Help Identify

[Rocky Stoner]

Hi folks.

Been scratching my head over these for years now.

Can find nothing similar through searching the web.

A museum in Berkeley Springs, WV has loosely similar and call it squid, but not really close in appearance.

The end of these are almost perfect taper and radiussed end, almost like machined. Some have a small stipple dead center on the rounded end.

Some have shallow grooves but some (most) are as smooth as glass.

A local suggested they were filled holes left by worms of sorts.

Thanks for your time and attention.

Regards,

Rocky

[Kane]

The banded ones have the appearance of a nautiloid. 

[FossilDAWG]

These are all pieces of orthoconic (straight-shelled) nautiloids, which were indeed related to squid (they are all cephalopods).  Think of a pearly nautilus stretched out straight.  The piece with the transverse lines is part of a phragmocone, the part of the shell that was divided into chambers (properly called camerae).  The other pieces are living chambers, the part of the shell that was occupied by the actual animal.  As it grew, it would extend the living chamber and secrete a new partition (called a septum) to wall off a new cameral chamber.

 

Don

[Miocene_Mason]

All of them look like worn orthocerids, I have a few of these as well.

 

dang, fossildawg beat me to it!

[Fossildude19]

9 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

All of them look like worm orthocerids, I have a few of these as well.

 

 

Did you mean worn? 

[Kane]

Just now, Fossildude19 said:

 

Did you mean worn? 

Some annelids aspire to greater, more cephalopodic things  

[Fossildude19]

1 minute ago, Kane said:

Some annelids aspire to greater, more cephalopodic things  

   

[Miocene_Mason]

14 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

Did you mean worn? 

 

13 minutes ago, Kane said:

Some annelids aspire to greater, more cephalopodic things  

Yeah I meant worn, but I won't judge worms who want to be orthrocerids, they can be whatever they want....

[Rocky Stoner]

4 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

 

Yeah I meant worn, ................

By "worn", do you mean that the grooves/lines between the segments have been polished away leaving the smooth surface ?

Question:

If the radiussed end, or tip is the first segment in the life of the critter, why is there such a difference in size ?

 

Thanks to all for replies, much appreciated !

[Miocene_Mason]

3 minutes ago, Rocky Stoner said:

By "worn", do you mean that the grooves/lines between the segments have been polished away leaving the smooth surface ?

Question:

If the radiussed end, or tip is the first segment in the life of the critter, why is there such a difference in size ?

 

Thanks to all for replies, much appreciated !

Yes I mean the segments or most identifying features have worn away, the reason the first segment is small is they started out after hatching, they then draw calcium carbonate from their environment over time and grow, as they grow they need a bigger home, so they build a larger segment, this continues till death.

[Rocky Stoner]

OK, thanks, I understand the "worn" part now.

I'm assuming that the first segment is the one that is smoothly radiussed on the end and all "newborns" would be about the same size.

Or are all of the segments radiussed the same (proportional to the diameter) and might be found broken off at some point in life ... or death.

Thanks again.

[Miocene_Mason]

3 minutes ago, Rocky Stoner said:

OK, thanks, I understand the "worn" part now.

I'm assuming that the first segment is the one that is smoothly radiussed on the end and all "newborns" would be about the same size.

Or are all of the segments radiussed the same (proportional to the diameter) and might be found broken off at some point in life ... or death.

Thanks again.

I'm not entirely qualified to answer that question, as I'm not familiar with all the types of orthocerids (some may be naturally smoothed at the end) but considering how worn their sides are, I assume that the tops have been worn away as well. I have never heard of a rounded ended orthocerid, but maybe the others have...

[Fossildude19]

Rocky, 

You are looking at broken sections. 

Each "section" is a septa.

 

 

 

So, often times, sections break free, and then get filled with sediment and a few hundred million years later, = fossil.   

Your items are internal casts of the shell, and the rounded ends are just how the pieces fit together

Hope that makes sense to you. 

Regards,

[Rocky Stoner]

1 minute ago, Fossildude19 said:

Rocky, 

You are looking at broken sections. 

Each "section" is a septa.

Your items are internal casts of the shell, and the rounded ends are just how the pieces fit together

Hope that makes sense to you. 

Regards,

That is EXACTLY as I was imagining, thanks so much !

 

 

[FossilDAWG]

40 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

Yes I mean the segments or most identifying features have worn away...

I disagree with this statement.  The septa that divide the phragmocone into chambers extend across the shell, except for an opening through which the siphuncle passes.  Even if a piece of the phragmocone is worn, it will still show the segments.  The pieces that do not show segments are casts of the living chamber, the part of the shell that was occupied by the living animal.  You will note that those pieces have a smoothly curved surface, which is the surface of the septum that separated the living chamber from the first chamber of the phragmocone, at the smaller end.  That smooth surface also has a small protrusion in the middle, and that was where the siphuncle penetrated the septum.

 

Don

[Rocky Stoner]

Hey Don, I see what you describe in my specimens.

I'll post more detailed photos shortly.

Thanks

[Rocky Stoner]

Here are a few better pics.

The ones labeled "Annular recess" and "Smooth ends" may be the living chambers ?

And the others are rearward.

Thanks again

[Kane]

I think you may now be officially hooked on learning more about these fascinating animals. A little knowledge is dangerous, and the only cure is... more knowledge!  

 

It would be interesting to learn more about the geology of the area you found these in, as that provides some excellent insight into the paleoenvironment in which these wildly successful predators thrived.  

[Rocky Stoner]

Hi Kane, I stumbled on these while watching for arrowheads in my garden. I remember the first one I saw and immediately recognized it as a leg broken off of an old cast iron pot. Then noticed it wasn't iron, then found a hundred or so more.

 

I also found these. (pic) Thought they looked like eggs.

I put a few under my hens for a week or two, but none hatched.

 

Could they be eggs ? Or some kind of mud balls ? Sizes vary quite a bit.

 

Regards

[Miocene_Mason]

1 hour ago, Rocky Stoner said:

Hi Kane, I stumbled on these while watching for arrowheads in my garden. I remember the first one I saw and immediately recognized it as a leg broken off of an old cast iron pot. Then noticed it wasn't iron, then found a hundred or so more.

 

I also found these. (pic) Thought they looked like eggs.

I put a few under my hens for a week or two, but none hatched.

 

Could they be eggs ? Or some kind of mud balls ? Sizes vary quite a bit.

 

Regards

Concretions/nodules, geological phenomenon not fossils, although they sometimes contain fossils.

[Fossildude19]

I agree, Concretions. 

Regards,

[Fossildude19]

[DevonianDigger]

I'm late to the party, but how cool to find those cephs just laying about! Pretty cool concretions as well!

[Rocky Stoner]

I knew I had another box of finds.

Here is a thin one. Like a hub cap.

Hope you can see the fine lines that are close together in the "side" view.

Where would this thin section be in the illustrations ?

[Rocky Stoner]

2 hours ago, DevonianDigger said:

I'm late to the party, but how cool to find those cephs just laying about! Pretty cool concretions as well!

Hi Jay, after tilling the ground, then a few hard rains, they are on top, washed and are really easy to see.