Jump to content

Beach fossil from Massachusetts


Jjw

Recommended Posts

Hi, Massachsetts is wide, could you be more precise please ?

It looks as it it was a very worn ammonite.

 

Hey, you copied me Tony.

theme-celtique.png.bbc4d5765974b5daba0607d157eecfed.png.7c09081f292875c94595c562a862958c.png

"On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry)

"We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes."

 

In memory of Doren

photo-thumb-12286.jpg.878620deab804c0e4e53f3eab4625b4c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The material is clearly regular stone, so I doubt that the thing as a whole is that of a worn ammonite (If you get what I mean). But it could be an ammonite trace (you know the type of fossil where the biological material isn't there but like a footprint ish thingy)

If you're a fossil nut from Palos Verdes, San Pedro, Redondo Beach, or Torrance, feel free to shoot me a PM!

 

 

Mosasaurus_hoffmannii_skull_schematic.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first saw it, my first thought was that it reminded me of a whorl tooth shark. Not saying it is, just reminds me of one.

Dipleurawhisperer5.jpg

I like Trilo-butts and I cannot lie.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Guguita said:

Worn coral???

Would be my leaning. 

Color coded maps are even more problematic for me though. My experience has been that glacial mesozoic was terrestial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few more pictures from different angles/sides might help to distinguish more features.

While the Mesozoic deposits in the general vicinity were largely lacustrine, shoreline, and braided stream/river deltas, (Triassic and Jurassic) to the south (NJ) the Cretaceous does have some marine

environments represented.  


I don't think we can completely rule out glacial and or ocean current migration of offshore marine deposits, as a possible origin of the fossil in question. 

It is a bit of a conundrum.  :headscratch:

 

    Tim    -  VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  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

The fossil is coiled not symmetrically circular, which rules out a coral.  A worn ammonite impression seems the most likely ID.  However this raises the issue that such a fossil is far out of place on a Massachusetts beach.  To answer this mystery I think we have to recall that ships from Europe used to arrive loaded with beach rock as ballast, which was dumped when they arrived in port in the US and loaded up with cargo.  Such rock was widely used for road construction (producing a cobblestone effect) in Charleston in the 1700s and early 1800s as there was no local source of rock.  Elsewhere, such as in Massachusetts where abundant local rock was available for construction, the ballast was simply dumped along the shore.  So this fossil may be a part of an ammonite-containing nodule that was loaded as ballast on a ship in an English port, and later dumped on a Massachusetts shore.

 

Don C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

I don't think we can completely rule out glacial and or ocean current migration of offshore marine deposits.

Who knows what might be hidden in those island moraines ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That ballast thesis sounds very plausible. That's probably it. We're in Salem, MA. The beach is across the bridge in Beverly. This was a busy port for sailing ships for a few hundred years. So probably a lot of rock from overseas was unloaded here as ballast. Thanks everyone!

 

A couple more pictures from different angles:

https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOHr-AnfvaW4EgcIXROa7fa9gLONJf9wv83haZ2h999A0_T1e5faUb6SykWOQYCwA?key=elhOc3ZwRC1xOWZSa0t1MzZQTmViZk9uS1lVa3dn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the photos.  We try to avoid using photo sharing sites as the links tend to die quickly, which renders the thread useless for educational purposes.

 

When I found (only last month) about about ships loading up with ballast in Europe and dumping it in US ports as they took on cargo I wondered if any fossils might show up in the mix.  I'm surprised that evidence that it could happen showed up so quickly.  I wonder if there are other examples of European fossils in ship ballast?

 

Don C

 

 

ammo 1.jpg

ammo 2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the idea of European fossils in jettisoned ship's ballast very interesting, and there is no reason to think that it couldn't have happened....

However, we are only supposing that this is the source of these particular fossils, without empirical evidence. It is, in fact, easy to disprove the null hypothesis in this case. Consequently the most we can say is that they might have gotten here that way. ;)

"There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant

“Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley

>Paleontology is an evolving science.

>May your wonders never cease!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh absolutely!  It's just an interesting possibility.  However I can't think of a local source of such a fossil, nor any source from which such a fossil could have been transported by glaciers.  Overall I think humans had to have something to do with it.

 

Don C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Auspex said:

... the most we can say is that they might have gotten here that way. ;)

 

Auspex always nudges us back on track. Thank you Chas.

Start the day with a smile and get it over with.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, my enthusiasm for speculation is still strong! Musing over 'possible improbabilities' is my outlet for curiosity. :)
I am also a sucker for unexpected historical trivia (Colonial-era ship's ballast, for crying out loud!). But here, in the name of science, anecdote should be labeled as such, lest it takes on a life of its own.

These free-wheeling, off-the-cuff topic digressions are a shining hallmark of our Forum, and I would never want to stifle them! Think of them as 'serendipitous education', but caution the less scientifically wired readers that they are not to be taken as conclusions. ;)

"There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant

“Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley

>Paleontology is an evolving science.

>May your wonders never cease!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 inches is not the size of most ballast stones. I suspect a paleozoic fossil of some sort glacially transported. This is a guess.

  Flint ballast stones up to the size of a human head and down to perhaps fist size are common around east coast ports presumably from colonial and early american commerce. I recall hearing about an echinoid in one but have seen hundreds, (collectors filled the bed of several pickups in Camden NJ during sewer treatment plant construction) and none with a good fossil inclusion. The folks at the Archeological Society explained that the Camden occurrence was a case of ships unloading lighter manufactured goods in Philly and needing to lighten the ballast to take on heavier goods for the return trip. The flints were scattered in long strings on the bottom of the Delaware River. They were exposed when a coffer dam was constructed and the river pumped out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only a hypothesis, no doubt. But a LOT of ships sailed out of Salem to Europe between 1650 and 1900 or so.

 

I thought of the fact that a 2" rock wouldn't have been something to pick up and toss into a ship as ballast. You would want something larger. But could it have been part of a larger rock? It doesn't seem worn in an even way. It could have been part of a longer rock that broke into pieces at some point.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ammonites are well known in folklore. You don't suppose there could be a connection to sailing ships that goes through a sailor's belongings rather than the ships ballast ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...