Jump to content

Fossil ID


rangda

Recommended Posts

I found this in Republic, WA. The length is about 9cm and the width is about 1cm. I am an amature collector but it looks like either the backbone of a fish or some sort of millipede but I really don't know. That is why I am asking.

post-815-1222713587_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For "just an amateur" I'd say your eyes and judgment are pretty good. I'll defer ID to some of the guys with more experience in your area, but it will suffice to say that your find is well worth hanging onto.

Grüße,

Daniel A. Wöhr aus Südtexas

"To the motivated go the spoils."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wich period it belongs? This data would help. At first glance it seems to be a scrape of some kind of fish. It appears that part of the fossil is not exposed, may be below the tail.

Welcome to the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely looks like a vertebral column to me, especially the details in the right end. Fish would be the leading candidate. Nice find! :)

"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

Which period it belongs? ...

That area is Eocene; the fossil might even be Eosalmo driftwoodensis, the oldest known salmon, which is one of the fish known from the area.

"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

I found this in Republic, WA. The length is about 9cm and the width is about 1cm. I am an amature collector but it looks like either the backbone of a fish or some sort of millipede but I really don't know. That is why I am asking.

This area is known for the Eocene period and this fossil was found within a couple of miles from the Stonerose collection site. The material is more stonelike and the fossil is some sort of mineral replacement as opposed to the Stonerose site where most of the fossils are carbon in slate or softer ash sediment. I don't believe that there is any more to the fossil because the fossil is raised above the stone. I don't see any evidence of a head or tail and that's why I wasn't quite sure if it was a fish backbone of some sort. I can provide additional pictures if anyone is interesed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is evidence of a fin:

(BTW: Edit your pics to 72 PPI and no wider than about 850; members with dial-up will thank you :) )

post-423-1222733736_thumb.jpg

"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

Guest Nicholas
There is evidence of a fin:

(BTW: Edit your pics to 72 PPI and no wider than about 850; members with dial-up will thank you :) )

I thought that too when I first saw it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...