What fish is this?

[Sagebrush Steve]

We are driving from California to Utah on US Highway 50 ("The Second-Loneliest Road in America") to dig for trilobites in a couple of locations.  We stopped for lunch today in the remote mining town of Austin, Nevada, and after lunch went over to Nevada Trading Post to look around.  They had lots of turquoise jewelry and also a few fossils.  Among them was this one.  The owner recently purchased the store and doesn't know anything about it.  It was priced at $280, which was out of my budget, but I told her I knew just the place to see if we can identify it.  I said we don't do appraisals but she would be happy with any info we can provide.  I took a quick look with a loupe and it isn't obvious there has been any restoration or painting on it, but I will leave it to the experts to say for sure.  And if anyone is driving through Austin, be sure to stop in and say hi to Julie, she was a very nice lady.  The sign out front might still say Jim's Trading Post, she is still in the process of changing the name. It's right near the Toiyabe Cafe (great cheeseburger!) on the east side of town.

[Macrophyseter]

Looks like a priscacara from the Green River Formation.

[Sagebrush Steve]

4 minutes ago, Macrophyseter said:

Looks like a priscara from the Green River Formation.

Thanks, I left my copy of Lance Grande's book on the fossil fish of the Green River at home, but I think you've nailed it (except for the spelling, it's Priscacara ).  You can tell from the smudged surface of the rock that it has been in the store and handled for many years.

[Macrophyseter]

Also, I do see some painting done on the back side of the dorsals and maybe the tail based on the different color and the part seemingly having no unique texture compared to the rock. Still, $280 is a fine bargain and not many people would care too much about some restoration done to the thing.

[Fossildude19]

1 hour ago, Macrophyseter said:

Also, I do see some painting done on the back side of the dorsals and maybe the tail based on the different color and the part seemingly having no unique texture compared to the rock. Still, $280 is a fine bargain and not many people would care too much about some restoration done to the thing.

I don't believe that the darker color is paint. Priscacara serrata had  very robust fin rays.

 

I agree that the posterior portions of both dorsal and anal fins, as well as the caudal fin do look suspect, however.

 

[Sagebrush Steve]

1 hour ago, Macrophyseter said:

Also, I do see some painting done on the back side of the dorsals and maybe the tail based on the different color and the part seemingly having no unique texture compared to the rock. Still, $280 is a fine bargain and not many people would care too much about some restoration done to the thing.

Thanks, I see what you mean about the painting.  I looked at that through the loupe and they must have done a very good job because there was no obvious paint boundary, it just looked like bone.  But the color certainly makes it look suspicious.

1 minute ago, Fossildude19 said:

I don't believe that the darker color is paint. Priscacara serrata had  very robust fin rays.

 

Thanks, that would be consistent with my visual ID.

[Sagebrush Steve]

And does anyone have recommendations for how you might clean the many years of finger grime off the substrate without damaging the fossil?  Soap? Acetone?

[Fossildude19]

I'm on my tablet at the moment, but I will have a look again in the AM.

With that kind of touch up I would say they are asking a bit much for it.  

8 minutes ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

And does anyone have recommendations for how you might clean the many years of finger grime off the substrate without damaging the fossil?  Soap? Acetone?

@FossilDudeCO

[Macrophyseter]

1 hour ago, Fossildude19 said:

I don't believe that the darker color is paint. Priscacara serrata had  very robust fin rays.

 

59 minutes ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

Thanks, I see what you mean about the painting.  I looked at that through the loupe and they must have done a very good job because there was no obvious paint boundary, it just looked like bone.  But the color certainly makes it look suspicious.

I believe that I may have misworded what I meant, because I was talking about the lighter and thinner parts of the back fin as seen in the second pic. You can clearly see that the back parts of the fins look way too differently than the rest and looks like it was actually painted. You can clearly see that the back parts of the fins are too light and thin. These back parts are usually thinner, but not to this extent, it almost looks like another fin. Plus you can see that the circled parts don't look like bone has it has zero elevation from the rock, but looks more like paint.

[Sagebrush Steve]

I downloaded a copy of the 1984 edition of Grande's Bulletin 63 on Green River fish and have determined it is Priscacara liops based on the characteristics of its preopercle.  Priscacara serrata had a much more robust preopercle with strong serrations on the posterior margins (I guess that's how it gets its name).  I'm still not sure about whether it was painted but since it is out of my price range I guess that's not an issue.  I'm sure the owner will be very happy with the information.  @Macrophyseter And @Fossildude19, thanks for your help!

[Sagebrush Steve]

24 minutes ago, Macrophyseter said:

I believe that I may have misworded what I meant, because I was talking about the lighter and thinner parts of the back fin as seen in the second pic. You can clearly see that the back parts of the fins look way too differently than the rest and looks like it was actually painted. You can clearly see that the back parts of the fins are too light and thin. These back parts are usually thinner, but not to this extent, it almost looks like another fin. Plus you can see that the circled parts don't look like bone has it has zero elevation from the rock, but looks more like paint.

Actually I did look at those and they did appear to be bone, not paint.  According to Grande there are 10 or 11 hard spines followed by about 9 branched soft rays.  I think the change in color is due to the differing spines. But again I am no expert.  Unfortunately I'm not headed through Austin on the return trip or I would take time to do a more thorough investigation with the microscope I brought along but left in the car .

[Macrophyseter]

True about the soft spines existing there, but compared to other priscacara fossils, they look too thin and look completely artificial.

[Sagebrush Steve]

11 minutes ago, Macrophyseter said:

True about the soft spines existing there, but compared to other priscacara fossils, they look too thin and look completely artificial.

Yep, I looked at the full resolution photo on my camera and you are right.  A small portion of them may be real but when I zoom in most look painted. Good call! 

[Macrophyseter]

No problem. Just trying to help out. 

[westcoast]

Wow, if they are painted on that is some really good work..That level of skill should increase the price

[RJB]

The tail end has also been painted and yeah, that price needs to be cut in half.

 

RB

[Fossildude19]

This is the posted fish, with a reverse black/white effect.

 

Note how the larger bones, are a "bone white", where the alleged painted on areas tend to be a blue-ish white.

I would also suggest from this photo, that the body has been painted, as well.

 

 

Also, when comparing the posted fish with excellent specimens found online, you can see that the bones are more visible, and the main rays tend to bifurcate,

then the secondary and tertiary rays bifurcate again.  

See examples below:

 

[minnbuckeye]

7 hours ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

 

 

The fins in question are much more delicate than the others . Hence, during the prepping procedure, the bone like material  may have been removed leaving only the impression of the fin. Just my thoughts in support of it looking fairly natural.

[Fossildude19]

23 minutes ago, minnbuckeye said:

 

 

The fins in question are much more delicate than the others . Hence, during the prepping procedure, the bone like material  may have been removed leaving only the impression of the fin. Just my thoughts in support of it looking fairly natural.

 

No doubt it is a better painting job than most, but still, restoration is restoration.  

[FossilDudeCO]

You all are doing pretty well without me here. But there is still some to add.

 

Thanks @Fossildude19 for the tag, sorry I wasn't here sooner!

 

@RJB nailed it with his comment.

 

This is a Priscacara liops or as it is now know, a Cockerellites liops. 

The fish pictured comes from an 18-inch quarry and may have been touched up, it is a rough prep job as well, but the paint (if any) is only on the body section, not the fins. One of the dorsal spines has been completely destroyed, and the fine fin tips have been blown through in several places accounting for the colour variations. To add to the confusion the fish in question has some mild disarticulation.

 

@Fossildude19 in your picture with 4 fish as examples you are comparing Cockerellites from 2 different layers and quarries even. Every quarry in Green River has different preservations and colours. The fish you posted in the bottom left corner is a Phareodus not a Priscacara. The fish in the upper left and lower right are indeed form the 18-inch layer while the fish in the bottom left and upper right are from the split fish layers.

 

I would post this fish for sale in my shop or at the shows for $100. I do not see blaring obvious signs of paint, if it was done at all it is VERY minimal.

 

Hope this helps @Sagebrush Steve

[Fossildude19]

On 9/26/2017 at 1:43 PM, FossilDudeCO said:

 

This is a Priscacara liops or as it is now know, a Cockerellites liops. 

The fish pictured comes from an 18-inch quarry and may have been touched up, it is a rough prep job as well, but the paint (if any) is only on the body section, not the fins. One of the dorsal spines has been completely destroyed, and the fine fin tips have been blown through in several places accounting for the colour variations. To add to the confusion the fish in question has some mild disarticulation.

 

@Fossildude19 in your picture with 4 fish as examples you are comparing Cockerellites from 2 different layers and quarries even. Every quarry in Green River has different preservations and colours. The fish you posted in the bottom left corner is a Phareodus not a Priscacara. The fish in the upper left and lower right are indeed form the 18-inch layer while the fish in the bottom left and upper right are from the split fish layers.

 

Blake,

Thanks for your input/ corrections. I'll have to be more careful with google image searches for my comparison pictures.  

 

Do you have any cleaning tips for the piece? 

 

 

I really do think the posterior portions of the fins and caudal are painted in. I'm just not seeing any 3 dimensional indications of bone on those.  

I guess in hand examination would be necessary here to be sure.  

[FossilDudeCO]

13 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

Blake,

Thanks for your input/ corrections. I'll have to be more careful with google image searches for my comparison pictures.  

 

Do you have any cleaning tips for the piece? 

 

 

I really do think the posterior portions of the fins and caudal are painted in. I'm just not seeing any 3 dimensional indications of bone on those.  

I guess in hand examination would be necessary here to be sure.  

Yeah, the fins on these guys are CRAZY delicate. If you look at the picture @minnbuckeye posted the red circled areas are a correct assumption. The fins were destroyed during prep. Basically all we are seeing now is a carbon stain imprint. The fins are soooo fine and delicate though that they barely leave a bump in the rock, so alot of times it is hard to tell!!

It is the same case with the tail fins and actually you can see it a little better.Some of the material toward the body is still there, but the tips have been completely blown away. 

 

As far as cleaning I would just give it a very gentle blow to remove the dust. This piece is natural and it does not look to have been sealed. If you blow too hard you may discover an air pocket under the scales or bones and end up with a little less fish than you started with!

If you are feeling especially brave, run the fish under water and give it a VERY soft brush with a toothbrush. Again, the bristles can easily catch a bone wrong and pop it right off. This is best avoided by "brushing" in the same direction as the bones! Basically the length of the ribs, or the length of the spines. The vertebrates get a little funky and you just need to be gentle. The head of these fish is pretty solid so brush gently along the edges and you should be fin, I would start there for practice.

 

**EDIT** 

 

Ah, I now also see he was asking about finger grime on the substrate, not the fish itself.

Those brown art gum erasers work wonders on this rock!

Just don't scrub to hard or you may polish it  

[FossilDudeCO]

I do also want to stress that this is a nice fish!

It is one of the larger Cockerellites liops I have seen,and I had to double check the gill plates to verify it was not a Priscacara serrata. 

Almost anytime you hit one of these guys over 5 inches it is a serrata!!

[Macrophyseter]

45 minutes ago, FossilDudeCO said:

If you look at the picture @minnbuckeye posted

That was actually me who posted that pic, and he just quoted it. No big deal, thou.

[snolly50]

As Blake suggested, carbon film/stain is the most likely genesis of this piece's "fin end" appearance. That stance is consistent with Prisca I have prepped. The alternate hypothesis is a steady handed painter of remarkable skill and too much time on their hands. Of course as with any opinions of this type; the truth will be determined in hand with magnification. It's a very nice piece. I would be proud to have it in my collection.

 

Edit: Duuuhh, I read the original post and S. Steve already peeped it with a loupe. This increases my confidence that it is natural.