Snail fossil

[Dimitar]

I found this fossil today, near L'Île-Bizard - on the shore.

It is some kind of big snail. 

 

 

 

 

N.1

 

N.2

 

N.3

 

N.4

 

N.5

 

 

N.6

 

 

N.7

 

N.8

 

N.9

 

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by Dimitar

[Kane]

Not seeing a gastropod in this breccia. 

[Dimitar]

6 minutes ago, Kane said:

Not seeing a gastropod in this breccia. 

see the picture N.3 and N.4.  The breccia is all inside the shell .  The shell however seems to be very thin.  

[Kane]

I still don't see it, sorry. 

[Ludwigia]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing it either.

[Dimitar]

[Kane]

Thanks for the additional images, but I still see no fossil here at all.

[Dimitar]

4 minutes ago, Kane said:

Thanks for the additional images, but I still see no fossil here at all.

It is all one fossil.

[Kane]

The pictures still do not convince me. We'll just have to agree to disagree. 

[Fossildude19]

I am not seeing any kind of fossil in this item.   

[Dimitar]

[Ludwigia]

I think you're seeing things that aren't there. That is definitely not a fossil IMHO.

[Tidgy's Dad]

To me it looks like concrete that has been poured onto a piece of rocky ground and then a bit of the concrete and rock has been broken off. 

[Dimitar]

What we see in yellow is part of the shell

 

 

 

 

 

the shell in yellow on the left side

 

 

 

 

shame shell here - we see it in lignt brown 

Edited May 9, 2021 by Dimitar

[Dimitar]

I may need to to more preparation work before convince you further.

[Ludwigia]

6 hours ago, Dimitar said:

I may need to to more preparation work before convince you further.

 

Dear Mr. Dimitar,

 

You have already had the convinced opinion of a number of people here who have years of experience in recognizing fossils in stone. I am quite certain that you would be in for a big surprise if you try to prepare this, since there will be no shell to be found, but rather only mineral substance. Purely stating that this must be shell has nothing to do with scientific method and is a weak argument for convincing anyone who knows something about the subject. Since our opinions on this piece of stone cannot convince you otherwise, I would suggest that you take it to your nearest museum and show it to an experienced paleontologist for a professional opinion. Of course if we were wrong in the end, then you can have the last laugh, but I doubt it.

 

[Lone Hunter]

I don't see it either, but I see several things that to my untrained eye are not cement.  For example picture # 6,  can someone please explain what I'm seeing, not inc. black and white rock.  It looks like it should be something

[Dimitar]

32 minutes ago, Ludwigia said:

 

Dear Mr. Dimitar,

 

You have already had the convinced opinion of a number of people here who have years of experience in recognizing fossils in stone. I am quite certain that you would be in for a big surprise if you try to prepare this, since there will be no shell to be found, but rather only mineral substance. Purely stating that this must be shell has nothing to do with scientific method and is a weak argument for convincing anyone who knows something about the subject. Since our opinions on this piece of stone cannot convince you otherwise, I would suggest that you take it to your nearest museum and show it to an experienced paleontologist for a professional opinion. Of course if we were wrong in the end, then you can have the last laugh, but I doubt it.

 

 

There is a shell and it is tiny. See between white and dark brown below. It has the shape of a frame. Parallel lines are 1 mm wide. (Horizontal ) and few vertical lines.

[Lone Hunter]

I see the lines but don't think it looks like shell, maybe an impression of something? The only thing I see that remotely looks shell related is in 3rd image on the left edge, curious what that is too. 

[Dimitar]

It seems to be Horned Ammonite fossil. The tiny shell goes in a spiral.  I haven't seen such rocks here in the area, so that's why I am sure all these white (calcium ) is the inside of ammonite. Tomorrow I will look to see if I can recognize other elements of it. 

[Dimitar]

Now, when I know what to look for, I can better present it: 

A.1

 

A.2

 

These seems to be the tentacles of the ammonite. There should be 5 pairs. The "frame" structure that I gave earlier is actually the skin (membrane) of the tentacles. On the last picture, left side we can see a small fragment of the shell.

Edited May 9, 2021 by Dimitar

[Dimitar]

On pictures 2, 3, 4, 5 - we see the tentacles . Picture 5 - is the view from external side, so this should be also the head .I can see around 5 tentacles, The yellow membrane there, visible also on N.4 is one of the tentacles, which lay a little bit on side, almost perpendicular to other tentacles.

Edited May 9, 2021 by Dimitar

[Kane]

The only thing that would preserve from a nautiloid (ammonites do not occur in Paleozoic material) is the shell. No tentacles, at all. You need to introduce skepticism and doubt rather than assertion and certainty when engaging in science. Ludwigia has pretty much said precisely what needed to be said above. 

 

As you are not willing to trust our judgement and experience, we will have to agree to disagree. Please take this to your nearest natural history museum or earth sciences department if you still doubt the collective opinion here. As there is not much more we can learn, this topic will be locked.