Jump to content

grg1109

Recommended Posts

I've found quite a few of these and wonder if they were a bi valve?  Wondered why the shell wouldn't have fossilized like the others?  In first photo...top, right...second photo: top, center

Thanks

Greg

20200929_183845 (2).jpg

20200929_183912 (2).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brachiopods. 

Not sure quite what you mean, but the shell could have broken or been eroded away leaving a mold of the inside. 

Life's Good!

Tortoise Friend.

MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png.a47e14d65deb3f8b242019b3a81d8160-1.png.60b8b8c07f6fa194511f8b7cfb7cc190.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What your arrow is pointing at to me seems like just a natural depression in the rock. However, it could be that this is indeed the cast of a shell. That is, when fossils are embedded in a rock, and we split the rock to find the fossils, the shell will typically stick to one side of the split rock, whereas a bulge or hollow, matching the shell in size, will remain on the other side. These two sides are known as the positive and negative sides of a fossil. Normally the part that contains the actual fossil is called the positive, whereas the part that shows just the impression is called the negative.

 

I think what you might have here, is a negative of a shell.

  • I found this Informative 1

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree...This is the only shape on my rocks that appears like this...all the rest have fossilized shells...whether positive or negative... and that is why I was wondering what it could be.  May never know...just curious.

Thanks

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there were details in it, I would say it is a shell mold. 

But the picture is just too blurry when enlarged to see any detail. 

Otherwise, it could be (as stated previously) a natural depression in the rock. 

 

5f747d7ddb932_20200930_083646(2)_LI.jpg.8ddc7d1f90411f89bea82fbe966fe2dc.jpg

    Tim    -  VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  VFOTM  --- APRIL - 2015  

__________________________________________________
"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks."

John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~   ><))))( *>  About Me      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry...this was taken under the microscope and enhanced...I guess they do have details...just weren't showing up under...visual or magnified sight.  Now I really am curious...lol

Thanks

Greg

unkown (3).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't have any experience with those kind of fossils, but looks like a bryozoan mat? Could have come off of the shell when the rest split off onto the positive...

  • I found this Informative 1

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry got interrupted, so I took a look at the others...it seems to me that they are still covered at least partially by the sediments.  They all have more details than I thought and they are not all the same...just appear to the naked eye and under a magnifier.  Here's another...that I previously thought was just a smooth lump.

Unkown 3 (2).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

his is the shot that has me on the lingulid kick. Looks like the edges of one remain to me

I just posted a photo of the one your mentioning.

 

Sorry, they all looked the same to me...now I see them differently.  The microscope definitely has its advantages over my assumptions.  These are all concave by the way.

Thanks

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

Don't have any experience with those kind of fossils, but looks like a bryozoan mat

When under the microscope...I checked very carefully this time...the designs at the top go underneath the layer on top.

Thanks

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I look at the last picture you sent, it almost looks like it's the internal cast of one of the brachiopods...

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...