Just Bob Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 (edited) This came from cretaceous time period, Its one inch long ,I think it is a shark vertebrae but I am not sure. Has anybody ever seen markings like this before on a vert? I am afraid to clean it up more then I did, the markings may come off. Could it be some kind of sea life that stuck to it when it died? Edited November 13, 2012 by Just Bob "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Smilodon Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 This came from creactous time period, Its one inch long ,I think it is a shark vertebrea but I am not sure. Has anybody ever seen markings like this before on a vert? I am afraid to clean it up more then I did, the markings may come off. Could it be some kind of sea life that stuck to it appone its death? Hey Bob, I'm pretty sure its from a ray. As for what's attached, I'm guessing it's some gravel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Sharks Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 I don't think it's gravel. In fact, I'm wondering if it's cartilage. I don't have any to compare to, but it does bear a resemblance to pics I've seen There's no limit to what you can accomplish when you're supposed to be doing something else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Smilodon Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 (edited) I don't think it's gravel. In fact, I'm wondering if it's cartilage. I don't have any to compare to, but it does bear a resemblance to pics I've seen Cartilage was my first thought, that's what it kinda looks like, but the likelihood is rather small, don't you think? Edited March 27, 2010 by Smilodon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Sharks Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Yes, the odds would be quite small, but stranger things have happened. It looks too organic to be put off as gravel There's no limit to what you can accomplish when you're supposed to be doing something else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 The adhering material does look organic, but the "vert" looks to have been rolled-around and abraded a bit, so I don't know how cartilage could come to be adhered. Very curious piece. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossildan Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Hi, I think you are right to say its a ray vert, it is possible that the attached material is ray skin !! below is a photo of the skin definition from a complete ray dentition I have in my collection, as you can see the denticles are very simular, hope this is of some help, happy hunting Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyguy784 Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Bob, it's kind of uncanny, if you're speaking of the Cretaceous deposits that we've been communicating about. I found a piece there today that has the very same pattern. The piece I found however looks like a piece that has broken off of what you have. I assumed it was a coral and intend to post pics of it when I'm home tomorrow. Same honeycomb arrangement but my piece is an inch long, like stacked straws. Check it out tomorrow. I also found several shark teeth, a fragmented (3 pieces) croc vert and a turtle bone. Several arc's and a couple shells I don't recognize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 The adhering material does look organic, but the "vert" looks to have been rolled-around and abraded a bit, so I don't know how cartilage could come to be adhered. Very curious piece. Yes, the cartilage is long gone. They look like the little plates of a starfish or perhaps some other echinoderm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Bob Posted March 28, 2010 Author Share Posted March 28, 2010 (edited) Bob, it's kind of uncanny, if you're speaking of the Cretaceous deposits that we've been communicating about. I found a piece there today that has the very same pattern. The piece I found however looks like a piece that has broken off of what you have. I assumed it was a coral and intend to post pics of it when I'm home tomorrow. Same honeycomb arrangement but my piece is an inch long, like stacked straws. Check it out tomorrow. I also found several shark teeth, a fragmented (3 pieces) croc vert and a turtle bone. Several arc's and a couple shells I don't recognize. Actually I found that one in Big Brook. Send me a PM John. Yes, the cartilage is long gone. They look like the little plates of a starfish or perhaps some other echinoderm. It seems unlikely to me that it is a starfish or echinoderm, the markings are on both sides of the vert not one side. There was more of the material on it but I was washing the dirt off with a sponge before I notice what was on it. The material is on pretty good though, because I was scrubbing it hard trying to get the dirt off. Edited March 28, 2010 by Just Bob "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 It's toughness, along with the perception that it is attached to an eroded item, might suggest some kind of encrusting organism (put here I'm practicing taphonomy without a license). "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordpiney Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 actually chas, that vert isnt too eroded. it looks like it just came out of the marl. ive found many of them that were much more stream worn. here's a pic of some shark cartilage from the area. they look pretty close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossildan Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 Fine, just ignore my suggestion and come to your own conclusions !!!!! which happen to be the same as i had already pointed out !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do you not like taking advice from an amatuer, or am i just not worthy ??? will keep my opinions to myself in future.............. :growl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossildan Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 lordpiney im pretty sure that is actually shark skin ( dermadenticles )not cartalidge as i have no shark verts that look like that !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 Uhhh.... that isn't "skin". First off, elasmobranch skin is very thin, and it doesn't look like that at all. Second, shark skin has dermal denticles embedded in it, which look like little tiny teeth. These examples are all of prismatic cartilage. I'm still not sure what's going on with the vertebra; that does look pretty weird. It could be an encrusting organism, or fragments of cartilaginous elements that were preserved in proximity to the vertebra. Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordpiney Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 lordpiney im pretty sure that is actually shark skin ( dermadenticles )not cartalidge as i have no shark verts that look like that !! dan, that vert is from an angel shark. ive found quite a few of them throughout the years in the same areas that bob found his vert in. usually they fall out of the banks, and get tumbled in the creek gravels in short order. in the tumbling process, they get polished, and eroded pretty heavily leaving only the basic shape to id them from. that vert that bob found, literally just fell out of the marl. you can tell by the color, and the fact that it still has marl stuck to the sides of it. the pic i posted of the cartilage wasnt mine, it was from a website on the fossils of big brook where bob found his vert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 Fine, just ignore my suggestion and come to your own conclusions !!!!! which happen to be the same as i had already pointed out !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do you not like taking advice from an amatuer, or am i just not worthy ??? will keep my opinions to myself in future.............. :growl: Hey Dan, we're all just throwing out ideas here; kinda' how it's done. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 i also feel that the stuff is cartilage. i haven't seen anything that i felt was skin. and not that anecdotal observations are always relevant, but in the fairly significant amount of beachcombing i've done, i've found far more cartilaginous remains than skin. when things start breaking down, it seems like cartilaginous parts are some of the last things to go, so to me it makes sense that in scarce fossilizations of "soft" parts of elasmoidbunches, it is usually cartilaginicities ftw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossildan Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 (edited) Uhhh.... that isn't "skin". First off, elasmobranch skin is very thin, and it doesn't look like that at all. Second, shark skin has dermal denticles embedded in it, which look like little tiny teeth. These examples are all of prismatic cartilage. I'm still not sure what's going on with the vertebra; that does look pretty weird. It could be an encrusting organism, or fragments of cartilaginous elements that were preserved in proximity to the vertebra. Bobby ummm........ the photo of the ray is most certainly skin !! firstly, skin can be adhered to cartilage as is the case with my ray fossil, I can see clearly the difference between the cartilage and the skin, the cartilage being a different preservation to the skin and also looks like an aero. the skin completely different and overlaying the cartilage. also the thickness of the skin would depend on the size of the beast. secondly, not all skin has dermal denticles that look like teeth !! many fast sharks actually have flat rough surface plates, and even smooth surface plates, there are many types of denticle, fossil ray skin is infact completely different to modern ray skin and shark skin and with rays the denticles have actually evolved over the past 50my. To me, holding this fossil in my hand and to see the contrast between the two it is obviously skin. In a short but fascinating 1982 paper, Wolf-Ernst Reif and his co-worker A. Dinkelacker reviewed the hydrodynamics of dermal denticles in fast-swimming sharks. Reif and Dinkelacker found that the crowns of dermal denticles in the Shortfin Mako and other fast-swimming sharks are smooth and almost ridgeless on the tip of the snout and leading (anterior) edges of the fins. all that said, looking at the skin on my ray fossil and the vert at the top of the page, i would say they are pretty simular would'nt you ?? thanks, Dan Edited March 28, 2010 by fossildan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossildan Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 Hey Dan, we're all just throwing out ideas here; kinda' how it's done. Auspex, I apreciate that, but it would be nice if that when you throw an idea someone throws another back rather than just ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossildan Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 i also feel that the stuff is cartilage. i haven't seen anything that i felt was skin. and not that anecdotal observations are always relevant, but in the fairly significant amount of beachcombing i've done, i've found far more cartilaginous remains than skin. when things start breaking down, it seems like cartilaginous parts are some of the last things to go, so to me it makes sense that in scarce fossilizations of "soft" parts of elasmoidbunches, it is usually cartilaginicities ftw. obviously, the soft tissue and the skin would usually be the first thing to deteriate, followed by the cartilage and finally the teeth, the london clay on sheppey UK is one of those special places where rapid sedimentation occured and where this happens it is possible to find cartilage and also skin and scales, with that in mind cartilage is still a rare occurance and skin even rarer. But thats not to say that it dont happen. where else could you find a complete ray dentition with both upper and lower palletes cartilage and skin ?? I even have a soft organ imprint in my collection !! thanks Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordpiney Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 dan...that is incredible!! and your right about the sheppey clays. ive seen whole squids from there that they used the ink from to write with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 That's prismatic cartilage from the dermatocranium and chondrocranium of the ray. I don't think that's skin. The reason the stuff on the vert and the material on your (rather amazing) fossil looks similar is because they are probably both prismatic cartilage. I know that dermal denticles come in a number of varieties... however, I've never seen any that miraculously look identical to prismatic cartilage. Bobby ummm........ the photo of the ray is most certainly skin !! firstly, skin can be adhered to cartilage as is the case with my ray fossil, I can see clearly the difference between the cartilage and the skin, the cartilage being a different preservation to the skin and also looks like an aero. the skin completely different and overlaying the cartilage. also the thickness of the skin would depend on the size of the beast. secondly, not all skin has dermal denticles that look like teeth !! many fast sharks actually have flat rough surface plates, and even smooth surface plates, there are many types of denticle, fossil ray skin is infact completely different to modern ray skin and shark skin and with rays the denticles have actually evolved over the past 50my. To me, holding this fossil in my hand and to see the contrast between the two it is obviously skin. In a short but fascinating 1982 paper, Wolf-Ernst Reif and his co-worker A. Dinkelacker reviewed the hydrodynamics of dermal denticles in fast-swimming sharks. Reif and Dinkelacker found that the crowns of dermal denticles in the Shortfin Mako and other fast-swimming sharks are smooth and almost ridgeless on the tip of the snout and leading (anterior) edges of the fins. all that said, looking at the skin on my ray fossil and the vert at the top of the page, i would say they are pretty simular would'nt you ?? thanks, Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Bob Posted March 29, 2010 Author Share Posted March 29, 2010 Fine, just ignore my suggestion and come to your own conclusions !!!!! which happen to be the same as i had already pointed out !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do you not like taking advice from an amatuer, or am i just not worthy ??? will keep my opinions to myself in future.............. :growl: I hope you are not talking about me? I actually thought that your Conclusion was the closest, and the only reason I didn't say anything is because I wasn't 100% sure and wanted to hear different opinions. And as for amateur or professional, you could be the head of paleontology at a university as far as I know. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordpiney Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 what do you mean? you didnt like my opinion? that does it....your off my christmas list! 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