Awesome Coprolite

[JohnBrian]

On 10/12/2018 at 12:14 PM, piranha said:

I think this one fits the thread title... @GeschWhat

 

 

figure from:

 

Grimaldi, D., & Engel, M.S. 2005

Evolution of the Insects.

Cambridge University Press, 755 pp.

 

Absolutely beautiful!!! Wow!

[caldigger]

On 10/11/2018 at 1:29 PM, Still_human said:

I just can't get over what they are! I can't help feeling like I'm touching dried poop! Any that have identifiable inclusions are awesome, and I can deal with the whole touching poop thing, but otherwise...well, otherwise it's just poop lol

Now, would you feel different about handling fossil stomach contents? 

[Still_human]

15 hours ago, caldigger said:

Now, would you feel different about handling fossil stomach contents? 

Well, that depends....are we talking about fossilized? Lol Nah, I know. yes, I would definitely feel different. Just like how it's very different in the stomach as it is when it comes out! 

[Still_human]

On 10/11/2018 at 5:54 PM, LiamL said:

I found one today, not as good as yours but still. 

Oh cool! I guess you're better at finding them than you thought? I can't zoom in very much with my phone--are those inclusions? Especially that big oval just below the crack in the middle?

[Still_human]

On 10/11/2018 at 8:21 PM, GeschWhat said:

Some of the most fascinating discoveries that I have found in coprolites were from those that looked unremarkable at first glance. Even tiny fragments can have extraordinary surprises hidden within. Take this tiny fragment. I put it under the microscope and it contained a small jaw fragment. 

Hmmm...have you heard about the field test for coprolites? It wouldn't work on those from the Lyme Regis area because they are too dense (and yours looks like it was treated). When I am hunting in the Hell Creek Formation, I use the "lick test." Coprolites from that formation are generally very porous. They stick if you touch them to the tip of your tongue. 

 

 

 

 

Hahahahaha I think I'll steer clear of "taste testing" ;p lol. I have heard of that for testing fossils/regular rock, but that doesn't sound....well, it doesn't sound awful like lick testing old poop hehe

 

that jaw fragment is incredible! Can you tell what it's from?

[Still_human]

On 10/12/2018 at 11:55 AM, GeschWhat said:

I picked up a tile saw last winter to do just that. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to use it. We had absolutely no spring, summer was stifling, and it has been raining almost every day this fall. I have used my dremmel to take the ends off of a few. I have also dissolved quite a few scrap pieces in vinegar in order to see the inclusions. For the most part, I limit myself to surface prep to expose inclusions if there is something I wan't to try to identify.

Wait, WHAT?!?!? You can dissolve the fossil and leave just the inclusions??? That's amazing!

[GeschWhat]

On 10/26/2018 at 2:15 PM, Still_human said:

Hahahahaha I think I'll steer clear of "taste testing" ;p lol. I have heard of that for testing fossils/regular rock, but that doesn't sound....well, it doesn't sound awful like lick testing old poop hehe

 

that jaw fragment is incredible! Can you tell what it's from?

I originally thought perhaps it was from a lissamphibian. However, one expert I talked to said that if there is an acrodin cap (clear tip) on the teeth, it is likely from a fish. It is really hard to tell for sure, but I think there is a clear tip on one of the teeth. The only teeth I have to compare them to are those of Turseodus sp., but those weren't an exact match. The best image I could get does show what I believe to be an acrodin cap on one of the teeth. I would eventually like to get my hands on something like an Arboreal Salamander jaw for comparison, but 

 

for now I'm going to say it was a fish dinner.

 

 

You can dissolve some coprolites in vinegar but not all. It doesn't work well for the really dense specimens (like yours), but does for softer types that can be found in the Bull Canyon, Hell Creek,  Niobrara and a few others formations.  Here is a thread from a few years ago.

 

[Still_human]

1 hour ago, GeschWhat said:

I originally thought perhaps it was from a lissamphibian. However, one expert I talked to said that if there is an acrodin cap (clear tip) on the teeth, it is likely from a fish. It is really hard to tell for sure, but I think there is a clear tip on one of the teeth. The only teeth I have to compare them to are those of Turseodus sp., but those weren't an exact match. The best image I could get does show what I believe to be an acrodin cap on one of the teeth. I would eventually like to get my hands on something like an Arboreal Salamander jaw for comparison, but 

 

I see what you mean, but it's really hard to tell if it's actually "clear" or not, or just white/light. I guess if the acrodin cap is too difficult to totally confirm, you're stuck just comparing like you said. If it is from a fish, that might be super hard to do. theres probably many many species with similar teeth to compare:/ Hopefully having that significant portion of jaw will help ID it, though:)

Maybe I missed it, but do you have thoughts on what the coprolite itself is from?

[GeschWhat]

22 hours ago, Still_human said:

I see what you mean, but it's really hard to tell if it's actually "clear" or not, or just white/light. I guess if the acrodin cap is too difficult to totally confirm, you're stuck just comparing like you said. If it is from a fish, that might be super hard to do. theres probably many many species with similar teeth to compare:/ Hopefully having that significant portion of jaw will help ID it, though:)

Maybe I missed it, but do you have thoughts on what the coprolite itself is from?

No. It is almost impossible to identify "poopetrators." This particular piece is just a tiny fragment that is smaller than a pea. What I do know is that it lived in or visited a floodplain, was a carnivore, and didn't have a particularly acidic digestive system. Because it has bone/teeth inclusions, I can rule out a crocodilian. 

[Still_human]

On 10/28/2018 at 7:44 PM, GeschWhat said:

No. It is almost impossible to identify "poopetrators." This particular piece is just a tiny fragment that is smaller than a pea. What I do know is that it lived in or visited a floodplain, was a carnivore, and didn't have a particularly acidic digestive system. Because it has bone/teeth inclusions, I can rule out a crocodilian. 

Oh my god, the entire piece that the jaw is included in, is SMALLER than the size of a PEA?????? I can only imagine the time and effort you put into it all to even happen upon the jaw in that tiny fragment! Are you sure it's not the jaw of a paramecium???

[Tidgy's Dad]

Interesting thread.

Nice coprolites, everyone. 

[Still_human]

...

 

Do hidden poo treasure like that jaw, and such things, generally show up in certain types of coprolites over others? From what Ive seen, which is still fairly limited, ones like this one, fully aquatics, seem to mostly be very densely compacted and well digested and solidified materials. Are terrestrial coprolites where more interesting things are generally found? By more interesting, I mean more than the standard undigestibles, and less digestivles, like scales, teeth, bone fragments?

[GeschWhat]

On 11/12/2018 at 9:16 AM, Still_human said:

...

 

Do hidden poo treasure like that jaw, and such things, generally show up in certain types of coprolites over others? From what I've seen, which is still fairly limited, ones like this one, fully aquatics, seem to mostly be very densely compacted and well digested and solidified materials. Are terrestrial coprolites where more interesting things are generally found? By more interesting, I mean more than the standard undigestibles, and less digestivles, like scales, teeth, bone fragments?

Finding inclusions like teeth and jaws in coprolites is pretty rare. It is from an ancient floodplain. I have looked at well over 2000 from that area. I would say only about 25%-30% have visible inclusions - most of which are fish scales. You will notice that the one I posted is a coprolite fragment, and the jaw is visible on the broken surface. Most inclusions (if present) are on the interior of coprolites. Only a small fraction are visible on the surface - and many times those can only be viewed under magnification. The type of coprolite does matter. Animals like crocodilians have very acidic digestive systems, so not much survives their digestive system. Other animals regurgitate skeletal parts of their prey (owls, some cephalopods, etc), so they might have relatively mundane poop. I don't think it really matters whether a coprolite has an aquatic/marine or terrestrial origin with regard to inclusions.

 

There are interesting features that can be found on coprolites without inclusions (feeding traces, sphincter marks, impressions, etc.). 

[Still_human]

2 hours ago, GeschWhat said:

Finding inclusions like teeth and jaws in coprolites is pretty rare. It is from an ancient floodplain. I have looked at well over 2000 from that area. I would say only about 25%-30% have visible inclusions - most of which are fish scales. You will notice that the one I posted is a coprolite fragment, and the jaw is visible on the broken surface. Most inclusions (if present) are on the interior of coprolites. Only a small fraction are visible on the surface - and many times those can only be viewed under magnification. The type of coprolite does matter. Animals like crocodilians have very acidic digestive systems, so not much survives their digestive system. Other animals regurgitate skeletal parts of their prey (owls, some cephalopods, etc), so they might have relatively mundane poop. I don't think it really matters whether a coprolite has an aquatic/marine or terrestrial origin with regard to inclusions.

 

There are interesting features that can be found on coprolites without inclusions (feeding traces, sphincter marks, impressions, etc.). 

Personally I prefer the former of what you were talking about:)

Is it just specific types that carry inclusions, though? Like the agatized coprolites...those aren't going to have any inclusions like what we're talking about, are they? Everything throughout the entire thing is going to be just more agate, won't it? Also, the kind in this picture--I don't remember why, but something I believe I had learned about them makes me feel like they wouldn't retain anything intact. 

[GeschWhat]

13 hours ago, Still_human said:

Personally I prefer the former of what you were talking about:)

Is it just specific types that carry inclusions, though? Like the agatized coprolites...those aren't going to have any inclusions like what we're talking about, are they? Everything throughout the entire thing is going to be just more agate, won't it? Also, the kind in this picture--I don't remember why, but something I believe I had learned about them makes me feel like they wouldn't retain anything intact. 

I'm not sure if the siderite (shown) or agatized (siliceous) varieties that are even coprolites. I have only one specimen of the siliceous variety that may have a distorted bone inclusion. Likewise, I have only one siderite example that looks to have inclusions. If you are interested in inclusions, you will want to stick with the phosphatic variety. The coprolite in your original post is an example that is preserved as apatite (a dense form of calcium phosphate). The one with the jaw is a more porous variety of calcium phosphate (the kind that sticks to your tongue ). 

 

[Still_human]

5 hours ago, GeschWhat said:

I'm not sure if the siderite (shown) or agatized (siliceous) varieties that are even coprolites. I have only one specimen of the siliceous variety that may have a distorted bone inclusion. Likewise, I have only one siderite example that looks to have inclusions. If you are interested in inclusions, you will want to stick with the phosphatic variety. The coprolite in your original post is an example that is preserved as apatite (a dense form of calcium phosphate). The one with the jaw is a more porous variety of calcium phosphate (the kind that sticks to your tongue ). 

 

Gotcha, thank you very much! I was wondering exactly that, because all the ones Ive seen with definite inclusions were ones that look very similar to those(the phosphatic variety).