Ronda Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 I think it is an internal mold of a bivalve. It is possible that more specific suggestions could be offered if you could enlighten us as to the age, geological formation, or locality where the specimen was collected. Don 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coled18 Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 It reminds me of a Juresania. I agree with it being a mold. 1 CD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronda Posted November 10, 2017 Author Share Posted November 10, 2017 I came across it on the beach during a renourishment project after hurricane north of Myrtle Beach the little nodules on it caught my eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 There is an animal called Juresania,and it's a brachiopod. Caveat:this is NOT a taxonomic assignment 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coled18 Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 8 minutes ago, doushantuo said: There is an animal called Juresania,and it's a brachiopod. Caveat:this is NOT a taxonomic assignment Dang, you caught me there I just responded without thinking much. Nice catch CD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 Would we expect to see Permian/Pennsylvanian fossils like Juresania, landing on Myrtle Beach? I agree that it looks more like a brachiopod than a bivalve but mostly because of the spine bumps if that's what they are. Either way I don't know this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coled18 Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, BobWill said: Would we expect to see Permian/Pennsylvanian fossils like Juresania, landing on Myrtle Beach? I agree that it looks more like a brachiopod than a bivalve but mostly because of the spine bumps if that's what they are. Either way I don't know this one. In all reality, probably not. I was just saying it reminded me of a Juresania sp, but I have no idea what it actually is. CD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 Myrtle is a ways from the Paleozoic, I say suggestively shaped rock. “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 Last photo, cropped and brightened: 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...
minnbuckeye Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 8 hours ago, BobWill said: I agree that it looks more like a brachiopod than a bivalve but mostly because of the spine bumps if that's what they are. Either way I don't know this one. If this is an internal mold, would the bumps actually represent holes in the original shell? In which case, possible borings instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 Myrtle Beach is well known for fossil shark teeth, but Cretaceous shells such as Exogyra and Pycnodonte are also common, and I have even collected a Cretaceous echinoid there. Internal molds of bivalves and gastropods, preserved in black phosphatic rock, are fairly abundant. Many of the shells are bored by the sponge Cliona, and on molds those borings show as bumps or spines. Below is a photo (from the web) of a modern shell with Cliona borings. Don 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 That would account for the irregularity of the bumps and the lack of growth lines. The beak is saying "label me unknown bivalve internal mold". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Harvey Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 8 hours ago, FossilDAWG said: Myrtle Beach is well known for fossil shark teeth, but Cretaceous shells such as Exogyra and Pycnodonte are also common, and I have even collected a Cretaceous echinoid there. Internal molds of bivalves and gastropods, preserved in black phosphatic rock, are fairly abundant. Many of the shells are bored by the sponge Cliona, and on molds those borings show as bumps or spines. Below is a photo (from the web) of a modern shell with Cliona borings. Don I have collected marine Cretaceous fossils from Alabama for years and have seen many phosphoric internal molds of brachiopods that look exactly like your find. I'm going to agree with FossilDAWG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 I also agree. The sticking out 'thorns' of the steinkern are sediment infills of the galleries made by the hard substrate borer(s). " 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