What part of mosasaur is this? Pierre shale sd quarry

[Slow Walker]

I think is marine reptile. Poorly fossilized. 

Also how to post many pics at once? 

[Lone Hunter]

Doesn't look like bone to me but I'm no expert, you did post many pics at once, ?

[Rockwood]

Agreed. To put it bluntly, it's not, and don't. 

[Praefectus]

It looks like a mosasaur humerus. Don't quote me on that, though. I am not very familiar with the preservation style of Pierre Shale fossils and it may just be a suggestive looking rock. 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

I'm not too familiar with Pierre Shale preservation either, but do know it's typically way less good than what comes out of the Niobrara Formation and can be very flakey. As such, while it's indeed hard to spot any of the internal bone structure, the outer surface does make me think this is bone. Moreover, as the shape is indeed a perfect match for a mosasaur upper arm or leg bone. I believe you can just make out some of the radial patterns running towards the edges that are typical for such bones. Compare with the below examples:

 

 

 

 

Platecarpine humeri, Niobrara Formation, Gove County, Kansas

 

 

 

 

Tylosaurus sp. humeri, Niobrara Formation, Gove County, Kansas

[Rockwood]

Guess I should have zoomed and studied this more. There does seem to be bone texture there, it's well hidden though.

[Slow Walker]

4 hours ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

I'm not too familiar with Pierre Shale preservation either, but do know it's typically way less good than what comes out of the Niobrara Formation and can be very flakey. As such, while it's indeed hard to spot any of the internal bone structure, the outer surface does make me think this is bone. Moreover, as the shape is indeed a perfect match for a mosasaur upper arm or leg bone. I believe you can just make out some of the radial patterns running towards the edges that are typical for such bones. Compare with the below examples:

 

 

 

 

Platecarpine humeri, Niobrara Formation, Gove County, Kansas

 

 

 

 

Tylosaurus sp. humeri, Niobrara Formation, Gove County, Kansas

Thanks , could be it broke before fossilized. All fossil here look poor, surprised it got mistaken for a rock. I can see how people walk pass cool stuff without knowing. 

Found articulated spine near by but thinks it's from something else. 

[IsaacTheFossilMan]

1 hour ago, Slow Walker said:

Found articulated spine near by but thinks it's from something else. 

 

Do post!

[Slow Walker]

8 hours ago, IsaacTheFossilMan said:

 

Do post!

Here is what was near by 

 

[jdp]

Yeah fragmentary humerus seems right.

 

For those not in the know, bone in a lot of the Pierre Shale looks like this: highly fragmentary with a ton of air-reactive permineralization that will turn the bone into cornmeal once exposed. In some museum collections you have whole rows of shelves full of what used to be articulated marine reptile skeletons that look just like this.

[Slow Walker]

13 minutes ago, jdp said:

Yeah fragmentary humerus seems right.

 

For those not in the know, bone in a lot of the Pierre Shale looks like this: highly fragmentary with a ton of air-reactive permineralization that will turn the bone into cornmeal once exposed. In some museum collections you have whole rows of shelves full of what used to be articulated marine reptile skeletons that look just like this.

Would you explain this more please. Or link article.  Are you saying the fossil looked differently before? Should I do something to it to make it last forever? Thanks

[jdp]

Personal experience working around these collections. There might be technical reports about stabilization of Pierre Shale vertebrate fossils but typically we don't publish these sorts of things. I think this is specific to a few units within the Pierre Shale, specifically the layers with high hydrocarbon levels. I've actually seen fossils from equivalent units in Canada which actually weep tar and crude. Not sure that's quite what would happen here, but be aware these rocks have a lot of oil in them.

 

In terms of preservation, the bone should probably be heavily consolidated with polyvinyl acetate (paleobond). You'll probably want to use a relatively low percentage (maybe 1-2% or less) and let the PVA soak deep into the bone. I'd apply with a squirt bottle or rubber dropper. Once you've consolidated the inside of the specimen in such a way, you'll want to paint the outside with a higher concentration 3-5% to fullyimmobilize any cracks in the surface of the bone.

 

That should hold this together reasonably well. Let me know if you have other question.

[Slow Walker]

33 minutes ago, jdp said:

Personal experience working around these collections. There might be technical reports about stabilization of Pierre Shale vertebrate fossils but typically we don't publish these sorts of things. I think this is specific to a few units within the Pierre Shale, specifically the layers with high hydrocarbon levels. I've actually seen fossils from equivalent units in Canada which actually weep tar and crude. Not sure that's quite what would happen here, but be aware these rocks have a lot of oil in them.

 

In terms of preservation, the bone should probably be heavily consolidated with polyvinyl acetate (paleobond). You'll probably want to use a relatively low percentage (maybe 1-2% or less) and let the PVA soak deep into the bone. I'd apply with a squirt bottle or rubber dropper. Once you've consolidated the inside of the specimen in such a way, you'll want to paint the outside with a higher concentration 3-5% to fullyimmobilize any cracks in the surface of the bone.

 

That should hold this together reasonably well. Let me know if you have other question.

Would b76 work?  Could I dunk it in the glue? The guy who worked on Sue suggested dunking to me for a different Pierre shale fossil. 

I do see some oil leaks in areas. Do I do anything different for oil fossil finds? Thanks

[jdp]

B-76 would probably work, but you'll want to dilute it. 

 

If it's leaking oil, I'm not sure you'd want to do that though.  You might want to check abstracts from various fossil preparation symposia and see if anyone has given a talk on that problem. There might be one or more.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

2 hours ago, jdp said:

Personal experience working around these collections. There might be technical reports about stabilization of Pierre Shale vertebrate fossils but typically we don't publish these sorts of things. I think this is specific to a few units within the Pierre Shale, specifically the layers with high hydrocarbon levels. I've actually seen fossils from equivalent units in Canada which actually weep tar and crude. Not sure that's quite what would happen here, but be aware these rocks have a lot of oil in them.

 

Well, that explains why I haven't seen a lot of marine fossils from the Pierre Shale then...

[jpc]

A few comments...

polyvinyl acetate is not PaleoBond.  PaleoBond is a cyanoacrylate... superglue.  The Paleobond Company might sell PVA, but they are two different products.  Not to be confused.  B-76 should be fine, as suggested by jdp above.  

This does look like a mosasaur humerus.  Yes, Pierre Shale bone preservation is generally known to be crappy and infiltrated with gypsum.  Not coated, but infiltrated all throughout the bones.  But I have never seen any oil/tar or other blatant hydrocarbons in the Wyoming or South Dakota materials I have collected or worked on.  You can do a quick test for oil in the fossil by sniffing it.  It generally does not take much oil in a rock to be able to smell it. 

 

and just for fun, there are nice bones to be found, but they are rare... here is a mosasaur skull we found in eastern Wyoming on a Tate Conference field trip.  We had 30 people out there for 4 hours... everything else we found that day had the more typical gypsumated preservation seen in the OP.    

 

[Slow Walker]

1 hour ago, jdp said:

B-76 would probably work, but you'll want to dilute it. 

 

If it's leaking oil, I'm not sure you'd want to do that though.  You might want to check abstracts from various fossil preparation symposia and see if anyone has given a talk on that problem. There might be one or more.

To clarify I haven't found any fossils in the oil areas was just wondering if they needed special treatment. 

 

You think my fossil above would turn to dust if I don't stabilize it? 

[jdp]

14 minutes ago, jpc said:

A few comments...

polyvinyl acetate is not PaleoBond.  PaleoBond is a cyanoacrylate... superglue.  The Paleobond Company might sell PVA, but they are two different products.  Not to be confused.  B-76 should be fine, as suggested by jdp above.  

This does look like a mosasaur humerus.  Yes, Pierre Shale bone preservation is generally known to be crappy and infiltrated with gypsum.  Not coated, but infiltrated all throughout the bones.  But I have never seen any oil/tar or other blatant hydrocarbons in the Wyoming or South Dakota materials I have collected or worked on.  You can do a quick test for oil in the fossil by sniffing it.  It generally does not take much oil in a rock to be able to smell it. 

 

and just for fun, there are nice bones to be found, but they are rare... here is a mosasaur skull we found in eastern Wyoming on a Tate Conference field trip.  We had 30 people out there for 4 hours... everything else we found that day had the more typical gypsumated preservation seen in the OP.    

 

 

 

Hydrocarbons might be more of an issue up in Alberta, but I remember seeing tar just weeping out of a fossil at the RTMP.

[jdp]

12 minutes ago, Slow Walker said:

To clarify I haven't found any fossils in the oil areas was just wondering if they needed special treatment. 

 

You think my fossil above would turn to dust if I don't stabilize it? 

 

yes. stabilize it.

[jdp]

15 minutes ago, jpc said:

PaleoBond is a cyanoacrylate... superglue.  The Paleobond Company might sell PVA, but they are two different products.  Not to be confused. 

 

Ah there you go then. I've never done the ordering myself and I've just seen the paleobond logo on sacks of PVA beads.

[Slow Walker]

28 minutes ago, jpc said:

A few comments...

polyvinyl acetate is not PaleoBond.  PaleoBond is a cyanoacrylate... superglue.  The Paleobond Company might sell PVA, but they are two different products.  Not to be confused.  B-76 should be fine, as suggested by jdp above.  

This does look like a mosasaur humerus.  Yes, Pierre Shale bone preservation is generally known to be crappy and infiltrated with gypsum.  Not coated, but infiltrated all throughout the bones.  But I have never seen any oil/tar or other blatant hydrocarbons in the Wyoming or South Dakota materials I have collected or worked on.  You can do a quick test for oil in the fossil by sniffing it.  It generally does not take much oil in a rock to be able to smell it. 

 

and just for fun, there are nice bones to be found, but they are rare... here is a mosasaur skull we found in eastern Wyoming on a Tate Conference field trip.  We had 30 people out there for 4 hours... everything else we found that day had the more typical gypsumated preservation seen in the OP.    

 

I found some stuff with gypsum in between the layers of the fossil. Made it hard to know when to stop cleaning it as it started outside the fossil then went into it. 

 

A pic of the oil area.

 

How did they handle the gypsum stuff that was found? 

[Slow Walker]

7 hours ago, jdp said:

Personal experience working around these collections. There might be technical reports about stabilization of Pierre Shale vertebrate fossils but typically we don't publish these sorts of things. I think this is specific to a few units within the Pierre Shale, specifically the layers with high hydrocarbon levels. I've actually seen fossils from equivalent units in Canada which actually weep tar and crude. Not sure that's quite what would happen here, but be aware these rocks have a lot of oil in them.

 

In terms of preservation, the bone should probably be heavily consolidated with polyvinyl acetate (paleobond). You'll probably want to use a relatively low percentage (maybe 1-2% or less) and let the PVA soak deep into the bone. I'd apply with a squirt bottle or rubber dropper. Once you've consolidated the inside of the specimen in such a way, you'll want to paint the outside with a higher concentration 3-5% to fullyimmobilize any cracks in the surface of the bone.

 

That should hold this together reasonably well. Let me know if you have other question.

When it comes to consolidation at low%, how many re applying is done? Just one time?  Thanks

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

2 minutes ago, Slow Walker said:

When it comes to consolidation at low%, how many re applying is done? Just one time?  Thanks

 

With Paraloid B-72 it would be until you can see a thin film forming on top of your specimen, since, at that point the inside of your fossil will have reached the saturation-point. Any excess consolidant can be removed again with acetone, by the way

[hadrosauridae]

6 minutes ago, Slow Walker said:

When it comes to consolidation at low%, how many re applying is done? Just one time?  Thanks

 

1 minute ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

 

With Paraloid B-72 it would be until you can see a thin film forming on top of your specimen, since, at that point the inside of your fossil will have reached the saturation-point. Any excess consolidant can be removed again with acetone, by the way

 

Yep, keep applying until it stops soaking in.  One application is probably good, but you could always try to see if it will take a little more in a second treatment.  The method of applying depends on the strength of the fossil and matrix.  Sometimes a paint brush works great, sometimes you need to let it drop on so you dont start dragging bits of fossil and matrix around over each other.  Some times soaking is the best option, but with a 2ft x ??ft block, you need a big a container and LOT of consolidate.  One thing to be careful of is that sometimes with loose matrix, it can try to crumble while it soaks or while being taken out to dry.  

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

7 hours ago, hadrosauridae said:

One thing to be careful of is that sometimes with loose matrix, it can try to crumble while it soaks or while being taken out to dry.  

 

If this happens, by the way, and the chunk that came loose is big enough, you should simply be able to put it back in place while the consolidant is still wet, possibly apply an additional layer on top, and then let it dry. The consolidant will act as glue and will end up fixing the fragment back in place - with a little luck even without being noticeable.