fishgator Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) This fossil was inherited so unfortunatly I don't know the background on it. The creature within is approximatly three inches in length. It appears to have skin like an alligator with the tail of a fish, most resembling a coelocanth tail. My interest in the fossil was renewed after reading about the discovery of tiktaalik. Unlike other supposedly pre-tetrapod fishes, there is no sign of any anterior fins (besides caudal) or appendages. This has given pause to some professional paleontologists who will not even hazzard a guess as to whether what I have is, as I believe, even a vertibrate. (I can't help but wonder if it may be some sort of transitional species, possibly even one with growth stages likened to a modern amphibian.) The previous owner of this fossil was a long-time resident of Corpus Christi, Texas. He also once lived near Fayetteville Arkansas. My suspicion is that the fossil is from the Nueces River Basin. GoodLuck. Edited March 2, 2012 by fishgator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpaleo Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Looks like an invert, possibly a trace fossil... Almost certainly not a vertebrate in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishgator Posted March 2, 2012 Author Share Posted March 2, 2012 Thanks for the reply, Interpaleo. While I agree the jury may still be out on the Subphylum (possibly even Phylum, and Kingdom). I must say this certianly has more the feel of a Body Fossil than a Trace Fossil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeymig Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 It looks plant to me almost cone like. mikey Many times I've wondered how much there is to know. led zeppelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foshunter Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Doesn't look fish to me---Tom Grow Old Kicking And Screaming !!"Don't Tread On Me" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleozoicfish Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I know fish quite well. I assure you it is not and I wonder who these pros were. -PzF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) Looks plant like to me, as well. Some type of Calamostachys? Regards, Edited March 2, 2012 by Fossildude19 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boneman007 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I would be very surprised to find out this is vertbrate. My vote is plant as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphactinus Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 agreed with the others. Definitely a plant fossil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 "...I wonder who these pros were." Possibly this is what happened? 1. "What kind of fish is this?" 2. Paleoicthyologist: "I don't think it's a fish." 3. "The pros are stumped." I'm not a pro, but it's not a fish. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 It looks like mischief to me . . . You know, the sort of thing a mischievous child might make with a stick in wet clay. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyguy784 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I thought plant as well, at first. As Tim mentioned, some sort of cone. After looking at how robust the structures are, I think not. Almost coral like. Not having the faintest idea of where it came from doesn't help. Cool little piece though. I hope it gets ID'd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 This is the symmetry I'm seeing. Looks very 3 dimensional, like John says more robust than I've seen before. Mysterious indeed. Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyguy784 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Compare to this drawing. notice the similarity of th structural elements. http://surfacecurrents.blogspot.com/2011/05/know-fossil-rugosa.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Is there anything else in the rock that might give us a clue as to the depositional environment? "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...
FossilDAWG Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) Compare to this drawing. notice the similarity of th structural elements. http://surfacecurren...sil-rugosa.html I have to say that is an extremely stylized drawing of a rugosan, and in my opinion there is so much "artistic license" taken as to almost be a work of fiction. Rugosans were surrounded by an outer layer called an epitheca, except at the opening for the calyx at the top, and you would only see the framework-like structures depicted on the side in a weathered specimen in which the epitheca is abraded off, or dissolved if the coral sat exposed on the sea floor for some significant time before being buried. At any rate, the structural elements in the drawing are horizontal and vertical, like the frame of a building, with cavities in between them. The fossil in question has superficially similar rectangular structures, but they stick out not into the fossil, so they are actually opposite to the drawing.I've probably seen thousands of solitary rugose corals, and there is nothing about the specimen in the photo that definitively says "solitary rugosan" to me. Don Edited March 2, 2012 by FossilDAWG 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyguy784 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I hear what you're saying Don. I'm by no means a coral expert. I googled Rugos coral images and in fact found another "early" drawing of these structures. I cannot recall anything else that has those structural elements. I understand what you're stateing about the epithica, I also believe oddities in types of preservation occur. I hope this one gets ID'd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyguy784 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Found another image. Transverse striations and interseptal ridges. Where's our coral expert when you need them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyguy784 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 And I think the small rectangular elements do go "into" the fossil, not sticking out. It's an odd image. When you first look at it, they do appear to "stick out" I don't think that's the case. Or there's something wrong with my monitor or my contacts. Cool post though, I'm havin fun and learning a little sumpin as we go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Additional photos of the whole specimen and close-ups of the rock would be useful. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I will throw my hat in the ring for a weathered pith cast of a Calamites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyguy784 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I again have to say, that is one odd photo. Maybe someone else has seen this effect. There are times when I look at it that the small rectangular "bumps" appear to be standing proud above the surface. Then, there are times where they are clearly recessed. In each case, the image appears to be totaly normal. What's goin on here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 One more hat is thrown in the ring Getting warmer? A paleobotany specialist also adds: it appears to be a Calamites suckowi rhizome pith cast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 ...it appears to be a Calamites suckowi rhizome pith cast. This is another possibility which is supported by the (scanty) evidence. I really wish we had more to go on. I have it on good authority that more pictures are forthcoming ; with a little luck, there might be something else in the rock to clue us in to the 'when and where'. "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...
Fossildude19 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) I again have to say, that is one odd photo. Maybe someone else has seen this effect. There are times when I look at it that the small rectangular "bumps" appear to be standing proud above the surface. Then, there are times where they are clearly recessed. In each case, the image appears to be totaly normal. What's goin on here? John, I think these kinds of images have a 3-D type of effect that messes with your depth perception. I've seen that occasionally where there are small areas of high contrast in the photo. I can make it change by focusing and unfocusing on the photo - an optical illusion. I believe the fossil in question is an "imprint" - pushed into the rock? Maybe further photos will make it clear. Or the OP will tell us if the rectangles are in or out??? Regards, Edited March 2, 2012 by Fossildude19 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me 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