Fossil Fish

[EricChristian]

This forum did so well last year on the Stigmaria fossil I had, I thought it was worth trying another one.  This is both sides of a fish in sandstone.  The origin is unknown, but I think it comes from the same formation where many fish fossils in sandstone come from (the little plates that are available at any fossil dealer).  To me, because of the scales and the shape of the head, it looks like a modern Gar.  The head (best seen on the bottom of the right side) looks like it may have an armored plate on the forehead.

 

Any ideas?

[Fossildude19]

Looks like a Rhacolepis buccalis from the Cretaceous Santana Formation of Brazil.  

There is a slight possibility that it may be a Vinctifer comptoni, however. This is preserved in what looks like a Ventro-dorsal postion. The side scales aren't ideally exposed to show their shape. 

 

Nice fossil. 

Regards,

[FossilDAWG]

The elongated scales on the body and the shape of the opercula bones in the skull make me lean towards Vinctifer comptoni.  I'd be curious to hear what @oilshale thinks.

 

Don

[oilshale]

I think Don is right - I would also say it’s a Vinctifer comptoni.

Thomas

[abyssunder]

[EricChristian]

Looking at these and some other pictures and papers, I think Vinctifer comptoni is much more likely.  I can see the head more clearly than it shows up in my photo and it looks very similar to the one from abyssunder and especially the picture on Wikipedia (below).  And the scales are definitely elongated, not diamond shaped as in Rhacolepis buccalis.

 

Thanks for all the great help!

[oilshale]

4 hours ago, EricChristian said:

Looking at these and some other pictures and papers, I think Vinctifer comptoni is much more likely.  I can see the head more clearly than it shows up in my photo and it looks very similar to the one from abyssunder and especially the picture on Wikipedia (below).  And the scales are definitely elongated, not diamond shaped as in Rhacolepis buccalis.

 

Thanks for all the great help!

Please do not consider this example as a reference - the fish is most likely inserted in a stone slab (from another quarry) and the fins are painted.
Yours is genuine and therefore much better.

thomas

[EricChristian]

32 minutes ago, oilshale said:

Please do not consider this example as a reference - the fish is most likely inserted in a stone slab (from another quarry) and the fins are painted.
Yours is genuine and therefore much better.

thomas

I wondered why the fins looked too detailed.  Do you deduce that it is inserted because the edges are too sharp?

[oilshale]

1 hour ago, EricChristian said:

I wondered why the fins looked too detailed.  Do you deduce that it is inserted because the edges are too sharp?

These fish always occur in more or less bread-shaped concretions and not on limestone slabs.
Since a few years I see more and more fish from the Santana Formation, which have been inserted in (more decorative) stone slabs from completely different sites,  geological times and colors.

The body is easy to insert but the fins are not and therefore just painted on.