Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi everybody,

With plenty of rain past couple of years lots of things wash up even here in NM desert.  Both of these neat things found on our 5 acres of middle of nowhere, east of Albuquerque.  My husband did some sort of electricity conductivity test (he likes that kind of thing) thinking one was flattened/smashed old bullet.  Neither had conductivity.  The round one - abt 1" in diameter - looks snail-like but the other - abt 1" long - looks like - well - I have no idea...  (also have pics from different angles)

Ideas welcome !

MebTex

IMG_1361.JPG

IMG_1362.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll kick off the bidding by throwing in that the first one is a cephalopod, and the second one I think is a cephalopod.

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first one could be a cephalopod, but gastropod more likely since I do not see any septations in it. The second one could be a straight cephalopod or a crinoid segment, tough to tell. More pics from  different angles will help.

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first one , for me, looks like a coiled cephalopod, according to the camerae what I think I could see (or just it is regarding to the fragmentation process). Gastropods don't have camerae. The second one has "V" shaped ribbing along each segment, but they tend to be in opposite direction (due to the crystallization process ?). Cephalopod could be a good guess (tmaier).  End views could help for this.

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first specimen is either a snail or a coiled cephalopod.  It seems to have some septa dividing the shell into chambers, which would point to a cephalopod, but the spacing seems irregular and it is possible the structures are geological and not part of the shell, in which case it would be a gastropod.  Hard to say without other views or having the specimen in hand.

 

The second one again looks like a straight-shelled cephalopod at first glance.  However again the spacing or the segments is more irregular than I would expect for a cephalopod, where there is usually little variation in the thickness of each camerae (the chambers formed by the septa).  An end-on view could be useful, as I would expect to see a siphuncle if it is a cephalopod.  At this point my inclination is to call it a worn chunk of banded chert, rather than a fossil, though I'm not 100% certain of that.

 

Don

  • I found this Informative 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all.  I'll try to pick out the best pic or two of diff angles, or take more if I don't think mine show what you might be looking for.

If focus is too fuzzy I can re-shoot.

Margaret

IMG_1367.JPG

IMG_1364.JPG

IMG_1366.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Margaret!

 

I think you may indeed have an orthocone nautiloid - the segmentation does look a bit wierd on the outside, but I think I see evidence of a siphuncle - I circled it in red below:

 

IMG_1367.thumb.JPG.e9d7dda93430c04af258c1dd711cb8d8.JPG

 

Does the part circled in red continue towards the other end of your specimen in a straight line?  If so, then I think it would be safe to say that it is indeed where this cephalopod's siphuncle was once located.

 

Enjoy your cool-looking finds! :)

 

Monica

  • I found this Informative 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

look at the line running through the middle of those weird sections in specimen number 2. I don't know what it means or indicates but it might help.I'm thinking it might be some indentation where the siphuncle runs down the shell?

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The new end-on photo clearly shows a siphuncle.  The specimen is certainly a fossil of a straight-shelled (orthoconic) nautiloid.

 

Don

  • I found this Informative 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Thanks everyone.  I have a pic of opposite end, although it might have been crimped a little upon its long-ago demise, it does appear to go all the way through.  Therefore, I'm very hopeful it's a siphuncle (Julia, I've been looking up many terms too ! :ighappy: ) passing through a (thanks, Don ! ) "straight-shelled (orthoconic) nautiloid."

This inspires me to look outside my comfort zone - i.e., places I have to drive to as opposed to the 5 acres around the house.  Also, I've added "new lens for camera" to my Christmas list, since the 18-55 lens that came with my Canon is pretty good, but I want sharper close-ups.  Of course these days Canon is including both the 18-55 and a 75-300 for the same price as when I bought mine several years ago...sigh

 

north end.JPG

south end.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sagebrush Steve
2 hours ago, MebTex said:

Thanks everyone.  I have a pic of opposite end, although it might have been crimped a little upon its long-ago demise, it does appear to go all the way through.  Therefore, I'm very hopeful it's a siphuncle (Julia, I've been looking up many terms too ! :ighappy: ) passing through a (thanks, Don ! ) "straight-shelled (orthoconic) nautiloid."

This inspires me to look outside my comfort zone - i.e., places I have to drive to as opposed to the 5 acres around the house.  Also, I've added "new lens for camera" to my Christmas list, since the 18-55 lens that came with my Canon is pretty good, but I want sharper close-ups.  Of course these days Canon is including both the 18-55 and a 75-300 for the same price as when I bought mine several years ago...sigh

 

north end.JPG

south end.JPG

Make sure when you are taking photos to stop down the lens to something like f/22.  This will give you better depth of field, which is the range of distances over which you get good focus.  If you have everything set to automatic you may not get as good a depth of field.  You may need to change the setting of your camera to "aperture preferred" (sorry, I use Nikons, not sure what Canon calls it).  That will allow you to choose the aperture, and the camera will automatically adjust the exposure time.  You will need to use a tripod because the exposure will be much longer.  But your current lens may be ok.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sagebrush Steve
3 minutes ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

Make sure when you are taking photos to stop down the lens to something like f/22.  This will give you better depth of field, which is the range of distances over which you get good focus.  If you have everything set to automatic you may not get as good a depth of field.  You may need to change the setting of your camera to "aperture preferred" (sorry, I use Nikons, not sure what Canon calls it).  That will allow you to choose the aperture, and the camera will automatically adjust the exposure time.  You will need to use a tripod because the exposure will be much longer.  But your current lens may be ok.

Of course don't let this stop you from putting "new lens" or even "new camera" on your Christmas list!

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks Sagebrush !  I will definitely use this tip.  Also, though, per your suggestion, I do not plan to remove "new lens" (& possibly new camera - still a Canon gal) from my Christmas list !

Link to post
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...