Marine reptile fossil? Pierre shale SD

[Slow Walker]

Found these not together but same formation. Look sort of like a vert but not a normal one. Where on the spine might it be? There's a hole in one. Thanks

[Nanosaurus]

These are giving me a mosasaur vibe. Looks like not the best preservation...

[jpc]

yeah, mosasaur verts.

 

[Slow Walker]

5 hours ago, jpc said:

yeah, mosasaur verts.

 

Where on the spine would it be from? It doesn't look like normal vert with process and it didn't appear to be broken off. Why might there be a hole in that one? 

[jpc]

31 minutes ago, Slow Walker said:

Where on the spine would it be from? It doesn't look like normal vert with process and it didn't appear to be broken off. Why might there be a hole in that one? 

not sure where on the spine they fit, and I have n idea about that hole.  Could it  be a factor of preservation?  

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

Based on the overall length of the vertebrae and presence of parapophysis, I'd say these are lumber vertebrae. And I agree, the whole is, most likely, just an artefact of preservation.

 

(source)

[Slow Walker]

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

Based on the overall length of the vertebrae and presence of parapophysis, I'd say these are lumber vertebrae. And I agree, the whole is, most likely, just an artefact of preservation.

 

(source)

Would it be that strange for it to look so different from the original? Could it be from different animal? It really puzzled me. 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

11 minutes ago, Slow Walker said:

Would it be that strange for it to look so different from the original? Could it be from different animal? It really puzzled me. 

 

Preservation of marine reptile fossils in the Pierre Shale is typically not the best, which means there can be quite some decay from the original form. However, as you're digging marine sediments and the two pieces of bone are obviously procoelous (see diagram below from Wikipedia) mosasaur is the most obvious option. Neural spines frequently break off from any vertebra, so not finding those attached would not be a surprise. And as these vertebrae have "wings"this indicates that they'd belong to the lumbar to postpygal range. However, pygal and postpygal aren't realistic options, in my opinion, as the "wings" are too short, indicating they'd have served for the attachment of ribs, rather than themselves being the post-pelvic ribs as is the case in pygal and postpygal vertebrae.

 

I hope this helps clarify things a bit

 

Edited January 1, 2023 by pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon

[Slow Walker]

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

 

Preservation of marine reptile fossils in the Pierre Shale is typically not the best, which means there can be quite some decay from the original form. However, as you're digging marine sediments and the two pieces of bone are obviously procoelous (see diagram below from Wikipedia) mosasaur is the most obvious option. Neural spines frequently break off from any vertebra, so not finding those attached would not be a surprise. And as these vertebrae have "wings"this indicates that they'd belong to the lumbar to postpygal range. However, pygal and postpygal aren't realistic options, in my opinion, as the "wings" are too short, indicating they'd have served for the attachment of ribs, rather than themselves being the post-pelvic ribs as is the case in pygal and postpygal vertebrae.

 

I hope this helps clarify things a bit

 

I now think the bumps are part of the pedical. And the trough is the neural arch. Maybe the vert was tumbled before fossilizateion?

I have a partial pygal from mosasaur  but it didn't look the same. 

[Slow Walker]

On 12/30/2022 at 7:55 PM, jpc said:

not sure where on the spine they fit, and I have n idea about that hole.  Could it  be a factor of preservation?  

After cleaning it, the hole goes all the way through. Could it have been drilled out later?

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

3 hours ago, Slow Walker said:

After cleaning it, the hole goes all the way through. Could it have been drilled out later?

 

Those holes do look rather mechanically made, as perfectly round as they are. Depending on the site context this could be the result of agricultural activity or prospecting. Certainly not something peri-mortem or archaeological.

 

3 hours ago, Slow Walker said:

I now think the bumps are part of the pedical. And the trough is the neural arch. Maybe the vert was tumbled before fossilizateion?

I have a partial pygal from mosasaur  but it didn't look the same.

 

In mosasaurs vertebrae up through the sacral area are typically longer than the postpygals and terminal caudal vertebrae. With this in mind, it does seem odd for parapophyses to be located almost on the same side next to each other. I can therefore totally see where you'd be coming from with your suggestion that rather than parapophyses, this could be the pedical of the neural arch. In which case, since there are no visible parapophysis these could actually be thoracic vertebrae, the only place in a mosasaur's body where the parapophyses would be connected to the neural arch. And as there is no sign of a peduncle, we can rule cervicals out. @Praefectus @JohnJ

 

The vertebrae having been rolled prior to fossilization is certainly an option.

Edited January 2, 2023 by pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon

[Slow Walker]

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

Those holes do look rather mechanically made, as perfectly round as they are. Depending on the site context this could be the result of agricultural activity or prospecting. Certainly not something peri-mortem or archaeological.

There's no ag nearby. Not sure what type of prospecting you were thinking of but dont think that would occur in a remote area. The hole is to small to be by accident. Why don't you think archaeolog origins? I have heard of fossils with holes made by people. Was there sea critters that could of bored this hole after death? The fossil is hard. 

[jpc]

Hi Slow Walker... I have no idea what is going on with that hole, but I strongly doubt it is anything archeological.  I assume you found it in the Pierre Shale outcrops where you find all your other cool marine reptiles.  Logistics... what are the chances that a human-worked bone finds its way back to the fossil beds.  Not saying it is impossible, but, to me, very unlikely.  

[JohnJ]

3 hours ago, Slow Walker said:

The hole is to small to be by accident. Why don't you think archaeolog origins? I have heard of fossils with holes made by people. Was there sea critters that could of bored this hole after death?

 

If it was a hole drilled by prehistoric natives, it would likely have been found in a small localized archeological site.  It would also serve a practical or decorative purpose, neither of which are apparent.

 

Plant roots in conjunction with how it was cleaned could cause a similar hole.  Judging by some of the scrape marks in your earlier photos, the encrusting gypsum and other mineral deposits must be a pain to remove.

 

Better focused photos taken in natural light might provide additional clues.

[Slow Walker]

23 minutes ago, jpc said:

Hi Slow Walker... I have no idea what is going on with that hole, but I strongly doubt it is anything archeological.  I assume you found it in the Pierre Shale outcrops where you find all your other cool marine reptiles.  Logistics... what are the chances that a human-worked bone finds its way back to the fossil beds.  Not saying it is impossible, but, to me, very unlikely.  

I looked back at the Picture of its original location near the out crop.  It was just at the bottom of a outcrop with other loose shale. What you said does make sense. Though it is a creek area. 

[Slow Walker]

33 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

 

If it was a hole drilled by prehistoric natives, it would likely have been found in a small localized archeological site.  It would also serve a practical or decorative purpose, neither of which are apparent.

 

Plant roots in conjunction with how it was cleaned could cause a similar hole.  Judging by some of the scrape marks in your earlier photos, the encrusting gypsum and other mineral deposits must be a pain to remove.

 

Better focused photos taken in natural light might provide additional clues.

 It does make sense that they wouldn't bother drilling a hole in such an ugly looking piece. 

 

I doubt any root made that hole at least not modern root the fossil is extremely hard.  There is also no holes or fractures in it for the roots to even get started.  I originally clean the fossil with just a toothbrush sweeping over top of it. I then later came in gently with a paper clip and just loosened up the dust that was crammed inside of the hole it came away very easily.  The hole isn't perfect. I could probably clean it out a little bit better with compressed air when it warms up.

 I kind of gave up on trying to remove the encrusted gypsum on them,  it was just too hard and also difficult to tell if I was scraping at the fossil or a layer of Gypsum. Maybe someday I'll get air tools or maybe in the future ai robots will clean fossils. 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

10 hours ago, Slow Walker said:

There's no ag nearby. Not sure what type of prospecting you were thinking of but dont think that would occur in a remote area. The hole is to small to be by accident. Why don't you think archaeolog origins? I have heard of fossils with holes made by people. Was there sea critters that could of bored this hole after death? The fossil is hard. 

 

So, why I don't think this fossil was used as an archaeological artefact, beyond simply the find context or how uninteresting the piece looks - which would, by the way, not necessarily make it uninteresting to ancient cultures, as there are other reasons for fossils having been collected in the past beyond simply adornment, including serving as powerful medicine in medicine bundles because fossils were sometimes seen as remnants of ancient mythical beings like the Thunderbird (Mayor's "Fossil Legends of the First Americans" may be an interesting work in this respect, although I've yet to read it) - is because this hole appears to have been made with a metal tool. You can tell by how straight the boring is and how the toolmarks on the inside of the shaft look. If the shaft would've been made with a stone tool, not only would the hole have tapered towards the center like a funnel, however slight, but the hole would've been drilled towards the middle from both sides of the vertebra due to the reach achievable with stone tools. This often leads to slight misalignment of where the holes were made, so that there's a clearly recognizable offset where the two halves of the shaft meet.

 

Instead, the toolmarks, as said, remind me of the clear-cut perforation made using a metal implement, maybe something like a metal rod, hollow tube or hand-drill used for geological prospecting. How and why it would've ended up there, I don't know. However, as the hole doesn't look like it was made using stone tools, nor appears to be a predation mark, one of the few remaining options outside of metal tool use would be peri-mortem perforation by a teredo worm. However, I believe those would've left a much smoother shaft...

[Styles]

On 1/1/2023 at 4:37 PM, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

 

 

 

Excellent chart - thank you.  So would something like plesiosaur be considered platycoelous then? What's the cutoff or distinguishing factor between platycoelous and amphicoelous?

 

[jpc]

14 hours ago, Slow Walker said:

 It does make sense that they wouldn't bother drilling a hole in such an ugly looking piece. 

 

I doubt any root made that hole at least not modern root the fossil is extremely hard.  There is also no holes or fractures in it for the roots to even get started.  I originally clean the fossil with just a toothbrush sweeping over top of it. I then later came in gently with a paper clip and just loosened up the dust that was crammed inside of the hole it came away very easily.  The hole isn't perfect. I could probably clean it out a little bit better with compressed air when it warms up.

 I kind of gave up on trying to remove the encrusted gypsum on them,  it was just too hard and also difficult to tell if I was scraping at the fossil or a layer of Gypsum. Maybe someday I'll get air tools or maybe in the future ai robots will clean fossils. 

one thing about the gypsum on these Pierre Shale bones is that it is not only on the outside of the fossil, but it impregnates the whole bone and can be vert difficult to remove.  Because the gypsum is in the bone as well as on, the bone will never be a beautiful bone like you see form other mosasaur sites around the world and on the forum. 

[Slow Walker]

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

 

So, why I don't think this fossil was used as an archaeological artefact, beyond simply the find context or how uninteresting the piece looks - which would, by the way, not necessarily make it uninteresting to ancient cultures, as there are other reasons for fossils having been collected in the past beyond simply adornment, including serving as powerful medicine in medicine bundles because fossils were sometimes seen as remnants of ancient mythical beings like the Thunderbird (Mayor's "Fossil Legends of the First Americans" may be an interesting work in this respect, although I've yet to read it) - is because this hole appears to have been made with a metal tool. You can tell by how straight the boring is and how the toolmarks on the inside of the shaft look. If the shaft would've been made with a stone tool, not only would the hole have tapered towards the center like a funnel, however slight, but the hole would've been drilled towards the middle from both sides of the vertebra due to the reach achievable with stone tools. This often leads to slight misalignment of where the holes were made, so that there's a clearly recognizable offset where the two halves of the shaft meet.

 

Instead, the toolmarks, as said, remind me of the clear-cut perforation made using a metal implement, maybe something like a metal rod, hollow tube or hand-drill used for geological prospecting. How and why it would've ended up there, I don't know. However, as the hole doesn't look like it was made using stone tools, nor appears to be a predation mark, one of the few remaining options outside of metal tool use would be peri-mortem perforation by a teredo worm. However, I believe those would've left a much smoother shaft...

 Do you know what type of prospecting would make such a small hole? 

 

The whole isn't as clean as it might have looked it is a little bit different sizes throughout it. 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

4 hours ago, Slow Walker said:

 Do you know what type of prospecting would make such a small hole? 

 

The whole isn't as clean as it might have looked it is a little bit different sizes throughout it.

 

All I could think of seeing these new photographs is somebody setting out a grid using iron rods for something like archaeological (and therefore presumably also palaeontological) prospecting. But I agree the hole is much less straight as I would've expected it to be for that.

 

On 1/3/2023 at 3:43 AM, JohnJ said:

Plant roots in conjunction with how it was cleaned could cause a similar hole.  Judging by some of the scrape marks in your earlier photos, the encrusting gypsum and other mineral deposits must be a pain to remove.

 

@JohnJ's explanation of this being the result of a plant root perforating the fossil now seems much more likely to me.

 

14 hours ago, Styles said:

So would something like plesiosaur be considered platycoelous then? What's the cutoff or distinguishing factor between platycoelous and amphicoelous?

 

It depends, really. Some are more obviously platycoelous, whereas other morphologies are distinctly more amphicoelous. In a way, you can use this distinction to help identify a specimen. But I wouldn't be able to give you an exact cut-off point. The way I look at it, however, I'd consider plesiosaur vertebrae with flat centrum faces as platycoelous, whereas if the faces are concave, I'd describe them as being amphicoelous. Now, of course, this raises the question of what amphiplatian would then be. But that's a question I wouldn't really know how to answer, except for, maybe, that all marine reptiles have some concavity to their vertebral faces due their locomotive requirements, even if the faces to the eye look completely flat. In any case, there's a gradient in centrum morphology...

[Slow Walker]

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

 

@JohnJ's explanation of this being the result of a plant root perforating the fossil now seems much more likely to me.

Interesting, would it be a modern root? It seems to hard for roots to shape it. More likely to split than conform. 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

3 hours ago, Slow Walker said:

Interesting, would it be a modern root? It seems to hard for roots to shape it. More likely to split than conform. 

 

I've seen roots work themselves through quite hard rocks in other places. I'm not quite sure on the details, but I think they use some kind of acid, possibly, to etch their way through? Maybe @Mahnmut would know? He generally seems well-rounded in a lot of different areas

[JBkansas]

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

 

I've seen roots work themselves through quite hard rocks in other places. I'm not quite sure on the details, but I think they use some kind of acid, possibly, to etch their way through? Maybe @Mahnmut would know? He generally seems well-rounded in a lot of different areas

 

From a quick GoogleFu:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/some-plants-use-hairy-roots-acid-access-nutrients-rock

Edited January 4, 2023 by JBkansas

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

1 hour ago, JBkansas said:

From a quick GoogleFu:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/some-plants-use-hairy-roots-acid-access-nutrients-rock

 

Thar ya go then Thanks for sharing!