjoy deliberating over it. Let me know if you want any digging company or hit up some places closer for prospecting other possible sites! i think we live in the same area.