Jump to content

Whitby area finds


dhiggi

Recommended Posts

A couple of finds from the Whitby area. Does this plant fossil have enough diagnostic features for an identification?

 

 

89610AB1-017C-45C1-A760-BC65D901DFB7.jpeg

 

 

Secondly, my daughter has been desperate to find some ichthyosaur material for ages now. She was so happy to find this, at first glance I thought it was just another piece of septarian nodule but on closer examination I think she’s probably right about it being bone, albeit likely an unidentifiable chunk. Still, she’s happy and it’s going in the ichthyosaur cabinet as her first find :D

45ABC997-0DDC-421A-AF56-27B1A1F10908.jpeg

 

5411EFA0-8D15-467D-9D61-0D2BBE10F35D.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zamites  or Otozamites I'd guess (I'm no expert on these) but there may not be enough detail to distinguish. 

  • I found this Informative 1
  • I Agree 1

Tarquin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Ludwigia said:

Sorry I can't help you further with the fern (did you save the counterpart?), bur your daughter certainly did find some bone there.


Had a look around but didn’t see the counterpart or any other bits worth keeping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't help you with the plant, but your daughter definitely did find bone. With Tarquin not having made any mention of it, I think it'll indeed be difficult to identify it. But my gut tells me this bone is not dense enough to be ichthyosaur and therefore is more likely to be either marine crocodile or plesiosaur, with my bet being on the latter. I think it's a split vertebra, as in the main cross-section you can see how the arrangement of the bone-fibres all point inward following the edge of the bone. This suggests that the outline we're seeing here is indeed the original outline of the bone, with little to nothing being covered by the matrix in the bottom of the first photograph. The projection leading to the other side of the pebble, in my opinion, would than be part of a rib attachment (most likely, considering the shape leading away from the main vertebral body - if such it is) or neural arch. But, as said, I could be totally off with this as well :)

 

Anyway, nice finds! And I can see how your daughter would be stoked about finding this. I would be as well :D

  • 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

1 hour ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

Can't help you with the plant, but your daughter definitely did find bone. With Tarquin not having made any mention of it, I think it'll indeed be difficult to identify it. But my gut tells me this bone is not dense enough to be ichthyosaur and therefore is more likely to be either marine crocodile or plesiosaur, with my bet being on the latter. I think it's a split vertebra, as in the main cross-section you can see how the arrangement of the bone-fibres all point inward following the edge of the bone. This suggests that the outline we're seeing here is indeed the original outline of the bone, with little to nothing being covered by the matrix in the bottom of the first photograph. The projection leading to the other side of the pebble, in my opinion, would than be part of a rib attachment (most likely, considering the shape leading away from the main vertebral body - if such it is) or neural arch. But, as said, I could be totally off with this as well :)

 

Anyway, nice finds! And I can see how your daughter would be stoked about finding this. I would be as well :D


Thank you so much, that’s very interesting. I didn’t expect much more than ‘chunkosaurus’

Daughter is even more excited now at the possibility of it being plesiosaur as neither of us have found any up to now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, val horn said:

i was thinking metasequoia for the plant.  how does one tell fern  from compound leaf?

It's from the Middle Jurassic - much too early to be Metasequoia (late Cretaceous onwards). The flora of this area is very well known and this matches published descriptions of Zamites and Otozamites which are Bennetitales. They're also probably the most common leaves from there!

 

Ferns occur there too - I guess the easiest way to spot a fern from first principles is the presence of sporangia, but you need good preservation and close study for that.

 

I don't know much about fossil plants though. :) 

Edited by TqB
  • I found this Informative 2

Tarquin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TqB said:

I don't know much about fossil plants though. :) 

 

You could've fooled me! :BigSmile:

'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

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

 

You could've fooled me! :BigSmile:

Just a bit of local knowledge for these, but thank you! :)

Tarquin

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...