Fossil bivalve from Kaloot

[Max-fossils]

Hello there,

 

Does anyone have know the species of this fossil bivalve? I'm thinking Glycymeris, but have no clue of the species name.

I bought it yesterday in a small shop in Zeeland (Netherlands). The seller says he had found it in Kaloot (Zeeland, Netherlands), meaning it comes from the Pleistocene.

 

What do you think?

 

Best regards,

 

Max

[Max-fossils]

Here's the back:

[abyssunder]

Looks like Glycymeris sp., to me. Here is one of my finds :

 

[Max-fossils]

1 hour ago, abyssunder said:

Looks like Glycymeris sp., to me.

Hi, 

Glycymeris is indeed what I thought, but what about the species?

By the way, nice find! Where in Romania was it found?

 

Max

[abyssunder]

It was found in Miocene sediments in Caras-Severin County .

 

I have no clue about the species name of your specimen, at least in this moment.

[Max-fossils]

1 hour ago, abyssunder said:

It was found in Miocene sediments in Caras-Severin County .

 

I have no clue about the species name of your specimen, at least in this moment.

Okay, well thanks so much anyways.

 

Max

[belemniten]

Hi Max !

 

Nice bivalve ! Should be Glycerimis ... perhaps Glycymeris obovata (Link).

I found many of them in Antwerp and around Cadzand but also in Vlissingen (the kaloot) ...

 

Here are some of mine from Antwerp:

 

 

Hope i could help a bit

 

Regards

 

[Max-fossils]

18 hours ago, belemniten said:

Hi Max !

 

Nice bivalve ! Should be Glycerimis ... perhaps Glycymeris obovata (Link).

I found many of them in Antwerp and around Cadzand but also in Vlissingen (the kaloot) ...

 

Here are some of mine from Antwerp:

 

 

Hope i could help a bit

 

Regards

 

Hi @belemniten,

 

Yes, this does help, and I thank you for it

And I think you could be able to help more by showing me the inside of your shells!

But Glycymeris obvata does not really seem like a good option because the "teeth" that hold the two sides together are a lot fatter in G. obvata than in mine. Also, the lateral lines of my shell are quite pronounced, and in G. obvata they are barely visible.

 

Thanks again and warmest regards,

 

Max

[tmaier]

Yeah, a photo of the shell inside is very important, because the hinge geometry, teeth, and muscle scar are all very diagnostic. These ark shells have very many genus and species.

Same goes for taking photos of gastropods... the aperture view (openning of the snail) is very important for diagostics.

[abyssunder]

Maybe one of these two : G. glycymeris, G. radiolyrata.

 

" The fossil shell material from Zeeland is reworked and originates from various deposits, mostly of Pliocene and younger age. (...)

 

G. variabilis invariably shows distinct grooves on the ligamental area, the external ornament consists of a very fine reticulate sculpture, tending .to efface rapidly, and the shell is generally markedly inequilateral, being drawn out posteriorly. In juvenile specimens the umbo is quite prominent.

 

G. radiolyrata has a principally smooth ligamental area and a distinctive external ornament consisting of welldeveloped radial elements especially near the umbones; towards the shell margin the reticulate ornament is less fine and more irregular. The shell is almost equilateral and circular in outline. The umbo of juvenile specimens is not prominent; their external ornament consists of coarse radial elements (Fig. 1) overprinted by concentric grooves. The ornament in juvenile G. variabilis is decidedly liner. "

 

 

PLATE 2
Glycymeris (Glycymeris) radiolyrata sp. nov.
Fig. 1. Right valve, paratype (RGM 393 824, leg. M. Vervoenen), Lillo Formation, Oorderen Member, Pliocene (Scaldisian), construction pit Beveren tunnel at Kallo (Belgium), x c. 1.25; c - hinge; d - detail of external ornament.
Fig. 2. Juvenile left valve (RGD Coll. Mol.673), Pliocene, borehole Nijmegen (’Midden-Plioceen’), x c. 10.

 

PLATE 4
Fig. 1. Glycymeris (Glycymeris) variabilis (J. de C. Sowerby, 1824), right valve (RGM 393 826, leg. M. Vervoenen), Lillo Formation, Oorderen Member (level with Angulus benedeni), Pliocene (Scaldisian), construction pit Beveren tunnel at Kallo (Belgium), x 1.7; c - detail of external ornament; d - hinge.

 

Reference : Moerdijk, Peter W., & Freddy A.D. van Nieulande. Glycymeris (Glycymeris) radiolyrata sp. nov. (Mollusca, Bivalvia, Glycymerididae) from the Pliocene of the North Sea Basin. — Contr. Tert. Quatern. Geol., 32(1-3): 3-17, 1 fig., 4 pis. Leiden, June 1995.

 

Hope this help.

 

 

 

[Max-fossils]

2 hours ago, tmaier said:

Yeah, a photo of the shell inside is very important, because the hinge geometry, teeth, and muscle scar are all very diagnostic. These ark shells have very many genus and species.

Same goes for taking photos of gastropods... the aperture view (openning of the snail) is very important for diagostics.
 

Completely correct!

[Max-fossils]

1 hour ago, abyssunder said:

Maybe one of these two : G. glycymeris, G. radiolyrata.

 

" The fossil shell material from Zeeland is reworked and originates from various deposits, mostly of Pliocene and younger age. (...)

 

G. variabilis invariably shows distinct grooves on the ligamental area, the external ornament consists of a very fine reticulate sculpture, tending .to efface rapidly, and the shell is generally markedly inequilateral, being drawn out posteriorly. In juvenile specimens the umbo is quite prominent.

 

G. radiolyrata has a principally smooth ligamental area and a distinctive external ornament consisting of welldeveloped radial elements especially near the umbones; towards the shell margin the reticulate ornament is less fine and more irregular. The shell is almost equilateral and circular in outline. The umbo of juvenile specimens is not prominent; their external ornament consists of coarse radial elements (Fig. 1) overprinted by concentric grooves. The ornament in juvenile G. variabilis is decidedly liner. "

That's a great document you have there! Thanks so much.

 

The teeth of G. variabilis seem rather matching, but the depth of the lateral lines are not, in either one of them.

 

I'll put it down as G. variabilis for now, unless someone has a better proposition.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Max

 

[belemniten]

 

 

5 hours ago, Max-fossils said:

Hi @belemniten,

 

Yes, this does help, and I thank you for it

And I think you could be able to help more by showing me the inside of your shells!

But Glycymeris obvata does not really seem like a good option because the "teeth" that hold the two sides together are a lot fatter in G. obvata than in mine. Also, the lateral lines of my shell are quite pronounced, and in G. obvata they are barely visible.

 

Thanks again and warmest regards,

 

Max

Thanks !

You know a lot about bivalves ! 

 

I dont think that its still needed but here is the inside of another 10 cm long shell from Antwerp ...

 

[Max-fossils]

9 minutes ago, belemniten said:

 

 

Thanks !

You know a lot about bivalves ! 

 

I dont think that its still needed but here is the inside of another 10 cm long shell from Antwerp ...

Thanks, but really, I'm not that good. All I'm doing is comparing two pictures: its like having a picture of a house with big windows and one with small windows. so all you say is: this house has bigger windows than that house. Do you get what I mean?

Someone that does know a lot about bivalves would just be like: "easy, that's a iashfiuehgi shgiuerhagih." when someone posts a picture of a shell asking what it is; and here, I'm the one asking

 

And even though the inside of the picture is of no help anymore, it is still beautiful, and I was happy to see such a beautiful fossil! So thanks for sharing!

Also, 10 cm wide is huge! Wonderful find

 

Best regards,

 

Max

 

[fifbrindacier]

It looks like the glycymerys i found friday, but mines are less nice than yours, although it is not deformed. Here it is in its matrix, as you see, it looks like yours :

Now that i have almost cleared it  from its matrix, i know it is about 10 cm of width. It is described as Glycymerys sp.

 

[Max-fossils]

15 minutes ago, fifbrindacier said:

It looks like the glycymerys i found friday, but mines are less nice than yours, although it is not deformed. Here it is in its matrix, as you see, it looks like yours :

 

Now that i have almost cleared it  from its matrix, i know it is about 10 cm of width. It is described as Glycymerys sp.

 

Merci @fifbrindacier!

Another 10 cm one? God. I have the feeling mine is a tiny dwarf now

 

Also, what do you mean, "less nice than yours"??? It's a LOT nicer!

And it does indeed look a bit like mine. Just a shame that it's G. sp. . It might have been helpful to know the species of yours...

 

Where was your great shell found? Where did you find it?

 

Warmest regards,

 

Max

[fifbrindacier]

I found it in a quarry in the department of Landes. With the members of my club, we were "literally" walking on them, on carditidae and giant oysters. I also would like what species it is, but there is still too much matrix sticked on it, so this is impossible to see it well enough, but it looks very much like  @abyssunder's. It is from the Langhian-Serravallian strata (old Helvetian).

[abyssunder]

2 hours ago, fifbrindacier said:

I found it in a quarry in the department of Landes. With the members of my club, we were "literally" walking on them, on carditidae and giant oysters. I also would like what species it is, but there is still too much matrix sticked on it, so this is impossible to see it well enough, but it looks very much like  @abyssunder's. It is from the Langhian-Serravallian strata (old Helvetian).

I agree, the preservation status looks similar, with the difference that mine was found in sand (unconsolidated sandstone), although a lot of the fossils from my hunting site are embedded in (sometimes recrystallized) sandstone.

 

An image in mid-Summer from that site at approx. 350m altitude (scanned film photo):

 

 

[fifbrindacier]

43 minutes ago, abyssunder said:

I agree, the preservation status looks similar, with the difference that mine was found in sand (unconsolidated sandstone), although a lot of the fossils from my hunting site are embedded in (sometimes recrystallized) sandstone.

 

An image in mid-Summer from that site at approx. 350m altitude (scanned film photo):

 

 

I love this kind of landscape @abyssunder.

I also found mine in sand, it is ochre sand because of the presence of iron and it is also crystalized. That's why the matrix sticks a lot and is a little hard to clear off without appropriates tools witout breaking the shell. I also found a nice concretion of calcite sand with a bit of iron inside it.

[abyssunder]

You are correct. Also, in my picture, there are visible carbonate concretions on the surface.

I'm glad to see different Glycymeris species of different/similar geological settings.

Thank you all for posting them here.

[Max-fossils]

7 hours ago, abyssunder said:

You are correct. Also, in my picture, there are visible carbonate concretions on the surface.

I'm glad to see different Glycymeris species of different/similar geological settings.

Thank you all for posting them here.

I'm also thankful!!!

[fifbrindacier]

Here is mine cleared out from the greater part of its matrix :

 

And i found it here :

[Max-fossils]

12 hours ago, fifbrindacier said:

Here is mine cleared out from the greater part of its matrix :

Beautiful

[belemniten]

What a beauty fifbrindacier ! 

The location looks also very cool... great photos !

[sixgill pete]

Glycymeris and the Glycymerididae Family are very common finds here in eastern North Carolina. They range from the Oligocene through the Pleistocene as fossils. Yours is a very nice specimen congrats!!