mdpaulhus Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 I have another Douglas Pass mystery. I kept all the pieces that I could find not knowing what it was. I am really confused as this does not look like plant material to me. It almost looks scaly like a fish or lizard, but I can't really identify any parts that would lead me in any direction that would really suggest that . Interested in any info or speculation. Thanks Oh. And this as about 6" long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdpaulhus Posted November 27, 2017 Author Share Posted November 27, 2017 While I am here. Thought I would attach a few photos of insects collected at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 It really looks like Icarosaurus or related, but I'm unsure in the ID. Very interesting specimen! " 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...
Jeffrey P Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 It wouldn't be an Icarosaurus which is known by a single individual collected from the Triassic Lockatong Formation in North Bergen, New Jersey. Douglas Pass is an Eocene site. That fossil does look like a very odd looking creature- I wouldn't venture to guess what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 Maybe a bryozoan? “...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...
piranha Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 Microbially induced sedimentary structures (MISS) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 45 minutes ago, Jeffrey P said: It wouldn't be an Icarosaurus which is known by a single individual collected from the Triassic Lockatong Formation in North Bergen, New Jersey. Douglas Pass is an Eocene site. That fossil does look like a very odd looking creature- I wouldn't venture to guess what. Why, Icarosaurus was not a reptile? " 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...
piranha Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 44 minutes ago, piranha said: Microbially induced sedimentary structures (MISS) Here is an excellent paper on Green River microbial mats: Schieber, J. (2007) Benthic microbial mats as an oil shale component: Green River Formation (Eocene) of Wyoming and Utah. In: Schieber, J., et al. (eds.) Atlas of Microbial Mat Features Preserved within the Siliciclastic Rock Record. Elsevier Scientific Publishing, 311 pp. PDF LINK "The lacustrine Green River Formation (Eocene) of Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado (Figure 7(j)-1) is best known for its fish fossils and its oil shales (Bradley, 1964; Surdam and Stanley, 1979; Roehler, 1990; Russel, 1990; Ferber and Wells, 1995). It contains extensive horizons of carbonaceous shale (Figure 7(j)-2) with high contents of organic matter and kerogen, and is considered one of the largest oil shale deposits of the world (Tuttle, 1991). In most publications the organic matter is presumed to have originated from planktonic organisms (Bradley, 1964), yet the possibility of benthic microbial mats has been considered (Smoot, 1983; Schieber, 1999). The lakes in which the Green River Formation accumulated were, at times quite shallow (Surdam and Wolfbauer, 1975; Bohacs et al., 2000) and it is therefore conceivable that at certain periods portions of the lake bottoms were colonised by photosynthetic or non-photosynthetic microbial mats." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oilshale Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 I would say reptile. Small gecko, lizard - what so ever. You will need to show it to a specialist. Hope you was also able to save the other side. Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes (Confucius, 551 BC - 479 BC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izak_ Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 Really nice finds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 5 hours ago, oilshale said: I would say reptile. Small gecko, lizard - what so ever. You will need to show it to a specialist. Hope you was also able to save the other side. Bones ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oilshale Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 57 minutes ago, Rockwood said: Bones ? I've got a fish (Eohiodon sp.??) from the Bonanza leaf site in Utah - no bones preserved at all. Just a shadow - not even a slight depression to see. Sorry, the pictures are really poor. Another unknown fish from the same location (not mine). No bones visible Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes (Confucius, 551 BC - 479 BC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 13 minutes ago, oilshale said: no bones preserved at all. Their shadow still identifies them well enough for you to call it a fish though. Wouldn't they do the same through such a thin skin as would be seen here ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oilshale Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 29 minutes ago, Rockwood said: Their shadow still identifies them well enough for you to call it a fish though. Wouldn't they do the same through such a thin skin as would be seen here ? The whateveritis is not fully exposed. Tail is to the left, head to the right. I think the second picture shows the left forearm (with some faint nails visible) and the third picture shows a fragmentary part of the right hind leg. Thomas Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes (Confucius, 551 BC - 479 BC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 Hey @oilshale I don’t think Eohiodon is a valid tax on anymore, I thought it had been decided (I don’t know where, I don’t have my references) that they were similar enough to hiodon to warrant their absorption into it. “...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...
fifbrindacier Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 I'm in the fish camp. Nice pieces, you're lucky. "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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oilshale Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 10 hours ago, WhodamanHD said: Hey @oilshale I don’t think Eohiodon is a valid tax on anymore, I thought it had been decided (I don’t know where, I don’t have my references) that they were similar enough to hiodon to warrant their absorption into it. Thanks @WhodamanHD you are right - Lance Grande and Eric Hilton mentioned in their paper "Fossil Mooneyes (Teleostei: Hiodontiformes, Hiodontidae) from the Eocene of western North America, with reassessment of their taxonomy. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 295, 221-251, 2 June 2008, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP295.13 : "After correcting the descriptions of the fossil taxa, we could find no valid synapomorphies to separate the genus †Eohiodon from the genus Hiodon. Therefore, we conclude that †Eohiodon should be regarded as a synonym of Hiodon." So Hiodon and not Eohiodon. Thomas Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes (Confucius, 551 BC - 479 BC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 I think it's beautiful. I so hope it's a fish and not a bryozoan or a microbial mat. But lovely find, whichever. Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 I definitely think that's a lizard. I've attached a paper showing very similar lizard skin in that formation. And I know of another that I am still looking for. At least in the one I am hunting there are NO bones evident in the fossil. Yours could be an extremely rare and important find! Green Skin.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 Got it! Conrad Skin.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 I agree with it being a lizard. Maybe more than one critter there. Looks like it could benefit from a (professional) preparation job. Wonderful find!! Nice insects too. Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 Yep! Nice one! So it's a reptile. " 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...
oilshale Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 I've contacted Lance Grande - that's what he said: "It is definitely a lizard. Hard to say what kind, though, based on a partial skin. I know bones do not normally preserve at this particular locality of the GRF, but this could also possibly be a shed skin." Thomas Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes (Confucius, 551 BC - 479 BC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpc Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 That is an incredible fossil. I agree with lizard scales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnBrewer Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 Great find. Love the bugs too. John Map of UK fossil sites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.