Fish Poop?

[Sagebrush Steve]

I have some fossils from the Green River that I collected several years ago.  One of them had a nice full Knightia on it but the matrix was so thick that I decided to split it.  When I did, I found these two small lumps on the newly split surface.  The one on the right looks like it has bony fragments in it, I was wondering if these were some sort of fish poop.  Nothing else shows up on this layer.

 

[ynot]

I would say yes it is fish poop (coprolite)

 

Tony

[Ramon]

Wow!!! Cool find!!! 

[abyssunder]

Yep, they looks like fish coprolite.

[fifbrindacier]

I agree with that, and maybe @Geschwhat would like to snail in.

[EMP]

How do you get a photo of something so small to look so good? I've been trying to no avail for a while now

[Sagebrush Steve]

32 minutes ago, EMP said:

How do you get a photo of something so small to look so good? I've been trying to no avail for a while now

Well, I have a stereo microscope and I hand-hold my iPhone camera to one of the eyepieces.  It takes a little practice because you need a little gap between the iPhone and the eyepiece.  I keep thinking I should machine an adapter to make it easier. I do some post-processing in Photoshop to sharpen things up and improve contrast.  I call my microscope "Frankenscope" because I pieced it together from various things I bought off of eBay.  The body is a nice Wild M-5 from before they were bought by Leica.  The eyepieces were some generic models that didn't even fit until I machined them down.  By the way, I've been experimenting with doing 3-D photos by shooting first through one eyepiece and then the other and compositing them in Photoshop.  Seems to work pretty well if you get things right.

[Ramon]

8 minutes ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

Well, I have a stereo microscope and I hand-hold my iPhone camera to one of the eyepieces.  It takes a little practice because you need a little gap between the iPhone and the eyepiece.  I keep thinking I should machine an adapter to make it easier. I do some post-processing in Photoshop to sharpen things up and improve contrast.  I call my microscope "Frankenscope" because I pieced it together from various things I bought off of eBay.  The body is a nice Wild M-5 from before they were bought by Leica.  The eyepieces were some generic models that didn't even fit until I machined them down.  By the way, I've been experimenting with doing 3-D photos by shooting first through one eyepiece and then the other and compositing them in Photoshop.  Seems to work pretty well if you get things right.

 

 

Yeah, It's kind of hard to get pictures from microscopes. But hopefully I got to take an amazing shot of this male non-biting midge!!! Taken with 40x magnification 

 

 

 

Another pic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EMP]

Ah that's why, all I have are loops. Thanks for the help, I'll look into a microscope.

[FossilDudeCO]

yup, as others have said.

FISH POOP!

[GeschWhat]

I agree with the others, you have some nice coprolites there! I wouldn't necessarily classify it as fish poop. It is very hard to determine what animal produced what type of coprolite. Based on modern/extant animal scat, these look more amphibian to me. I haven't done much research in this area, but from a quick google search on modern frog/toad scat, it looks like their droppings have a lot of inclusions (undigested remnants of prey).  Most of the coprolites from this formation that I would comfortable identifying as fish coprolites are long and kind of stringy with very few inclusions visible at 20X to 40X magnification. Usually, if I'm lucky, I will find a tiny fish scale or two in those. Coprolites with inclusions are not very common in this formation, so congrats!

[GeschWhat]

3 hours ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

Well, I have a stereo microscope and I hand-hold my iPhone camera to one of the eyepieces.  It takes a little practice because you need a little gap between the iPhone and the eyepiece.  I keep thinking I should machine an adapter to make it easier. I do some post-processing in Photoshop to sharpen things up and improve contrast.  I call my microscope "Frankenscope" because I pieced it together from various things I bought off of eBay.  The body is a nice Wild M-5 from before they were bought by Leica.  The eyepieces were some generic models that didn't even fit until I machined them down.  By the way, I've been experimenting with doing 3-D photos by shooting first through one eyepiece and then the other and compositing them in Photoshop.  Seems to work pretty well if you get things right.

I take my micro photos the same way, but never thought trying to get a 3D composit. I would love to see an example of some you've done!

[GeschWhat]

I've been thinking about your poop (bet you don't hear that too often). I'm getting a different vibe from the inclusions in this. Can you tell if the inclusion indicated by the read arrow is a vertebra? Maybe look at it from different angles? If not, I'm wondering if you might be able to see anything in there that might look like parts of an arthropod/insect exoskeleton. The reason I mention this is that the inclusions in this are lighter and not as polished as what I would expect from fish bone inclusions. If the inclusions are from some sort of exoskeleton, this would a pretty significant find. I have attached on of my Green River coprolites for comparison. 

 

@Carl thoughts?

[Sagebrush Steve]

On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 11:07 PM, GeschWhat said:

I've been thinking about your poop (bet you don't hear that too often). I'm getting a different vibe from the inclusions in this. Can you tell if the inclusion indicated by the read arrow is a vertebra? Maybe look at it from different angles? If not, I'm wondering if you might be able to see anything in there that might look like parts of an arthropod/insect exoskeleton. The reason I mention this is that the inclusions in this are lighter and not as polished as what I would expect from fish bone inclusions. If the inclusions are from some sort of exoskeleton, this would a pretty significant find. I have attached on of my Green River coprolites for comparison. 

 

@Carl thoughts?

Do I "smell" a possible fossil of the month?  Seriously, I wouldn't even know where to enter it.  If those are bones, I guess it would be vertebrate.  Maybe we need a new classification...poop.

 

In any event I will take some more photos and post them.

[GeschWhat]

15 minutes ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

Do I "smell" a possible fossil of the month?  Seriously, I wouldn't even know where to enter it.  If those are bones, I guess it would be vertebrate.  Maybe we need a new classification...poop.

 

In any event I will take some more photos and post them.

Or a trace fossil category...coprolites get no respect 

[Sagebrush Steve]

On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 11:07 PM, GeschWhat said:

I've been thinking about your poop (bet you don't hear that too often). I'm getting a different vibe from the inclusions in this. Can you tell if the inclusion indicated by the read arrow is a vertebra? Maybe look at it from different angles? If not, I'm wondering if you might be able to see anything in there that might look like parts of an arthropod/insect exoskeleton. The reason I mention this is that the inclusions in this are lighter and not as polished as what I would expect from fish bone inclusions. If the inclusions are from some sort of exoskeleton, this would a pretty significant find. I have attached on of my Green River coprolites for comparison. 

 

@Carl thoughts?

 

I haven't been able to get as good a photo as I had hoped, here is the best I can do.  It's hard to make out exactly what these are, but they look more vegetative than animal.  The one I have label "1" looks vaguely like a leaf petiole where it attaches to the blade.  The one I have labeled "2" might be some sort of seed?  Hard to say.  You can see more detail when viewing in stereo but at 25X the depth of field is too small to get good photos.

[abyssunder]

Considering they are close together in/on the same matrix (first picture), if the left one is a coprolite, the other one could be also.

[GeschWhat]

I agree @abyssunder. I do think they are both coprolites. Because of the shape, likely from the same species. I just focused on the one with all the inclusions because they were more diagnostic. It looks like there may be one inclusion in the other as well. I think the inclusions are possibly the undigested remains of something like a beetle or small crustacean. I don't think these are plant remains, as I wouldn't expect as much material to survive the digestive process.  Herbivore coprolites are extremely rare, and I wouldn't expect them to keep there shape. These look phosphatic (apatite), indicative of carnivore coprolites from this formation. Take a look at this modern toad scat.  I have never seen a coprolite with verifiable insect remains, so it is hard to say for sure. I suggest you research fossil insects from this formation and try a little comparative science. I don't know how interested you are in exploring this, but I saw one of the forum members just offered a lot of 25 different Green River Fm. insects for sale. I think you have pretty remarkable specimens there!

 

[Sagebrush Steve]

45 minutes ago, GeschWhat said:

I agree @abyssunder. I do think they are both coprolites. Because of the shape, likely from the same species. I just focused on the one with all the inclusions because they were more diagnostic. It looks like there may be one inclusion in the other as well. I think the inclusions are possibly the undigested remains of something like a beetle or small crustacean. I don't think these are plant remains, as I wouldn't expect as much material to survive the digestive process.  Herbivore coprolites are extremely rare, and I wouldn't expect them to keep there shape. These look phosphatic (apatite), indicative of carnivore coprolites from this formation. Take a look at this modern toad scat.  I have never seen a coprolite with verifiable insect remains, so it is hard to say for sure. I suggest you research fossil insects from this formation and try a little comparative science. I don't know how interested you are in exploring this, but I saw one of the forum members just offered a lot of 25 different Green River Fm. insects for sale. I think you have pretty remarkable specimens there!

 

Thanks abyssunder and GeschWhat.  I guess I will have to do more research.  I have to agree that they probably aren't plant remains.  Not sure I see insect remains, although the long ones could be legs?  If I learn anything more I will post it.

[Doctor Mud]

1 hour ago, GeschWhat said:

I agree @abyssunder. I do think they are both coprolites. Because of the shape, likely from the same species. I just focused on the one with all the inclusions because they were more diagnostic. It looks like there may be one inclusion in the other as well. I think the inclusions are possibly the undigested remains of something like a beetle or small crustacean. I don't think these are plant remains, as I wouldn't expect as much material to survive the digestive process.  Herbivore coprolites are extremely rare, and I wouldn't expect them to keep there shape. These look phosphatic (apatite), indicative of carnivore coprolites from this formation. Take a look at this modern toad scat.  I have never seen a coprolite with verifiable insect remains, so it is hard to say for sure. I suggest you research fossil insects from this formation and try a little comparative science. I don't know how interested you are in exploring this, but I saw one of the forum members just offered a lot of 25 different Green River Fm. insects for sale. I think you have pretty remarkable specimens there!

 

It would be useful to compare the preservation of insect cuticle - chitin - at this site. I look at Quaternary fossil insects in lake sediments, so the preservation is different to this. I would lean towards fish remains and not chitin on the inclusion labeled "1", but I'm not so sure for the others. The surface is coated with a dust, obscuring the detail. Is there any way to gently remove it. Keep in mind you may not want to contaminate with chemicals if this was to be studied.

 

@GeschWhat has anyone looked at coprolites using a micro CT scanner? The one where I work has a resolution of 40 microns.

[Sagebrush Steve]

1 minute ago, Doctor Mud said:

It would be useful to compare the preservation of insect cuticle - chitin - at this site. I look at Quaternary fossil insects in lake sediments, so the preservation is different to this. I would lean towards fish remains and not chitin on the inclusion labeled "1", but I'm not so sure for the others. The surface is coated with a dust, obscuring the detail. Is there any way to gently remove it. Keep in mind you may not want to contaminate with chemicals if this was to be studied.

 

@GeschWhat has anyone looked at coprolites using a micro CT scanner? The one where I work has a resolution of 40 microns.

It's from the split fish layer which is very fragile, so I'm hesitant to do much to it.  I could easily end up destroying it.  I was thinking I would need access to a SEM, but if there is such a thing as a micro CT scanner I would like to know.  The yellowish powder was always there.  I just split the matrix to open this layer a few days ago.

[abyssunder]

I speculate with the idea that some of the inclusions might be costae(ribs) and/or fin spine remains of small fish/fishes, somehow the shape of them could resemble that, especially the proximal end. Hard to say for sure, but it could be a possibility.

[Doctor Mud]

1 hour ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

It's from the split fish layer which is very fragile, so I'm hesitant to do much to it.  I could easily end up destroying it.  I was thinking I would need access to a SEM, but if there is such a thing as a micro CT scanner I would like to know.  The yellowish powder was always there.  I just split the matrix to open this layer a few days ago.

No problem. I understand - do as little as possible.

 

Looking on my computer monitor (and not my phone) and without  seeing the preservation of insect material at this site, I propose that these are skeletal elements from a small fish. The inclusions don't look like chitin to me unless they have been replaced by a mineral. I would guess that chitin here preserves more as a film than solid objects like this? We would need to see examples of insects from this site.

 

If I saw this in Quatetnary lake sediments I would not say chitin.

 

There is s micro CT scanner where I work. It is much higher resolution than your standard medical CT. I recently used it to scan lake sediment cores to look at ice rafted debris. It is amazing!

[GeschWhat]

17 hours ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

It's from the split fish layer which is very fragile, so I'm hesitant to do much to it.  I could easily end up destroying it.  I was thinking I would need access to a SEM, but if there is such a thing as a micro CT scanner I would like to know.  The yellowish powder was always there.  I just split the matrix to open this layer a few days ago.

Check with your local university. The University of Minnesota was kind enough to perform a micro CT scan 6 coprolites specimens for me. It was amazing to see what was inside. I posted some of the results for one of them here. 

[GeschWhat]

17 hours ago, Doctor Mud said:

It would be useful to compare the preservation of insect cuticle - chitin - at this site. I look at Quaternary fossil insects in lake sediments, so the preservation is different to this. I would lean towards fish remains and not chitin on the inclusion labeled "1", but I'm not so sure for the others. The surface is coated with a dust, obscuring the detail. Is there any way to gently remove it. Keep in mind you may not want to contaminate with chemicals if this was to be studied.

 

@GeschWhat has anyone looked at coprolites using a micro CT scanner? The one where I work has a resolution of 40 microns.

I have They were able to get down to 5.842 um resolution on my smallest sample. On the larger more dense specimens the resolution wasn't quite as good. Just out of curiosity, does your scanner rotate the specimen?