jjim Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 hi there all. i've been dropping in on the forums now and again as a spectator for a bit but never posted so hello! i found this item yesterday in the shallows of lake erie. i've been picking up rocks in the lake and niagara river since i was a kid but never came across anything that looked like this. it's about 2 inches long. the whitish band that forms the perimeter has sort of what looks like a recently exposed section on the "underside" and the white material is almost chalky (i can scrape some tiny dust-bits off with just my fingernail). the kid in me wants to believe this is an old bone with some glacier-era striations grooved into the back end of it but being a novice i obviously can't make a determination on my own. any help would be appreciated. thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjim Posted July 8, 2018 Author Share Posted July 8, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjim Posted July 8, 2018 Author Share Posted July 8, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimTexan Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 I’m not seeing characteristics consistent with bone. Picture one and three look a bit like a concretion, but then the lines and layers in pic 2 make it looks like some kind of very worn shell. Concretions can contain fossils. Here is a good example of one I found about a week ago in Texas. As I found it: After working on it for a while. So far parts of 2 clams and 3 rudists? Not certain of their ID. Point is concretions can contain fossils. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeschWhat Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 5 hours ago, jjim said: This does look like shell or possibly even plant material. Lori www.areallycrappystory.com/fossils www.facebook.com/fossilpoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 It looks like this may have been a stratified clast that was reworked into the rock formation which this rock was later broken from to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeschWhat Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 I've been thinking about this piece. By chance does it feel sticky if you touch it with wet fingers? Lori www.areallycrappystory.com/fossils www.facebook.com/fossilpoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 4 hours ago, GeschWhat said: I've been thinking about this piece. By chance does it feel sticky if you touch it with wet fingers? Oh come on, just lick it. If it sticks to your tongue it could be fossil poop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Doesn't look like bone to me. Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjim Posted July 9, 2018 Author Share Posted July 9, 2018 the outside "top" part does indeed feel tacky when wet. the inner dark part is not at all. it's definitely a chunk of something that broke off a larger piece, probably relatively recently, as the rocks around here tend to get smoothed pretty quickly from the water and sand acting as a tumbler. the edge might show a little better in this photo. thanks for your input everyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeschWhat Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 There are coprolites that look similar to what you have, but they are found in the Hell Creek and Lance Formations. I wouldn't expect to find this type where you are at. Here is an example. Lori www.areallycrappystory.com/fossils www.facebook.com/fossilpoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifbrindacier Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 On 08/07/2018 at 11:22 PM, KimTexan said: I’m not seeing characteristics consistent with bone. Picture one and three look a bit like a concretion, but then the lines and layers in pic 2 make it looks like some kind of very worn shell. Concretions can contain fossils. Here is a good example of one I found about a week ago in Texas. As I found it: After working on it for a while. So far parts of 2 clams and 3 rudists? Not certain of their ID. Point is concretions can contain fossils. Your clams are nice inoceramus, great. "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...
fifbrindacier Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 On 08/07/2018 at 10:59 PM, jjim said: On 09/07/2018 at 4:23 AM, GeschWhat said: This does look like shell or possibly even plant material. 22 hours ago, Rockwood said: It looks like this may have been a stratified clast that was reworked into the rock formation which this rock was later broken from to me. This reminds me of a piece i posted some months ago. "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...
fifbrindacier Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 On 27/02/2018 at 4:34 PM, fifbrindacier said: Hi, i tried a new spot : marls from the Maestritchian with ridges of marly limestones, above them are limestones from the Dano-Montian. There, according to the geologic informations i have, you can find Pachydiscus, Hamites, Echinids, Inocerams, Brachiopods. I found this piece and i first thought it was an oyster, but now i wonder if it could be a part of a rudist. It is about 11 centimeters long for about 10 centimeters of width. The whole block is very heavy. On 27/02/2018 at 4:46 PM, fifbrindacier said: The "front" : On 19/03/2018 at 3:57 PM, fifbrindacier said: Hi again everybody. A part of the piece have broken. On 19/03/2018 at 4:39 PM, fifbrindacier said: Here is the broken bit. "Internal" part. The "external" part. "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...
jjim Posted July 10, 2018 Author Share Posted July 10, 2018 thanks everyone. after looking into this more i now think it is a piece of chert nodule. i find interesting things all the time in the waters here so i'll likely be posting again. it's a cool resource. no bone but still neat. thanks again! 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