Scallop: fossil or not?

[doushantuo]

let me post just one bit (i've got oodles of them) on molluscan taphonomy

I Know of at least one good article on the heuristics of shell borings,and the relation between eg. age ,ecology ,and drilling/predation intensity.

I might have posted it already,a while back

 

powelljshellfresbathyaltaphonomy.pdf

[doushantuo]

staf2002callenkidwBAHAMtaphomollupalaiosPTWOafs-2.0.co%3B2.pdf

[doushantuo]

LockwoodpalaiosmollustaphocesapeakebayUSACANADAndWork2006.pdf

[doushantuo]

cintramolluscbivalvjshellfres2taphonopredatiodamageEco%3B2.pdf

[RyanDye]

30 minutes ago, ynot said:

And what I am saying is that is not an indication (common or not) of whether a shell is a fossil or not.

Just because a shell has holes in it means nothing other than it was attacked by hole boring animals.

 

There is a Triassic site in northeast Nevada that some of the shells still show the original color patterns.

 

Also, I have a trace fossil of a tin can in My collection. It can not be more than 160 years old, and is set in a naturally occurring lithified gypsum sand.

That's a good point but the reasoning behind it is not aligned with my own. More hole barring animals such as worms adapted various traits to enter shells however, that does not mean all of them attack a living host. I understand it is not that significant and I should have used a different method of identification when trying to give pointers, however, the amount of time it takes for larger shells to be slowly broken down was my original thought process on the subject which is fairly reasonable but still misguided. I agree on your conjecture concerning the value of looking at holes as an indication of age.

[abyssunder]

A similar topic with similar question is this one :

 

[Coco]

Hi,

 

12 hours ago, Ryan Dye said:

To be a fossil it has to be at least 8,000yrs before the common era or B.C.E I would like to think your shell could likely be from the Holocene epoch if the area had such fossils from the time.

 

According to countries the notion of fossil can be different. In the USA I understood thanks to TFF that a fossil is considered as such if he is at least 10 000 years old.

 

With us, in France, we consider that fossils are like that until the appearance of the man (humain being). From the appearance of the man, objects are prehistoric and non-fossil. Indeed, in Europe we have people much more older than in the USA, what explains this difference. With us, an object of 15 000 years old will not be considered as fossil, but as prehistoric object.

 

Coco

 

[ynot]

9 hours ago, Ryan Dye said:

That's a good point but the reasoning behind it is not aligned with my own.

Glad to hear that it does not align with Your reasoning, because Your reasoning is wrong.

 

9 hours ago, Ryan Dye said:

More hole barring animals such as worms adapted various traits to enter shells however, that does not mean all of them attack a living host. 

This statement makes no sense.

 

9 hours ago, Ryan Dye said:

I understand it is not that significant and I should have used a different method of identification when trying to give pointers,

There is NO significance to Your statement on borings in shells. Not giving incorrect "facts" on a subject would be a good start

 

9 hours ago, Ryan Dye said:

the amount of time it takes for larger shells to be slowly broken down

Has nothing to do with borings in the shell being an indication of age.

 

9 hours ago, Ryan Dye said:

my original thought process on the subject which is fairly reasonable 

I see nothing "fairly reasonable" about Your original statement. It was 100% wrong.

 

9 hours ago, Ryan Dye said:

. I agree on your conjecture concerning the value of looking at holes as an indication of age.

My statement is not a 'conjecture" it is a fact. There is no correlation between the borings of a shell and its age, fossil or not.

[RyanDye]

1 hour ago, ynot said:

Glad to hear that it does not align with Your reasoning, because Your reasoning is wrong.

 

This statement makes no sense.

 

There is NO significance to Your statement on borings in shells. Not giving incorrect "facts" on a subject would be a good start

 

Has nothing to do with borings in the shell being an indication of age.

 

I see nothing "fairly reasonable" about Your original statement. It was 100% wrong.

 

My statement is not a 'conjecture" it is a fact. There is no correlation between the borings of a shell and its age, fossil or not.

1

I was agreeing with your statement as this seems to be going nowhere unless you have a reason to continue talking about the subject I have more productive things to do. Thank you for the discussion but I see no need to drag it out. 

[RyanDye]

2 hours ago, Coco said:

Hi,

 

 

According to countries the notion of fossil can be different. In the USA I understood thanks to TFF that a fossil is considered as such if he is at least 10 000 years old.

 

With us, in France, we consider that fossils are like that until the appearance of the man (humain being). From the appearance of the man, objects are prehistoric and non-fossil. Indeed, in Europe we have people much more older than in the USA, what explains this difference. With us, an object of 15 000 years old will not be considered as fossil, but as prehistoric object.

 

Coco

 

Huh, that's interesting but the definition I said does not go along with everyone's ideology here so I don't know how much of an official definition it actually is. However B.C.E or before common era is actually different than B.C. you have to add 2,000 years I actually learned this from someone named "Treytheexplainer" a youtube channel dedicated to clearing out misunderstandings and other videos related to paleontology. He also does videos on cryptozoology but instead of most other people adding to the false claims he tries to disprove them. 

[Sagebrush Steve]

11 minutes ago, Ryan Dye said:

Huh, that's interesting but the definition I said does not go along with everyone's ideology here so I don't know how much of an official definition it actually is. However B.C.E or before common era is actually different than B.C. you have to add 2,000 years I actually learned this from someone named "Treytheexplainer" a youtube channel dedicated to clearing out misunderstandings and other videos related to paleontology. He also does videos on cryptozoology but instead of most other people adding to the false claims he tries to disprove them. 

Wikipedia would disagree with your statement:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

Which Internet source would you choose?

[Kane]

17 minutes ago, Ryan Dye said:

Huh, that's interesting but the definition I said does not go along with everyone's ideology here so I don't know how much of an official definition it actually is. However B.C.E or before common era is actually different than B.C. you have to add 2,000 years I actually learned this from someone named "Treytheexplainer" a youtube channel dedicated to clearing out misunderstandings and other videos related to paleontology. He also does videos on cryptozoology but instead of most other people adding to the false claims he tries to disprove them. 

I would certainly recommend obtaining information from peer-reviewed sources rather than Youtube  

[RyanDye]

3 minutes ago, Kane said:

I would certainly recommend obtaining information from peer-reviewed sources rather than Youtube  

That's the thing all the sources are sited in the video. It was actually a mistake on his part while he was researching in the video he exclaimed it had confused him about 2, 000 years off. While I understand your point I did not collect the information exclusively from YouTube . I think the channel bridges the gap between the common peoples and scientific community it strives for similar scientific correctness as this community.  I learned more about how to present a fact than facts themselves in the videos which is a important skill. 

21 minutes ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

Wikipedia would disagree with your statement:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

Which Internet source would you choose?

Wikipedia is not a great source. 

[ynot]

36 minutes ago, Ryan Dye said:

was agreeing with your statement

Sorry if I offended You. To Me it sounded more like You were defending Your statement than agreeing with Mine.

[RyanDye]

1 minute ago, ynot said:

Sorry if I offended You. To Me it sounded more like You were defending Your statement than agreeing with Mine.

I'm not offended in the least I was just trying to clear up what I was trying to say.

24 minutes ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

Wikipedia would disagree with your statement:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

Which Internet source would you choose?

Any other non-commercial source. Universities are usually pretty good but, I really cannot discuss the viability of my statements right now I need to get some stuff done and this is taking up too much time.

[Kane]

Let's get back on track with the original post.

 

We're getting too much into the weeds in discussing motivations for statements. Also, occasional issues with clarity in communication are beginning to muddy this up.

[ynot]

On 7/20/2017 at 1:39 AM, Max-fossils said:

• found at about 400m altitude

• I had to dig it out of the dirt

These two statements would indicate it is a fossil, but there is always the possibility that it was carried there by someone in antiquity.

 

On 7/20/2017 at 1:39 AM, Max-fossils said:

• thick and heavy

•• very colorful

• shiny

• no references of fossils being found here

These statements do not disclude it from being a fossil.

 

Tony

 

PS How is that @Kane

[Max-fossils]

@Foozil @Ryan Dye @ynot @doushantuo @Kane @Coco @abyssunder @Sagebrush Steve

 

Thank you all so much! 

 

Sorry if I haven't answered earlier, the wifi of my hotel wasn't great  At least the scenery is amazing 

 

I have the feeling that me asking what I thought was a simple question turned out to become a hotly debated topic, with several people putting in their input and point of view. It is important to remember that everyone is allowed to have different views and ideas on a topic, and differing views should never been rejected, but rather observed on.

 

Back to the actual topic, I looked more closely, and I agree with the ID of Spondylus gaederopus. This species is commonly found in the region. I even saw another modern shell of the same species (it was stuck in cement ) with the exact same hinge. The species is extant, but fossil ones (up till the Miocene)(Miocene ones have also been found in Greece, according to this link) have been found: http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=90014 

 

My main question was this: what part of my collection should I put this in: my fossil collection, or my (modern) seashell collection? I guess it is safer for now to put it in my modern seashell part, but putting it in my fossil part would of course be better. 

 

The Acrocorinth was indeed already visited during the Antiquity, so that someone back then dropped it there is a possibility.

 

I remember reading this term somewhere once: semi-fossil. Could it be that mine is "semi-fossil" so in the course of fossilization?

 

Btw, anyone have a something to say about the "bryozoan"?

 

Thanks again everyone for this interesting topic!

 

Max

[izak_]

@Max-fossils, i didn't think this question would be so debated either. 

But since most of the evidence is pointing towards modern, or at least relatively modern, for now I would put it in your modern section. Of course there are probably going to be people that think otherwise, that is just what I think.

 

I didn't get to say yet: that is a very cool shell

[RyanDye]

4 hours ago, Foozil said:

@Max-fossils, i didn't think this question would be so debated either. 

But since most of the evidence is pointing towards modern, or at least relatively modern, for now I would put it in your modern section. Of course there are probably going to be people that think otherwise, that is just what I think.

 

I didn't get to say yet: that is a very cool shell

I agree no matter what it is or how old in the end it's quite attractive. 

[Max-fossils]

5 hours ago, Foozil said:

@Max-fossils, i didn't think this question would be so debated either. 

But since most of the evidence is pointing towards modern, or at least relatively modern, for now I would put it in your modern section. Of course there are probably going to be people that think otherwise, that is just what I think.

 

I didn't get to say yet: that is a very cool shell

 

1 hour ago, Ryan Dye said:

I agree no matter what it is or how old in the end it's quite attractive. 

Thanks guys 

 

I have some better S. gaederopus at home, once I'm back I can share some pics of them.