jify Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Howdy Folks, I found this on the river bank 2-3 summers back in a limestone formation near Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada. Any idea what it is, if it's anything? Is there a fossil under this, is this the fossil? I really don't know anything about this stuff, so I default to the experts here! Thanks a bunch! Looking forward to hunting for more fossils next summer! Jify Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimB88 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 looks like a cephalopod...do you know the age of the rock there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
araucaria1959 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I agree, it looks like Gomphoceras. You can find some nice pics from that genus in Google picture search. araucaria1959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jify Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) I agree, it looks like Gomphoceras. You can find some nice pics from that genus in Google picture search. araucaria1959 I think you're right on the money. As for the age of the formation, I found this: It's that light blue section, I think. More specifically, here is the section on google maps: http://maps.google.ca/?ll=56.995162,-111.445216&spn=0.002005,0.004023&hnear=Fort+McMurray,+Division+No.+16,+Alberta&t=h&z=18 Edited February 11, 2012 by jify Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
araucaria1959 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Devonian does fit. There are some databases that Gomphoceras is restricted to the Silurian (Treatise; Sepkowskis marine genera database), but it is also known from the Rhenish Devonian in Germany (middle Devonian, Eifel area). araucaria1959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jify Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 Thank you very much! Should I go about removing the fossil? Any advice on that? Is this the actual fossil, or is there a "harder" fossil underneath? This is all very new to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 The part that was (at one point) an animal is the cigar with the rings (the shell is gone, and the rings show the septa between the chambers, which were added as the animal grew); the whole may still rightly be called a fossil, though. I like it the way it is (in matrix, as we call it)! "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thanatocoenosis Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 A bit simplistic, but cephalopods use the chambers, via the syphuncle, to adjust buoyancy by redistributing cameratic fluids thoughout the fragmocone(the part with the sutures). It is a mechanism for their diving abilities. 2012 NCAA Collegiate Round Ball Champs; and in '98, '96, '78, 58, '51, '49, and '48, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrangellian Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Hi Jify, interesting fossil, I recognized it as one of those early cephalopods that was already mentioned, but couldnt recall which name specifically. Wish I had one, you're one ahead of me in that regard I would leave it as is too, you wouldnt uncover much if you tried prepping it. I'm wondering what that other thing on the rock is, anyone have any ideas? Bivalve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plax Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 glad I didn't guess earlier... thought it looked like the pygidium and some body parts of a trilobite with a brach on the other side, my paleozoic is weak for sure, odd that the cephalopod segments get narrower before the living chamber and that the living chamber is narrower than the old chambers, this may be the case with paleozoic cephalopods though, am commenting here to show my ignorance on the subject..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashcraft Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 The other impression looks algae-ish to me, maybe a stromatolite? I see the cephalopods and stromatolites associated closely in Ordovician rock. Brent Ashcraft ashcraft, brent allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jify Posted March 11, 2012 Author Share Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) You're guess on the other things in the rock are much better than mine! I picked up a number of other "fossils" in the area, that I simply refer to as "seashells in rocks". Also found some veins nearby filled with carbonite crystals. I'm excited to go back at some point this summer and peak around some more. The area is only accessible by boat, as the area is actually surrounded by industrial activity, with no access to the river (not to mention high limestone edges). Always some neat things nearby (and the fishing is good too!). Thanks for all the feedback! Jify Edited March 11, 2012 by jify Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrangellian Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Keep looking, and show us some of your other finds, whether you know what they are or not! 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