hahnewald Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 Greetings to all. This specimen was encountered on a beach where common Miocene fossils, such as shark teeth, whale vertebrae, cetacean periotic bones and bulla can be discovered. It is the first one of its kind I have come across and would really appreciate input from members to assist with the correct ID. Thanking you all in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 Sorry. I don't see indications of this being a fossil of any kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plax Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 This looks like a coprolite reworked into a lag and phosphatized. We see them like this here in NC USA associated with abundant shark teeth etc in lags. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 44 minutes ago, Plax said: This looks like a coprolite reworked into a lag and phosphatized. We see them like this here in NC USA associated with abundant shark teeth etc in lags. Indeed, a valid concept. Caution is in order as an ID though I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plax Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 Indeed, if it was bilaterally symmetrical I could also guess one of those fish parts similar to a tilly stone or a hyperostosed? basioccipital bony fish part judging from the second to last pic. Just giving my best guess as a coprolite but as subject to disagreement as any of us. You said you didn't see any indication of it being a fossil and I presented my best guess as to what it is. I can be swayed as I don't feel 100% certain and welcome specific disagreements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 It certainly could be a coprolite but it doesn't show specific details to clinch the ID. Being phosphatic, turd-shaped, and in an appropriate geologic context are in its favor, but organic inclusions would really help it along in that direction. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plax Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 Agreed. That would be a clincher. Most here in the cretaceous of NC don't have organic inclusions though. Have very little experience with neogene coprolites. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 I suppose if it prompts a guess it's an indication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 @hahnewald Sharper, not handheld images of surface details might be useful. 1 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hahnewald Posted February 7, 2022 Author Share Posted February 7, 2022 @Rockwood, @Plax, @Carl, @JohnJ. Thank you all for your thoughts on this object thus far. It certainly felt like a fossil when I first picked it up. Consistent with general mineralized black coloration, weight and texture of similarly sized fossil bones, odontocete teeth and perhaps claws or horn cores. Couldn't help but think back to my last ID query on TFF and the obvious groove running almost along it's entire length, visible in the 8th photo. @Carl, what you described, appears uncommon at my beach hunting ground as I have not found another piece like it before. Perhaps these non hand held photos will shed any new light. Appreciate the feedback @JohnJ. In the absence of recognizing any organic inclusions, 'turd shaped' remained my strongest indicator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 7, 2022 Share Posted February 7, 2022 I see. There is texture there. It could be a piece dugong rib. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted February 8, 2022 Share Posted February 8, 2022 It looks like there are bivalve borings in the specimen. I can't rule out phosphatic coprolites with pholad borings (Gastrochaenolites), like the specimens in picture "C" below. Reference: Bivalve_Borings_in_Phosphatic_Coprolites_and_Bone_.pdf 1 1 " We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. " Thomas Mann My Library Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now