fossil0 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) I found this neat-looking fossil shell in my backyard. It is a rock with shell fragment with almost a full shell on it. I live 200km away from the ocean though, so whats it doing here? Can you identify what type of shell this is, and how old it is? It seems to be around 10 million years? The shell seems thick, so maybe its extinct? Edited March 16, 2017 by fossil0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Welcome to the Forum! It's a bivalve with very thick shell walls. If it was found in sediments far away from the ocean it is a fossil. Location of the find would help in the ID process. " We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. " Thomas Mann My Library Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil0 Posted March 16, 2017 Author Share Posted March 16, 2017 I found it in my yard in Abbotsford, BC. I live in a semi-rural area, with the closest area of the ocean being around 150KM away. Kind of a strange place for a fossil. How old is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil0 Posted March 16, 2017 Author Share Posted March 16, 2017 Also, is this fossil rare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Can't help with ID, but here is a PDF about the geology of your area. And another on the stratigraphy of the area as well. Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squali Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 http://www.mineralsed.ca/i/pdf/SumasFieldGuide_Final_Draft_24-10-13SRS.pdf Welcome to the Forum. you're lucky to to live in a diverse geologic and fossil containing area. the link has some general info but that geotour sounds worth while. your bivalve may be in a group if the ground you found it in is natural and not trucked in. Try poking around in the same spot. It's hard to remember why you drained the swamp when your surrounded by alligators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squali Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Ha The dude beat me to it. 1 It's hard to remember why you drained the swamp when your surrounded by alligators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil0 Posted March 17, 2017 Author Share Posted March 17, 2017 There were no other fossils. It was among the other small rocks in a part of the garden, slightly buried. It may be natural? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max-fossils Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Hi @fossil0! That is indeed a fossil shell, and it does seem rather old. But there actually isn't anything surprising with a fossil being found in British Columbia, in fact fossils can be found worldwide! if you're wondering how it got there, then I have the answer to your question: a long time ago (I don't know exactly how long ago, but it must be rather far back) there was an ocean where you live, but it disappeared over time (Surely you've learned about plate tectonics in school?). But at that time, the shell you're holding there died, and got buried in the sand, fossilizing; during all this time it stays underground, while the ocean is retreating/disappearing, and a few million years later you unearth it! So there is nothing surprising about finding a marine fossil inland. In fact, did you know that fossil ammonites (which also lived in the ocean) are found in the Himalayan mountains? Now all I can help with is that your shell is a bivalve, maybe a kind of oysters or pycnodont; but it is too broken down to properly be able to ID it. Here is a geological map of Canada, and the region of Abbotsford seems to be in blue, where it says PALEOZOIC. But that surprises me, your shell doesn't seem that old... I wonder how old your fossil really is! By the way, if you like fossil hunting, maybe one day you should go to this fossil location: https://english.fossiel.net/sites/fossil_site.php?plaats=557 Best regards, Max 1 Max Derème "I feel an echo of the lightning each time I find a fossil. [...] That is why I am a hunter: to feel that bolt of lightning every day." - Mary Anning >< Remarkable Creatures, Tracy Chevalier Instagram: @world_of_fossils Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 It will be difficult to establish the geological age, considering that the specimen could be river, flood or glacier - transported material from the mountains to the Fraser Valley, also it could be deposited by humans. link 4 " We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. " Thomas Mann My Library Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 It closely resembles fossil bivalve shells that may be found on Vancouver Island, in both Cretaceous (Nanaimo Group) and Eocene or Oligocene rocks around Sooke and on the West coast of the Island. I lived in Vancouver for almost six years and collected quite a bit (though not as much as I would have liked!) on Vancouver Island, around the Princeton area, and I am familiar with the fossil collecting opportunities in the Lower Mainland. I have never seen, nor heard of, any fossil like yours from the Lower Mainland. If you found it in your back yard amongst other small rocks, I'm confident that it got there by being moved by people. Perhaps a previous owner picked it up while traveling on Vancouver Island, or farther afield such as the Washington or Oregon coast. Don 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 I think we had the same idea, Don. " We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. " Thomas Mann My Library Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil0 Posted March 17, 2017 Author Share Posted March 17, 2017 I wonder if it was transported. The previous owners did have lots of seashells scattered around the yard on cinder blocks and whatnot, and maybe the fossil was on display on a cinder block too and was knocked off or something? That would explain the cracks, and its location near a cinder block. Whatever it is, it is still cool. Any estimates on age? If it's from the Cretaceous, like you said, it's between 145.5 and 65.5 million years old. Is that accuratae? It's so cool to hold something that was from millions of years ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossisle Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 I am thinking Jurassic Buchia they can be found nearby north of Harrison Hot Springs. Makes it even older!! 1 Cephalopods rule!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil0 Posted March 18, 2017 Author Share Posted March 18, 2017 Cool. Aren't buchias extinct? If its from indeed the Jurassic, it's 145.5 million to 199.6 million years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 It's definitely not a Buchia, more like a surf clam such as Mactra. There are Lower Cretaceous Buchia that form extensive shell beds, pretty much all one species, at places around Harrison Lake. However, those fossils are internal/external molds without shell material. Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous strata with Buchia also occur to the East in Manning Park, but those fossils are also internal/external molds or thin black calcitic casts. The Upper Cretaceous Nanaimo Group, where I have collected fossils with very similar appearance, are ~80-70 million years or so. The upper part of the Nanaimo group is unfossiliferous terrestrial deposits and the very top of the Maastrictian (the last stage of the Cretaceous) is missing, so the exposed Cretaceous is not so young as 65 million years. Eocene and Oligocene deposits are younger, on the order of 50-25 million years old. Don 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossisle Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 1 hour ago, FossilDAWG said: It's definitely not a Buchia, more like a surf clam such as Mactra. There are Lower Cretaceous Buchia that form extensive shell beds, pretty much all one species, at places around Harrison Lake. However, those fossils are internal/external molds without shell material. Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous strata with Buchia also occur to the East in Manning Park, but those fossils are also internal/external molds or thin black calcitic casts. The Upper Cretaceous Nanaimo Group, where I have collected fossils with very similar appearance, are ~80-70 million years or so. The upper part of the Nanaimo group is unfossiliferous terrestrial deposits and the very top of the Maastrictian (the last stage of the Cretaceous) is missing, so the exposed Cretaceous is not so young as 65 million years. Eocene and Oligocene deposits are younger, on the order of 50-25 million years old. Don Sorry for the mis-information Cephalopods rule!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Back in the days,Lahusen wrote this piece,STILL being cited. Its plates are nice,and then some Lahusen,1888(BUCHIA)_Aucella.pdf I'd like to remind everyone that this is ,IMHO, a buchiid classic. Imlay,Jeletsky,Surlyk are ,of course,freely available on thé 'net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil0 Posted March 18, 2017 Author Share Posted March 18, 2017 I do tend to think it's a Buchia. After doing some googling, I found some matches. It's really cool how the shell is still there, filled with rock. Why isn't it fully fossilized? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Yeah,outer resemblance is a terrific way to diagnose taxa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossisle Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 13 minutes ago, fossil0 said: I do tend to think it's a Buchia. After doing some googling, I found some matches. It's really cool how the shell is still there, filled with rock. Why isn't it fully fossilized? Sorry to send you down the wrong path, not a Buchia. I just haven't seen this type of preservation here on Vancouver Island. Looking at my Oregon collections it may have been brought back from an Oregon trip? Shell preservation seems a better match. Cephalopods rule!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 What gives you the impression that it isn't fully fossilized? It does look more like a Mactra than a Buchia. The apparent symmetry of this "dish shell" and the ridge-spacing seems to mitigate against this being Buchia. This is a fairly decent-sized specimen, so definitely kudos on finding it through a bit of serendipity. ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil0 Posted March 18, 2017 Author Share Posted March 18, 2017 I think its not fully fossilized because not all of it is rock. The specimen is the size of a large apple, and about 3oz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwigia Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 15 minutes ago, fossil0 said: I think its not fully fossilized because not all of it is rock. The specimen is the size of a large apple, and about 3oz. What do you mean by "not all of it is rock"? "Rocks" are not necessarily always hard. They come in a multitude of colors and substances, can be soft when eroded and can also have mineral veins running through them. 1 Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger http://www.steinkern.de/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Considering that the very thick valves of the specimen are crushed/fractionated in the way as can be seen in the pictures make me think it was exposed to hard geological stress, which lead me to believe it's old (in geological time). " We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. " Thomas Mann My Library Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now