Reminds me of a Box Turtle's skin texture.

[JSERTL]

I found this earlier today while me and my dog was at the creek looking for arrowheads. I'm sure it's not but it reminds me of a toe or that's what comes to mind every time I look at it and the ball at the end is where it would have connected to the foot. but at the same time it looks like a rattlesnake rattle but I don't know if they were even a species back then for all I know it's just the stalk of a plant either way I'd like to find out so I can add it to my collection. Any insight into what I have here would be greatly appreciated thank you in advance.

This was found in iron county of Southeast Missouri.

[Fossildude19]

Orthocone cephalopod, I believe. 

 

[Rockwood]

7 hours ago, JSERTL said:

it reminds me of a toe

The (painful) bunion would actually be a trans sectioned view of one of the septa. Some camerae have been displaced.

[JSERTL]

So which part exactly am I looking at? the sutures?

[JSERTL]

Okay I've been online looking up these Ortho cone cephalopods. What I have is not the same, the cephalopods design has the sections stacked one in front of the other. Mine which you might not be able to see in the picture are stacked one inside the other to allow for movement like bending kind of like how an armadillo shell works. I can tell this because of the different spacings and it's actually curved in the rock.

It really does look just like a rattlesnake rattle

Edited August 6, 2021 by JSERTL

[JSERTL]

See how on the sides that each section is kind of beveled to allow for a little  movement from side to side.

[Lone Hunter]

Yes it does resemble a rattle to this Texan, but it's not. These cephalopods can vary and some look more stacked but they have the same characteristics you described if you look closely, and fossils can be a little distorted also.

[Fossildude19]

I see the crushing along the center line as indication of where the siphuncle is, underneath the camerae sections.

You always need to take erosion, and preservation into account.  

Not a rattlesnake rattle, as the rocks in South East Missouri are most likely way too old to include snake fossils.  

 

 

 

 

[JSERTL]

I didn't think it was a rattlesnake rattle that was just the best description I had. And what you was calling to center line where it was crushed that makes sense. Because that's the very detail that was making me call it a rattlesnake rattle

And on that map of yours I am in the southern portion of iron county

[Mainefossils]

I agree with the others, it looks like an orthocone nautiloid. There is an incredible variance of morphology in these animals - also, they are often deformed after they are deposited. Neat find!  

[Rockwood]

On 8/6/2021 at 3:21 PM, JSERTL said:

So which part exactly am I looking at? the sutures?

Yep. You put your finger right on the feature that seems to have confused you. It's where the septa are fixed to the shell. 

[Plantguy]

Interesting fossil fragment...

I can see the orthocone similarity and that is my thought as well but my brain wants to turn it into a trilobite partial like Bumastus and I'm resisting...I think they have 9-10 thoracic segments as well and bulbous nature....

Regards, Chris 

[Al Dente]

7 hours ago, Plantguy said:

Interesting fossil fragment...

I can see the orthocone similarity and that is my thought as well but my brain wants to turn it into a trilobite partial like Bumastus and I'm resisting...I think they have 9-10 thoracic segments as well and bulbous nature....

Regards, Chris 

These two photos look very much like trilobite pleural lobes.

 

 

[LordTrilobite]

I agree that it looks like a trilobite.

[Tidgy's Dad]

I also think trilobite with the triangular lump at the end of the segmented thorax being a pygidium. 

Tidgy says it's definitely not turtle. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by Tidgy's Dad

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

1 hour ago, LordTrilobite said:

I agree that it looks like a trilobite.

 

Not that I'm too familiar with either orthocones or trilobites, but to me this looks like a very worn and water-rolled trilobite, with the big bulbous-looking part being the cephalon, and the final segment either being the pydigium or the place where the pydigium broke off... I mean, the segments do indeed look stacked one atop the other, which I too haven't seen on orthocones too often. And while I agree that one does need to make accounts for something like this happening to orthocone septa, this explanation sounds less likely to me if you consider the consistency with which this specimen exhibits that particular form of plastic deformation. Similarly, to me the first photograph suggests that the sections bend differently on the left side of the specimen than they do on the right (which I suspect is actually the middle), they've got a different curve. Again, this is something I've seen on trilobites, but not orthocones, let alone, again, so consistently... The original photographs also appear to show some bulges on the sides of the big bulbous part (the one I identified as the cephalon earlier), which could be the eyes. And even the curvature of the specimen as a whole is very suggestive of trilobite to me, from the specimens I've seen.

 

Just my two underinformed cents, but prolonged exposure to water can hide even the most distinctive details...

[Mainefossils]

I was thinking nautiloid because of the cross section - it looked too thick to be a trilobite. I see what you guys are saying, but I am not 100% positive on this piece. 

 

Regards, 

Asher 

[Fossildude19]

Further preparation might clear this up. 

Either a trilobite or cephalopod. 

This one is a fossil