I might be crazy, but I think this is a fish

[natwell19]

I found a new place to fossil hunt and it has many more fossils then the normal places I go. Lots and lots of coral, brachiopods, cephalopods, and crystallization. It honestly looks like a coral reef of some kind. I live in middle Tennessee and it's mostly Mississippian and ordovician in my area but there are some areas of Silurian-Devonian. 

I found this fossil first and thought it was some sort of larger cephalopod, but there were some strange things about it and I started to change my mind. It is a torpedo shaped fossil with crystallization. I will start with the pattern pictures first to show you what I mean and then I will post a picture of the whole thing with a size reference. 

There are spots distributed around it but they seem to be symmetrical on both "sides," some are clearer than others. There are scalloped edges on the "bottom" of it. There is also an upside down shaped V at the "front-bottom" of it that I think looks kind of like a fish jaw. 

I do realize that if this is a fish it is very rare for this time period, especially in this sort of shape. If you do believe it is a deteriorated cephalopod, if you could just explain the V shape and the spots, that would help me see it as well. 

 

Thanks

 

 

 

 

[Fossildude19]

Unfortunately, this is not a fish fossil.   

 

I think the "V-shape" and the  curved shapes in the second to last picture are artifacts of the matrix being broken/chipped. 

 

This looks like either an orthocone cephalopod steinkern, (internal mold), an infilled burrow, or a nodule/concretion. 

Not seeing any scales, armor plating or any overall fish morphology. 

 

[Ludwigia]

No worries. We're all a little crazy here

[natwell19]

ok so not a fish. I forgot to add these pictures next to a fish and one found in china. 

https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2015/09/new-jawless-fish-found-from-lower.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheArchaeologyNewsNetwork+(The+Archaeology+News+Network)

 

[doushantuo]

what you were thinking of(is my guess):

Edited October 2, 2021 by doushantuo

[natwell19]

@doushantuo no I was thinking of like a ancient lamprey or this other fish

 

[doushantuo]

euh Sacabambaspis ,Astraspis?

galeaspids n general?

Edited October 2, 2021 by doushantuo

[doushantuo]

34 minutes ago, doushantuo said:

euh SACABAMBASPIs,Astraspis?

MY MISTAKE,sort of a double post here.

All of my banter does NOT necessarily and/or remotely imply that I think yo have found agnathan remains

Edited October 2, 2021 by doushantuo

[natwell19]

@doushantuo HAHAHAHA! I didn't think it did. I appreciate the opportunity for discussion though. I'm in the medical field and I get just dismissing someone because they obviously know less, but you are engaging me and trying to see my point of view. This was another thing that made me think it:

 

https://alchetron.com/Mandageria

 

[natwell19]

@doushantuo This is the fish I think it looks like. I posted 2 more pictures under it. Could they show evidence of scales? Thanks
 

http://bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/pl new/14 JAWLESS FISH.htm

[natwell19]

Or are one of these possibly fish scales?

[ThePhysicist]

I agree with the others - I don't see evidence of a fish. The fish you refer to didn't really have scales. Astraspis, for example, had bone armor studded with tiny enamel-coated  bumps - "odontodes" - which look like these (note they also resemble stars somewhat - which gave this genus its name):

 

 

From a related fish:

 

Edited October 2, 2021 by ThePhysicist

[natwell19]

@thephysicist I was asking about scales because someone else on the thread stated that i couldn't be a fish because it didn't have scales. So I was asking if the patterned areas were scales or if they were not, and also the gray things imbedded in the matrix. Also, there are bumps of some kind on top but there is rock on top of them. I tried to brush them with a wet tooth brush (don't worry not mine, my husband's.... Just kidding!) and it looks like to me that there are bumps that are not just matrix.

 

It's obvious that I think the evidence points to this being a fish and I totally get that no one else sees it and that I am probably wrong. I just haven't fully exhausted the possibility yet. The thing that is the hardest for me to get passed is that fish have spots down their sides and that they were "gill pouches" and this thing has them down both sides in the same spots. Also I probably wont be back on tonight. We have company coming and I really need to clean... I'll check back tomorrow.

 

[natwell19]

These things keep popping up in my searching! I am trying to find the anatomy looking at a fish anteriorly from a fossil (honestly for a fish I don't know if the "bottom" is anterior). And this is the article that came up! 

 

 

https://www.amnh.org/about/press-center/fossil-misidentified-twice-is-actually-a-fish

[Troodon]

1 hour ago, natwell19 said:

honestly for a fish I don't know if the "bottom" is anterior

This might help.

 

[ThePhysicist]

18 hours ago, natwell19 said:

@thephysicist I was asking about scales because someone else on the thread stated that i couldn't be a fish because it didn't have scales. So I was asking if the patterned areas were scales or if they were not, and also the gray things imbedded in the matrix. Also, there are bumps of some kind on top but there is rock on top of them. I tried to brush them with a wet tooth brush (don't worry not mine, my husband's.... Just kidding!) and it looks like to me that there are bumps that are not just matrix.

 

It's obvious that I think the evidence points to this being a fish and I totally get that no one else sees it and that I am probably wrong. I just haven't fully exhausted the possibility yet. The thing that is the hardest for me to get passed is that fish have spots down their sides and that they were "gill pouches" and this thing has them down both sides in the same spots. Also I probably wont be back on tonight. We have company coming and I really need to clean... I'll check back tomorrow.

The "bumps" should be a fraction of a mm in diameter - not easily visible to the naked eye. I would say your strongest evidence would be to clearly show those structures, as in my previous photos, otherwise there's not much to substantiate the claim that it's an armored agnathan in this case. As for the gill openings, if no armor/scales/plating is visible, then you won't see those structures either. You are seeing dimples in the rock caused by natural processes, and you see them in the "right spots" because your mind is well-adapted to picking out patterns - whether they be biogenic or otherwise. It's the same mechanism that allows one to see a face on the moon. 

 

22 hours ago, natwell19 said:

Or are one of these possibly fish scales?

These could also be shell fragments, which are much more common.

[jdp]

not a fish

[natwell19]

@ThePhysicist I put some areas under a 10x magnifier because that's what I have. I looked for a long time trying to figure out what, if anything, was significant in regards to the outside of the fossil. just fyi there is still some matrix on it.

[natwell19]

 

[Kane]

Closeups seem to show bits of bryozoan and brachiopods.

[natwell19]

This is the fish I keep coming back too and it seems that there are several types of "scales"

 

 

 

 

[natwell19]

Alright, last post of the night...

 

 

[natwell19]

@ThePhysicist I get that I don't have very much evidence that this is a fish, but why would I not have any evidence of the gill sacs/holes if there wasn't any armor? The gill sacs go internally, right? So even if there were no armor there could still be evidence of the holes of the gill sacs, unless they are contained within the armor and therefore would be missing as well. Right? 

[Kane]

The presence of the bryozoanal elements and brachiopod bits in the magnified images (as I indicated above) may serve to sufficiently falsify the claim that these features belong to a fish. The consensus borne of expertise and experience (if not also a bit of Occam’s Razor) would be that this is likely a concretion or in-filled burrow with some features caused by non-biogenic geologic forces. 

[Fossildude19]

Forum member jdp is a paleontologist who studies early fossil fish. 

 

The shell bits and bryozoans already mentioned point to this not being a fish.

Again, it could be a trace fossil (infilled burrow cast) or a cephalopod interior mold (steinkern).

If you still are doubting us,feel free to take your item to a local university or museum to have it looked at in hand by a paleontologist.