Two "old" finds from Gosau

[belemniten]

This two fossils were laying for about 1 year in my room and i dont know what i should do with them.

The first step would be to know what specimen they are ...

I found both in the upper Cretaceous from Gosau (Austria).

 

The first one looks like an heteromorph ammonite but i dont if you can find them in Gosau ....

I also found some more ammonites in the matrix ... arent ammonites very rare in Gosau ?

Its about 7 cm long ... (maybe there are two ammonites ? I am confused )

 

 

 

And here is the second one ... 

First i thought that its a coral but i dont think its something like that ....

Maybe a rudist ? Its 6.4 cm long and very massive:.

 

 

 

Thanks for your help !

 

 

 

[FossilDAWG]

I do not think the second specimen is a coral or a rudist.  There is clearly a smooth surface where the shell is broken away.  If it was a coral the outer "shell" would be the epitheca and there would not be any smooth surface underneath, rather the septa (which would be the strucrures forming the radiating lines on the surface) would continue into the interior of the fossil.  Also it seems to me the exterior shell is too thin to be a rudist.  I suspect the fossil is a poorly preserved bivalve.

 

The first specimen does not show any sign of internal features such as suture lines or chambers (camerae) where the surface shell is missing, so I doubt it is a heteromorphic ammonite such as Baculites, unless it is a badly crushed piece of the living chamber.

 

Don

[Ludwigia]

I agree with Don. It's really difficult to judge exactly what they are, but I think you have 2 partially preserved bivalves there.

[belemniten]

5 hours ago, FossilDAWG said:

I do not think the second specimen is a coral or a rudist.  There is clearly a smooth surface where the shell is broken away.  If it was a coral the outer "shell" would be the epitheca and there would not be any smooth surface underneath, rather the septa (which would be the strucrures forming the radiating lines on the surface) would continue into the interior of the fossil.  Also it seems to me the exterior shell is too thin to be a rudist.  I suspect the fossil is a poorly preserved bivalve.

 

The first specimen does not show any sign of internal features such as suture lines or chambers (camerae) where the surface shell is missing, so I doubt it is a heteromorphic ammonite such as Baculites, unless it is a badly crushed piece of the living chamber.

 

Don

Thanks Don !

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

I understand your point and you convince me that this are indeed bivalves.

Although the form looks different (for me)

 

3 hours ago, Ludwigia said:

I agree with Don. It's really difficult to judge exactly what they are, but I think you have 2 partially preserved bivalves there.

Thanks for your confirmation Roger !

Too bad. I thought that i found something good

 

[abyssunder]

I agree with the other. Bivalves. The way how the outer wall is fractionated is not characteristic to rudists, coral or heteromorph ammonites, also, as Don said, the outer layer is too thin for a rudist external wall. In the first picture, under the thin crushed shell, are clearly visible the internal molds (steinkerns) of the bivalves; in the pictures of the second specimen there is visible the smooth surface of the internal partition of the splitted shell.

Maybe the second specimen is a Spondylus bivalve, but I could be not sure for that. Try to prep a little the surrounding matrix to reveal more details.

Edited January 23, 2017 by abyssunder

[Ludwigia]

The second one may be a partial Pholadomya, but I have absolutely no idea what the first might be.

[belemniten]

On 23.1.2017 at 10:15 PM, abyssunder said:

I agree with the other. Bivalves. The way how the outer wall is fractionated is not characteristic to rudists, coral or heteromorph ammonites, also, as Don said, the outer layer is too thin for a rudist external wall. In the first picture, under the thin crushed shell, are clearly visible the internal molds (steinkerns) of the bivalves; in the pictures of the second specimen there is visible the smooth surface of the internal partition of the splitted shell.

Maybe the second specimen is a Spondylus bivalve, but I could be not sure for that. Try to prep a little the surrounding matrix to reveal more details.

Thanks abyssunder !

I dont have much time now but I will try to prep it a bit !

I think Spondylus is a good guess ...

 

On 23.1.2017 at 10:24 PM, Ludwigia said:

The second one may be a partial Pholadomya, but I have absolutely no idea what the first might be.

Thanks ludwigia !