Help with item from Pennsylvanian shale

[KCMOfossil]

My curiosity has gotten the best of me, so I am submitting this crushed specimen for an ID even though it may be unidentifiable.  The item is roughly circular and about 15mm in diameter.  It split with the shale and the two smaller pieces of shale contain most of one half; the other half is seem on the larger piece of shale that is split down the middle (see the picture with the ruler).  What intreagues me most is the shell-like material.  This specimen is from the Stark shale of the Kansas City group in the Pennsylvanian subsystem.  Any ID help will be appreciated.

 

 

 

 

[KCMOfossil]

[Herb]

echinoderm pieces?

[Fossildude19]

Looks to me like a coprolite, with scales and fish bones, perhaps shell bits in it. 

Maybe @Bullsnake an @Missourian will be able to shed some light here. 

 

[Bullsnake]

3 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

Looks to me like a coprolite,

 

That's an interesting thought. Or perhaps regurgitant.

I find many similar 'pockets' of crystallization in the other black shales (Muncie Creek and Eudora) I'm more familiar with and assumed they are mineral deposits.

But yeah, Mitch's assessment would be most welcome.

[TqB]

I think Tim may be right, coprolite with fishy bits.

[KCMOfossil]

9 hours ago, Bullsnake said:

I find many similar 'pockets' of crystallization in the other black shales (Muncie Creek and Eudora) I'm more familiar with and assumed they are mineral deposits.

Thanks for your input, Bullsnake.  I too find quite a few "pockets" and thought they were mostly mineral deposits.  On occasion some seemed to me to be coprolites or regurgitant, although whatever was in them was so thoroughly processed that nothing could really be identified.  Other times, however, I found something like the specimen in my pictures that seemed to have identifiable features--most notably, some shell-like material.  Several times I have found little pockets in association with nearby conodonts.  This has happened frequently enough that I think there is some relationship, but I'm not sure what it is.  Tim and Tarquin's suggestion fits well with yours, and it seems correct to me--either coprolite or regurgitant.  Herb's suggestion would certainly help explain the amount and relative good condition of the shell content, but perhaps that is just what happens to a shelled animal (echinoderm?) eaten and digested by a fish or something.

 

Thanks to all of you my friends.  

[Missourian]

I agree with regurgitant. The fragments look organic, particularly the wrinkly ones. Possibilities could include mollusk shell, arthropod chitin and fish scales, but it's hard to tell which due to a lack of definitive structure or texture.

[KCMOfossil]

3 hours ago, Missourian said:

I agree with regurgitant. The fragments look organic, particularly the wrinkly ones. Possibilities could include mollusk shell, arthropod chitin and fish scales, but it's hard to tell which due to a lack of definitive structure or texture.

Thanks, Missourian.  This is helpful.  I continue to find the shale fascinating.  

[Robert Wolf]

Could it be an exploded fish

[KCMOfossil]

On 11/4/2018 at 7:33 AM, Robert Wolf said:

Could it be an exploded fish

I wondered about that, and it may be a possibility.  I think, however, that the regurgitate ID makes the most sense because of the variety of elements that make up the specimen.  These specimens are pretty common in the shale from around here, so those that have collected here for years have seen it often and I tend to trust their analysis. What initially made me curious were the fragments that look like shell, scale or at least something organic. I have found some fish spines in the same shale.  Maybe a specimen will turn up that is more clearly like a flattened or smashed fish, and that would confirm your idea.  

 

Russ