joepb Posted January 29, 2023 Share Posted January 29, 2023 Hi, I'd love some information about this fossil. I found it in a river gulley in the Waipara River, Canterbury, South Island, New Zealand. I've attached a screenshot of the information board at the site. Thanks for any help you can offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwigia Posted January 29, 2023 Share Posted January 29, 2023 Might be a burrow trace fossil. 1 Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger http://www.steinkern.de/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Mud Posted January 29, 2023 Share Posted January 29, 2023 Hi there, Thats a trace fossil in what looks like Amuri Limestone. A trace fossil is evidence of animal activity before the soft sediment turned to stone. So like @Ludwigiasaid a burrow from some sort of animal. Sometimes these might resemble bones, but notice how inside the burrow is rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted January 29, 2023 Share Posted January 29, 2023 +3 for burrow RB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cngodles Posted January 29, 2023 Share Posted January 29, 2023 I would lean towards plant. But that is with me not knowing the formation and also not being good at trace fossils. It seems too perfect to be a borrow. Fossils of Parks Township - Research | Catalog | How-to Make High-Contrast Photos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joepb Posted January 30, 2023 Author Share Posted January 30, 2023 Thank you all for your replies. Fascinating stuff. How old do you reckon it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahnmut Posted January 30, 2023 Share Posted January 30, 2023 Hi Joepb, welcome to the forum! the odds are on burrow, and I do not want to say its something different. But I remember a similar forum thread (cannot find it at the moment though) where a closer look at the tubes wall revealed it to be a very thinwalled bone. Really sharp macro pics of the cross section may tell, one way or the other. Does anyone remember that other thread, think it was in 2022? Best Regards, J Try to learn something about everything and everything about something Thomas Henry Huxley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advantage Posted January 30, 2023 Share Posted January 30, 2023 I also think perhaps burrow, there isn't really a good defined contrast between the matrix and the ? fossil. One would expect that if bone is involved and the cross section has no discernible trabecular honeycomb. It may even be a sedimentary feature and not a fossil at all. A diagenetic feature slightly after the original sediment was deposited Just a few ideas... 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