What is this?

[Ron Figlar-Barnes]

Found a large boulder that had recently tumbled down a rocky hillside on a rock hounding trip near Elma Washington. The boulder measured about 4 x 4 x 3 ft. and consisted of compacted fine-grained sandstone or siltstone.  However, there was a dark seam running through it.  On closer inspection this darker material was encased in the fine sediment and looked like cells.  We estimated this cell material made up around 30 percent of the rock structure.  The seam expanded in certain areas.  Here is a crude drawing.  We used a rock hammer to break off a small chunk.  The rock was very hard, and it took quite the effort to collect that small sample The small sample we collected weighed a little over 1 lb. So, the rock boulder would have roughly weighed 500 or more pounds.

Bringing the sample home, I cut a small piece and then polished it using a lap. The material polishes up nicely and looks like cells.  About a month later we brought a rock club to the site and the rock was gone!  It had to have weighed hundreds of pounds yet there was no trace of the boulder. The group did find some small gastropods, so the trip was worth it—but what happened to the boulder and what is the material we collected.  The site is in the Lincoln Creek Formation about 38 to 16 million years old and is at a high elevation.

[Fossildude19]

My guess would be some sort of whale bone. Not sure it can be identified further than that.

 

@Boesse

 

 

[Ron Figlar-Barnes]

Hi--thank you for replying.  The item came out of the Lincoln Creek Formation, really hard cemented sandstone rock--no skeletal remains!  Trying to identify this I found a reference to  Desmostylia  ( Behemotops proteus) in the Pysht Formation on the Olympic Peninsula--could this be something like a ancient sea cow?

 

I have looked up early whales' and a discovery buy James Goedert and Lawrence Barnes, made me happy.  They found a partial skull, partial mandible,
and some teeth of the world's earliest toothed whale (Goedert and Barnes, 1996).  The discovery was in the lower part of the Lincoln Creek Formation in Mason County--(this is Grays Harbor --but the find was in the Lincoln Creek Formation).  The Lincoln Formation includes the Eocene-Oligocene outcrops. Evidently according to their research, the characteristics of the skull indicate that the suborder Odontoceti must have had its origin at about that time or earlier. Their specimen is the oldest of this family to be found in the eastern North Pacific. They also found a whale from the late Oligocene in the Pysht Formation.  However, both of these discoveries had articulated skeleton --this is not a skeleton.  This fossil is cemented into hard stone. 

 

According to research (Barnes 1976, 1984; Barnes and Mitchell, 1978; Barnes and others, 1985; Fordyce, 1992; Fordyce and Barnes, 1994; Fordyce and others, 1992, Whitmore and Sanders, 1976). Eocene and Miocene rocks are well represented in the general area and the Lincoln Creek formation although predominantly Oligocene includes late Eocene and early Miocene areas. 

 

I'm hoping someone will recognize the cell pattern and get in touch.  Again, thank you for the interest. I did send the information to the Burke Museum in Seattle--so far, no response.

[Mahnmut]

Hello and welcome to the forum!

To me that looks like cancellous bone allright, though to tell you from what animal from the structure it will take a specialist, if its possible at all.

There are some groups of animals with quite characteristic bone structures, like the really dense ribs of seacows, or the thin bones of birds and pterosaurs. On the other hand I remember discussions here of broadly similar finds where there was no consensus about bone or not, or mammal vs dino.

If it was older than 65ma I´d call it a chunkosaurus, taking into account the lesser age its rather a chunktherium, the size and marine environment hint at a chunk o´whale. Beautiful structure anyway.

If I know anyone who knows his fossils whales , its @Boesse.

Best Regards,
J

[Fossildude19]

3 hours ago, Ron Figlar-Barnes said:

I'm hoping someone will recognize the cell pattern and get in touch.  Again, thank you for the interest. I did send the information to the Burke Museum in Seattle--so far, no response.

 

Boesse is Robert Boessenecker, a paleontologist who specializes in Aquatic/marine mammals of the West Coast.

He has now been tagged twice, and will likely be along soon with an ID for you soon. 

He is usually fairly quick to respond.  (Think a day or two, rather than a week or so. )

 

[Ron Figlar-Barnes]

1 hour ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

Boesse is Robert Boessenecker, a paleontologist who specializes in Aquatic/marine mammals of the West Coast.

He has now been tagged twice, and will likely be along soon with an ID for you soon. 

He is usually fairly quick to respond.  (Think a day or two, rather than a week or so. )

 

Thank you---for helping on this! 

[Mahnmut]

9 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

He has now been tagged twice,

 

Sorry, I did not pay attention to that!

[Ron Figlar-Barnes]

Any chance to have my question reposted?

[JohnJ]

On 4/19/2023 at 12:19 PM, Ron Figlar-Barnes said:

Trying to identify this I found a reference to  Desmostylia  ( Behemotops proteus) in the Pysht Formation on the Olympic Peninsula--could this be something like a ancient sea cow?

 

3 minutes ago, Ron Figlar-Barnes said:

Any chance to have my question reposted?

 

@Boesse

 

Adding additional photos, multiple views at right angles, would be useful. 

[Boesse]

Hey sorry y'all I've had a rough couple of weeks but final exams are over and I'm back! All we can say about this is that it's from a large marine mammal. I'd wager this is baleen whale bone, and probably way, way too large to be from Behemotops.

 

However, the possibility that there is more at the site means I should put you in touch with Jim Goedert - he might want to go visit the spot with you and take a closer look.

[Ron Figlar-Barnes]

Hi thank you for getting in touch.  Congratulation on the final exam, hopefully all will be fantastic.  The location we found the bone was on Weyerhaeuser land before it was closed off to the public.  We know the location of the site and if you could wave a magic wand and Weyerhaeuser to allow us to go into the location, we would be happy to do that!   The main rock, the fossil piece came out of was pretty massive.  Somehow, someone removed it from the site.  It had to have been 500 + pounds.  There was nothing to suggest it had been broken into fragments.  It had to have been moved by a backhoe on to a trailer or truck--there might be addition bone associated with the rock outcropping but you would need to left to elevate you to the area the rock came out of.    

[Ron Figlar-Barnes]

Sorry about the nonsensical sentence regarding Weyerhaeuser--pretty tired loading soil for our garden. I think you get the idea--we collected the sample in 2009-10 before they closed off their land.  Do you need additional pictures of the sample? 

[Ron Figlar-Barnes]

On 4/30/2023 at 12:46 PM, Boesse said:

Hey sorry y'all I've had a rough couple of weeks but final exams are over and I'm back! All we can say about this is that it's from a large marine mammal. I'd wager this is baleen whale bone, and probably way, way too large to be from Behemotops.

 

However, the possibility that there is more at the site means I should put you in touch with Jim Goedert - he might want to go visit the spot with you and take a closer look.

Hi do you need additional pictures? Did you see my other replies?

[Boesse]

Ah that's a shame, I thought this was a more recent find. More photos wouldn't hurt, but given the fragmentary nature I'm not convinced they'll help much, either. If I were a betting man I'd say it's a chunk of baleen whale bone, possibly a skull, mandible, or vertebral fragment.

[Ron Figlar-Barnes]

21 hours ago, Boesse said:

Ah that's a shame, I thought this was a more recent find. More photos wouldn't hurt, but given the fragmentary nature I'm not convinced they'll help much, either. If I were a betting man I'd say it's a chunk of baleen whale bone, possibly a skull, mandible, or vertebral fragment.

Here are some additional pictures.  A small fragment I was about to turn into a pendent.  Any chance to date the sample?

[Boesse]

External morphology is what's needed for an identification - can't say much about a bone that's been sawed into slices like this. Also not possible to date - the stratigraphic position would be needed.

[Ron Figlar-Barnes]

5 hours ago, Boesse said:

External morphology is what's needed for an identification - can't say much about a bone that's been sawed into slices like this. Also not possible to date - the stratigraphic position would be needed.

Well--darn--If someone is interested and can get Weyerhaeuser permission--we know the location and would be willing to bring someone to the site.  Anyhow, thank you for your insights and possible type of bone.  I'm assuming around 20- 30 million years based on articles I've looked at--again thank you!