What Are These Fossils?

[tommcclees]

These are some fossils from Green Mill Run (mostly pliocene, miocene) that i have found over the years. I always see them, i never know what they are. Who knows?

[Al Dente]

Hello Tom

These are fairly common in the upper Yorktown Formation. The exact identity of these is unknown but they do come from some type of bony fish. Here's a recent thread that discusses them.

http://www.thefossil...__1#entry241823

[MakoMeCrazy]

Hey tommccleess, I've been to GMR a couple of times, but I've never come across anything that looks like that, What part of the stream did you find those at? Past the second black pipe? The bridge?

[tommcclees]

Hey tommccleess, I've been to GMR a couple of times, but I've never come across anything that looks like that, What part of the stream did you find those at? Past the second black pipe? The bridge?

I have found these fossils from the bridge at tenth street all the way past the 5th street bridge and deep behind the cemetary heading towards the Tar River. I have between 50-100 of them in total. They are all the same size and shape (or very close in size). They also have come in the same color so far.

Edited August 16, 2011 by tommcclees

[Tarheel59]

I too have lots of these in my collection from GMR. I was told the were teeth. They are cool indeed. I found mine from all areas of GMR too. Tarheel/Jeff

[Indy]

There are a number of posts of the forum showcasing

fossils posted as unknowns that ended up being identified

as hyperostosed fish bones (Tilly bones) from an unknown fish.

These fossils have bilateral symmetry which is a common feature.

These fossils are nothing new and so common (in certain areas) many

collectors no longer even take the time to pick them up.

Am I the only one that finds it a little more than odd that

so many have collected these fossils (from various time periods)

and still the bottom line is hyperostosed fish bones (Tilly bones)

from an unknown fish.

One would think that at least 1 professional at sometime in the

past picked up the gauntlet studying at least one of he common shapes

with success and identified the bone associated with one or more specific

fish from the fossil record. Then at least one group would have a scientific

name and associated information.

Years ago, I went on a witch hunt looking for the above and came up empty

handed.

[Indy]

Pardon the double post thing.

Forgot to add...When inquiring for more information beyond

the "common name" usually ends up being a "Thread Killer"

Barry

[Al Dente]

One would think that at least 1 professional at sometime in the

past picked up the gauntlet studying at least one of he common shapes

with success and identified the bone associated with one or more specific

fish from the fossil record. Then at least one group would have a scientific

name and associated information.

Years ago, I went on a witch hunt looking for the above and came up empty

handed.

Information on the identification of hyperostosed fish bone is available, you just have to dig a little to find it. Most of the publications deal with modern fish but if you start looking at the published material for fossil fish you will see some of the hyperostosed bone identified. I do a bit of collecting in the Yorktown Formation so I use "Geology and Paleontology of the Lee Creek Mine, volume 3 " to identify some of my fish bones. It includes several types of hyperostosed bone. Among them are the urohyal bone from hake which have a typical "tilly bone" shape, hyperostosed hake vertebrae, hyperostosed sea robin skulls and porgie skulls, and the hyperostosed puffer opercular bones that are common finds at Lee Creek.

[Indy]

Information on the identification of hyperostosed fish bone is available, you just have to dig a little to find it. Most of the publications deal with modern fish but if you start looking at the published material for fossil fish you will see some of the hyperostosed bone identified. I do a bit of collecting in the Yorktown Formation so I use "Geology and Paleontology of the Lee Creek Mine, volume 3 " to identify some of my fish bones. It includes several types of hyperostosed bone. Among them are the urohyal bone from hake which have a typical "tilly bone" shape, hyperostosed hake vertebrae, hyperostosed sea robin skulls and porgie skulls, and the hyperostosed puffer opercular bones that are common finds at Lee Creek.

Thanks for the resource and information. I will definitely follow through

with research and archive information for the benefit of others. Fossil

enthusiast should be able to identify their finds and know that their fossil

finds are more than "nothing but Tilly bones from some unknown fish".

I am archiving images now with geology information in hopes to build a

"min-website". The kind of website one could point collectors to so

they can search the images data base to compare with fossils they

have found.

Tilly bones are not "Dinosaur" or "Shark Teeth"...No glamor or money trails.

However, they are definitely a small part of the Paleo Sandwich.

Thanks again for taking the time to share your resources and information.

Barry

[MakoMeCrazy]

I have found these fossils from the bridge at tenth street all the way past the 5th street bridge and deep behind the cemetary heading towards the Tar River. I have between 50-100 of them in total. They are all the same size and shape (or very close in size). They also have come in the same color so far.

Awesome. Next time I'll run through there and see if I can pick some up. Thank you!

[Boesse]

I'm not sure if these are tilly bones in the strict sense - these have been called in the literature "Emmon's Fish Tooth", and it is thought to be some sort of a bone that pectoral fin spines attach to, perhaps. I can't quite recall. However, take a look at Purdy et al. 2001 (the Lee Creek shark paper).

Bobby

[Harry Pristis]

I'm not sure if these are tilly bones in the strict sense - these have been called in the literature "Emmon's Fish Tooth", and it is thought to be some sort of a bone that pectoral fin spines attach to, perhaps. I can't quite recall. However, take a look at Purdy et al. 2001 (the Lee Creek shark paper).

Bobby

Does this stylized line-drawing refresh your memory at all, Bobby?

Personally, I vote for "epihyalis" for these mysterious bits . . . just 'cause I like the sound of it.

[tommcclees]

these have been called in the literature "Emmon's Fish Tooth", and it is thought to be some sort of a bone that pectoral fin spines attach to, perhaps. I can't quite recall. However, take a look at ().

Bobby

I haven't been able to read Purdy et al 2001 yet but i did peruse the NC Geological Survey/Agricultural Report to the Gov. Bragg by Ebenezer Emmons and it was fascinating, even if some of the fossils were mis-identified.LINK I also came across his drawing of a whale ear bone (pg 209 fig. 29) which he describes as "the most common of all". I have a current Fossil ID thread about this same fossil artifact that he has depicted in his report. THEFOSSILFORUM-ARE THESE DENTICLES? From what i understand, Emmon's described them as whale bones, but they are most likely some sort of Tilly bone from a boney fish.

[Indy]

I haven't been able to read Purdy et al 2001 yet but i did peruse.....

I admire your persistence.

A friend recently posted on another Internet fossil list...

"Paleo mysteries can be fun, but if not answered they can be exasperating"

Keep researching and stirring up the pot.

Sooner or later...the cream will rise to the surface.

Edited to add the following

Any time Harry Pristis posts an identification

or an educated guess...I'm taking notes!

Edited August 18, 2011 by Indy

[Al Dente]

I'm not sure if these are tilly bones in the strict sense - these have been called in the literature "Emmon's Fish Tooth", and it is thought to be some sort of a bone that pectoral fin spines attach to, perhaps. I can't quite recall. However, take a look at Purdy et al. 2001 (the Lee Creek shark paper).

Bobby

Purdy er al. 2001 description of this fossil: "Emmons' fish tooth is not a tooth but a hyperostosed bone, the identity of which has eluded paleontologists and ichthyologists for over 140 years.".

I agree that these are not like typical tilly bones. I have seen dozens of them and they appear almost identical to each other almost as if they were cast from the same mold. Other hyperostosed bones I've collected might look similar to each other, but there are always differences in texture or shape. These "Emmons' fish teeth" have definite structures, like a beak shape on top and a hollow pouch in the middle and a bifurcated base that make me believe they serve a purpose and are not just a thickening of a bone.

[RickNC]

I found something similar but quite different. I should get a picture and post it here.

[tommcclees]

I found something similar but quite different. I should get a picture and post it here.

Rick,

I think I know which fossil you were thinking about posting, they look similar but have a raised back that comes to a point like a tooth blade.

[RickNC]

Yep that is it. Mine looks like your top right picture.

[Al Dente]

Rick,

I think I know which fossil you were thinking about posting, they look similar but have a raised back that comes to a point like a tooth blade.

I believe these are neurocraniums (basically the top of the skull) from some type of bony fish. Similar ones can be found quite frequently in the Waccamaw Formation and I've had collectors tell me they were from shad or herring. I have no idea how accurate that information is.

[Indy]

Purdy er al. 2001 description of this fossil: "Emmons' fish tooth is not a tooth but a hyperostosed bone, the identity of which has eluded paleontologists and ichthyologists for over 140 years.".

I agree that these are not like typical tilly bones. I have seen dozens of them and they appear almost identical to each other almost as if they were cast from the same mold. Other hyperostosed bones I've collected might look similar to each other, but there are always differences in texture or shape. These "Emmons' fish teeth" have definite structures, like a beak shape on top and a hollow pouch in the middle and a bifurcated base that make me believe they serve a purpose and are not just a thickening of a bone.

I'm starting to get a little confused since there are a number of

active threads on the subject of Tilly bones and each references

different shapes and cross links.

The fossils featured at the top of this post.

You agree with that this fossil is a problematic fish bone and

not a hyperostosed bone (Tilly bone)?

[Al Dente]

I'm starting to get a little confused since there are a number of

active threads on the subject of Tilly bones and each references

different shapes and cross links.

The fossils featured at the top of this post.

You agree with that this fossil is a problematic fish bone and

not a hyperostosed bone (Tilly bone)?

Sorry about the confusion. Here's a definition that I have of hyperostosed bone: "Individual hyperostotic loci, also known as "Tilly bones"…represent an expansion of the usually thin bones of a fish into globose, gall-like structures. *

I'm not convinced that these "Emmons teeth" meet the above definition because I don't think they were originally thin bones that grew into globose, gall-like structures, I think they serve a definite function beyond just a swollen bone (I have no proof of this, just a hunch). But on the other hand they do have cellular structure (vascular network is clearly seen in many of my specimens) which most teleost fish do not have with normal bone but do have with hyperostosed bones. Non-teleost fish have skeletons composed of cellular bone. So if these came from a teleost fish, then they are "tilly bones" if they came from any other type of fish, then they are just a normal part of the skeleton of an extinct fish. Hopefully some day a complete skeleton will be found containing these "Emmons teeth" and the mystery will be solved.

*from Smith-VAniz, Daufman and Glowacki 1994, Species-specific patterns of hyperostosis in marine teleost fishes. Marine Biology 121: 573-580.

[Indy]

Sorry about the confusion. Here's a definition that I have of hyperostosed bone: "Individual hyperostotic loci, also known as "Tilly bones"…represent an expansion of the usually thin bones of a fish into globose, gall-like structures. *

I'm not convinced that these "Emmons teeth" meet the above definition because I don't think they were originally thin bones that grew into globose, gall-like structures, I think they serve a definite function beyond just a swollen bone (I have no proof of this, just a hunch). But on the other hand they do have cellular structure (vascular network is clearly seen in many of my specimens) which most teleost fish do not have with normal bone but do have with hyperostosed bones. Non-teleost fish have skeletons composed of cellular bone. So if these came from a teleost fish, then they are "tilly bones" if they came from any other type of fish, then they are just a normal part of the skeleton of an extinct fish. Hopefully some day a complete skeleton will be found containing these "Emmons teeth" and the mystery will be solved.

*from Smith-VAniz, Daufman and Glowacki 1994, Species-specific patterns of hyperostosis in marine teleost fishes. Marine Biology 121: 573-580.

Wow! ... Thanks for the detailed information.

I assume slicing a specimen would reveal growth pattern if any.

However, I would assume someone already did that and the results

remained problematic.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around the circular "ball and joint"

type depressions which appear on all of these specimens. Hard to imagine

them being Tilly bones...But I'm just looking at these fossils with the

eyes of a fossil enthusiast.

"Archived for future reference"

[paco]

"Tilly bones", "Hyperostosed bones"...how convenient it is to make-up a category for problematic finds and "throw" them all in there.

"There, I fixed it!" kind of mentality...

Anyway, wow, this thread is really interesting...

[Maniraptoran]

has anyone suggested claw cores? cuz thats what those things look like to me.