Is this barnacle fossilized?

[Innocentx]

I found this some years back at Pescadero Beach in California. I don't know if it's fossilized but if it is I think it would be from the Tertiary. Any help much appreciated.

 

[Innocentx]

[Innocentx]

Some details.

[Jazfossilator]

Cool barnacle either way

[Innocentx]

Base and attachment area:

[Innocentx]

 

[caldigger]

And what incredible luck to find a rolled up twenty inside of it.

[Tidgy's Dad]

I don't know, but I love all the epibionts attached to this, some of the bryozoans are beautiful! 

[Bobby Rico]

 

No need to bribe TFF for an ID 

 

[GeschWhat]

12 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

epibionts

My new word for the day! 

[RJB]

Looks to be a modern day specimen. 

 

RB

[Innocentx]

1 hour ago, RJB said:

Looks to be a modern day specimen.

Hope you will explain why. Thanks for looking.

[RJB]

3 hours ago, Innocentx said:

Hope you will explain why. Thanks for looking.

I have found some that are in rock and have not been replaced with any mineral.  Yours appears to look like it came of a rock from the sea just last year?   Just a guess though.

 

RB

[DPS Ammonite]

There are fossil barnicles with original calcite shells present (Miocene to present) in marine sea cliff formations from Santa Cruz to San Francisco. I suspect that some of the fossil barnacles (over 10k years old) are still extant species in the area. You might have to find it in a formation with a known age to determine if it is a fossil or not. The species name will help determine if it is a fossil or not. Maybe @Boesse can help. Also, you might post photo of it on a shell collectors website to get an ID.

[Innocentx]

I think I've ID'd it.... Balanus Nubilis. (aka, Giant Barnacle and/or acorn barnacle)

12 minutes ago, DPS Ammonite said:

I suspect that some of the fossil barnacles (over 10k years old) are still extant species in the area.

That is also what I'm thinking. Now I'm guessing it would be too hard to prove one way or the other about fossilization.

18 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

I don't know, but I love all the epibionts attached to this, some of the bryozoans are beautiful! 

I was hoping someone who knows this epibiont(as pictured above) would also know if this barnacle might be dated by it's presence here.

 

35 minutes ago, RJB said:

I have found some that are in rock and have not been replaced with any mineral.  Yours appears to look like it came of a rock from the sea just last year? 

I found this almost forty years ago. A time span meaningless in the larger picture, though.

[RJB]

Here are some whale balanus that are around 2 million years old and still not replaced with any mineral and a big barnachle that is not in very good preservation but still around 900,000 years old. 

 

RB

[Innocentx]

8 minutes ago, RJB said:

Here are some whale balanus that are around 2 million years old and still not replaced with any mineral and a big barnachle that is not in very good preservation but still around 900,000 years old. 

 

 

Very interesting. Thanks @RJB 

[Innocentx]

20 hours ago, caldigger said:

And what incredible luck to find a rolled up twenty inside of it.

"You never know what you'll find in an old barnacle." (Barnacle Bill the Sailor, 1822)

[ynot]

I think it is modern because there is no matrix attached to it, not even in the little holes and crevices.

Most of the rock along the coast in that area is sandstone or mudstone and there should be some remnants of matrix showing on a fossil that is so well preserved.

[caldigger]

Great for holding dip at all your paleo parties. 

[abyssunder]

Hard to answer to the question.

 

The image below reveals that the specimen is nicely bored by tube worms (Caulostrepsis / Meandropolydora igen).

 

exerpt from A. David et al. 2006. Sedimentology, paleoichnology and sequence stratigraphy of a Karpatian sandy facies (Salgótarján Lignite Formation, N Hungary). Geologica Carpathica 57(4): 279-294

 

This picture seems to reveal two specimens of Caulostrepsis sticking out from the surface of the barnacle, if I see correctly, so I think I'm not wrong with the supposed worms.

 

excerpt from N.-M. Hanken et al. 2011. Late Pleistocene-early Holocene polychaete borings in NE Spitsbergen and their palaeoecological and climatic implications: An example from the Basissletta area. Boreas 41, pp. 42–55

 

You have excellent images, BTW! 

[Innocentx]

1 hour ago, abyssunder said:

You have excellent images, BTW! 

Thanks, @abyssunder, for the information as well. As @Jazfossilator said "Cool barnacle either way".

 

 

[abyssunder]

You are welcome ! Glad I can get some ideas.

[Al Dente]

15 hours ago, RJB said:

Here are some whale balanus that are around 2 million years old and still not replaced with any mineral

Wow- those are very nice and pretty rare. 

[Plantguy]

1 hour ago, Al Dente said:

  16 hours ago, RJB said:

Here are some whale balanus that are around 2 million years old and still not replaced with any mineral

 

1 hour ago, Al Dente said:

Wow- those are very nice and pretty rare. 

Yep RB, those are mighty cool! Is there any story behind their finds...any part of the whale nearby? 

Regards, Chris