Large fossil(s) ID. Port Angeles shale

[Phil_shiffley]

Hi there! First time poster, so I apologize if I'm lacking information. Also, my phone died on my way to the location, so I couldn't take pictures of the area I found them in. I tried to doodle a picture, but I'm no artist. 

 

Today I decided to check out a beach I had heard about near Port Angeles on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State. . On this beach, there is a section of mudstone/sandstone about 60 feet tall and 100 feet long. At the base of the slope was a boulder(also sanstone/mudstone) about 6 feet tall and 4-5 feet around. It must've recently fallen because it was crumbling more and more just from looking at it. Right in the middle of the clump there was some sort of long, lumpy fossil(thought it was, sounds like it's not ;)). I have no idea what it could be. I've googled "lumpy dinosaurs", "lumpy whale vertebrae", and a few more embarrassing amature terms, all to no avail. If anyone could help me identify these, I would be EXTREMELY grateful! I've definitely caught the fossil/rock hunting bug and am really excited about finding these. If any other pictures/measurements would be helpful, just let me know. The largest piece is about the size of a volleyball. 

 

Edit** forgot to add, it was found in either lower tertiary sediment, or quaternary sediments. Sort of on the border of the two according to my map 

 

Edit #2** Just did a little more researching on the area, and it is part of the Twin River Formation. "Upper member, massive to thin-bedded mudstone and siltstone. Olive gray to greenish gray mudstone, claystone, and siltstone are poorly indurated and contain thin beds of calcareous claystone and a few thin to very thick beds of massive calcareous sandstone. Spherical, cylindrical, or irregular shaped calcareous concretions common"

Edited April 1, 2018 by Phil_shiffley
Forgot information

[Phil_shiffley]

[Phil_shiffley]

Here is the image I made in Photoshop, move over banksy 

[M Harvey]

Interesting find.  I can't give you a definitive answer. I can only say I have found some unusual concretions along the Washington beaches.  Sometimes they take on some fantastical shapes and look like they should be fossils but they are not.  I am not seeing fossils in your pictures.  I'm sure others will be chiming in.  

[Fossildude19]

+1 for concretion.

I'm not seeing anything fossil - like here. 

The "tooth" looking objects have no enamel, and no root, so they aren't teeth.

Nature has fooled many of us with her unusual geological creations.  

[Troodon]

Welcome to the forum.  Interesting shapes but like the others said concretions 

[Phil_shiffley]

Well thats good to know! Haha I'm still very interested in how these shapes were made. Appreciate the replies! 

 

And I agree, there are TONS of strange shaped concretions all over the beach. Seemed like it was every other rock actually. 

 

 

 

[Miocene_Mason]

3 minutes ago, Phil_shiffley said:

Well thats good to know! Haha I'm still very interested in how these shapes were made. Appreciate the replies! 

 

And I agree, there are TONS of strange shaped concretions all over the beach. Seemed like it was every other rock actually. 

 

 

 

Welcome to the forum from Maryland!

I’m not great with explaining geologic phenomena, but here goes nothing: 

When clays and such dry, one bit dries first, forming a sort of nucleus for the rest to dry around and attach to. This sometimes happens around living things which will then turn into fossils (which is why you should crack some to see if any fossils are hidden). Sometimes rocks simply weather in that shape, though I’d call that a nodule. 

Now just in case a said something wrong I’ll tag @ynot to clear things up. 

[Phil_shiffley]

10 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

Welcome to the forum from Maryland!

I’m not great with explaining geologic phenomena, but here goes nothing: 

When clays and such dry, one bit dries first, forming a sort of nucleus for the rest to dry around and attach to. This sometimes happens around living things which will then turn into fossils (which is why you should crack some to see if any fossils are hidden). Sometimes rocks simply weather in that shape, though I’d call that a nodule. 

Now just in case a said something wrong I’ll tag @ynot to clear things up. 

Thank you for the welcome and for the info! I watched a YouTube video that kind of went over concretions but it was very vague, so that certainly helps! Nature is a tricky lady, this one looks exactly like a bone youd see a cartoon dog chewing on hah! Well, I'm glad i at least know what they are now, cool looking rocks with a cool enough story to keep around somewhere

 

Now, is this a fossil? Found a couple like this actually 

[ynot]

1 hour ago, WhodamanHD said:

When clays and such dry, one bit dries first, forming a sort of nucleus

Substitute "iron" for  "clay" and "dry/dries" for "oxidizes" and Your right on.

Clay balls can only form while wet. Usually in a low movement environment.

[abyssunder]

I wouldn't rule out cone-in-cone structures for some of them, especially for this one:

 

comparative picture from here

 

[Plantguy]

Agree with Abyssunder on the possible cone in cone structure. Not sure about the 1st photos...My first guess its geologic...I'm not sure if thats a weathering pattern of the rock, soft sediment deformation of some kind...It would have been interesting to see that structure in the actual section to help with its context and its relative position within/across any bedding.

 

Further south in NorCal we used to find calcareous concretions in older sediments that had a very similar look to them. Sometimes there was some fossil fragment that mineralization was forming around and you could still see some remnant shell material but others calcite had formed and the crystallation obliterated anything that may or may not have been there...Hard to tell sometimes! I'm curious if you've looked at these areas under magnification...Almost appears to be a herringbone pattern running across the specimen//calcite? maybe or a wild chance some shell fragment. That smooth darkened area may or maynot be some remnant or just a fracture in the rock--difficult to tell from this image. Sometimes magnification shows microfossil cross sections in these things. 

 

Continue to have fun looking at rocks. I remember very well searching all along the Calif coastline....Lots of stuff didnt have obvious fossils but you just never know. 

 

Thanks for the photos.

Regards, Chris 

 

 

[GeschWhat]

My first thought was cone-in-cone structure as well, but I wouldn't rule a burrow. 

[Phil_shiffley]

11 hours ago, Plantguy said:

Agree with Abyssunder on the possible cone in cone structure. Not sure about the 1st photos...My first guess its geologic...I'm not sure if thats a weathering pattern of the rock, soft sediment deformation of some kind...It would have been interesting to see that structure in the actual section to help with its context and its relative position within/across any bedding.

 

Further south in NorCal we used to find calcareous concretions in older sediments that had a very similar look to them. Sometimes there was some fossil fragment that mineralization was forming around and you could still see some remnant shell material but others calcite had formed and the crystallation obliterated anything that may or may not have been there...Hard to tell sometimes! I'm curious if you've looked at these areas under magnification...Almost appears to be a herringbone pattern running across the specimen//calcite? maybe or a wild chance some shell fragment. That smooth darkened area may or maynot be some remnant or just a fracture in the rock--difficult to tell from this image. Sometimes magnification shows microfossil cross sections in these things. 

 

Continue to have fun looking at rocks. I remember very well searching all along the Calif coastline....Lots of stuff didnt have obvious fossils but you just never know. 

 

Thanks for the photos.

Regards, Chris 

 

 

I'll be able to magnify them quite a bit this afternoon with a friend's camera. I'll make sure to check out those spots and see what I can find! There are actually a couple of smoother darkened spots throughout, so maybe I'll be able to find something interesting. 

 

Unfortunately I didn't have a camera to take photos of the structure, which is a bummer because the way each of these pieces were stacked together almost looked like a tree trunk stuck in the middle of the shale, and made of rock of course

 

Very interesting about the cone in cone. I'll have to look into those and see if there are any that look similar to the pieces I've found. 

 

Thanks for the reply! 

[Phil_shiffley]

1 hour ago, GeschWhat said:

My first thought was cone-in-cone structure as well, but I wouldn't rule a burrow. 

Thanks! I'll look into burrows as well!

[Phil_shiffley]

2 hours ago, GeschWhat said:

My first thought was cone-in-cone structure as well, but I wouldn't rule a burrow. 

After looking through a few burrow pictures, I could definitely seeing the main portion being something like this. There is still another large piece there that curves around under the boulder, and when the pieces fit back together properly, they certainly seem close to this. Also, where they have broken apart seems to be solid all the way through, like they were one big piece. Not sure what that could mean, but I would think multiple concretions sticking together wouldn't look like one large one when cracked in half? Again that's just a guess, I've done zero research on these so far and don't want to sound like I know anything

 

Thanks for the tip, the more I look at burrows the more it seems like a possibility! These photos look a lot like the image I tried to recreate with Photoshop. My image didn't show that the pieces were certainly connected, but they were.