What was this doing in Maryland?

[InfoHungryMom]

I’m guessing weathered conch, but VERY bizarre to be seen in Maryland...

 

[ynot]

I think it is a banded agate. The last picture is the clincher for it being a cryptocrystalline quartz.

[Rockwood]

Barnacles belong in MD. 

[ynot]

8 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

Barnacles belong in MD. 

I could see it being barnacle except for the convoluted structure and the last picture, which does not fit that ID. (unless it is covered in matrix).

[Rockwood]

A little vinegar here Mom ?

I think it's calcite. 

[Fossildude19]

First one looks like a worn shell to me.  Could be a whelk, ... not necessarily a conch. 

Last pictures looks like a different item - quartz stone. 

[InfoHungryMom]

Strange.  I know my whelks.... lightning, pear, knobbed, channeled, Lawrence.....

 

”wonderful wonderful!”

 

definitely NOT whelk

[ynot]

29 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

First one looks like a worn shell to me. 

This structure does not fit with any shell I can think of.

[Pagurus]

I agree with Tim. The last couple of pictures do not look like the first pictures to me. They look like igneous or metamorphic water-worn stones, in my opinion. The first few pictures look like broken and water-tumbled shells. They look to me like a bit of a whelk shell, maybe the part where the siphon extends out. The piece is so small, though, that it could be from some other shell, but it's really too small to identify in my opinion. Are these all the same shell?  Beautiful photos.

 

Try scratching the object with a nail. Most shells should scratch pretty easily. Let us know. You could try a drop of vinegar, too, but that doesn't always fizz on the outside of a shell.

[FossilDAWG]

This thread reminds me of those "guess what this is" contests where the photo is zoomed in on a small part so you have no sense of the whole object.  A single out-of-focus/half obscured by fingers photo is not much help.  If you actually want a reasonable ID on this item, you should:

1. provide clear in-focus photos showing the whole object from multiple views. 

2. provide information on where the object was found.

3. provide as much information as you can about the local geology.

 

Don

[InfoHungryMom]

Yup- @Kane  @Bobby Rico @KimTexan Are coaching me!  Actually, thst IS the problem.... I will post pics I want to frame later.   Fun!

 

BTW, last picture.... eek!  And it’s real!

[Fossildude19]

Since this is an incomplete modern shell, and not a fossil, it may not be able to be identified specifically.  

Some of our members are into modern shells, so maybe they can chime in. 

Definitely the inner whorl of a gastropod of some sort. Highly worn and also looks like some predatory marks on it. (From other gastropods?) 

[abyssunder]

There are really nice borings in the right side of the image below, probably made by worms.

 

[ynot]

OK, I concede - it is a piece of shell not agate.

[InfoHungryMom]

FossilDawg, no malintent EVER from me, nor tricks.  Silliness?  Absolutely.  But I am trying TOO hard.  I think the people in the group pity me- they don’t realize I am genuinely enjoying every minute of this “wild, scientific, discovery ride.”  

 

The shell piece washed-up on the beach in Ocean City, Maryland.  Ocean City, like many beaches around the world, is eroding where high-priced real estate exists.  It is a barrier island that forms at the tips of where Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia “meet”, referred to as “The DelMarVa Peninsula”. The problem is that, like in most situations, economics trumps ecology.  Huge ships pump sand AND whatever else is on the Atlantic Ocean floor, back to the existing beach.  

 

There are far too many geological (and ecological) things that I could explain that are occurring, but the most relevant here is that there are tons of objects that land on the beach that do not belong there.  This shell piece is one of them.  It was SO out of place that I saved it, and in my “hunt for knowledge of all kinds”, decided to share it in case someone recognized it.  It has the consistency of a very large stone crab claw, but it is unlike any whelk or conch I have ever seen.  

 

I hope the 4 way, additional pictures help.  I have been restricted to working on an iPhone, and figuring out how to display what I want to has been a challenge.

 

I am always appreciative of advice and input-  always feel free to do so!

 

Karen 

[DPS Ammonite]

1 hour ago, InfoHungryMom said:

Strange.  I know my whelks.... lightning, pear, knobbed, channeled, Lawrence.....

 

”wonderful wonderful!”

 

definitely NOT whelk

It should be: “Wunnerful, wunnerful!”?

[InfoHungryMom]

Btw, the reason for the last picture other than I found it amusing - and “I pity the fool”, is that it shows at least a partial image of the closest shell I could find to the piece- it is a “Fighting Conch”, “strombus pugilis”  (notes for @Max-fossils !)     but I cannot find other Fighting Conch images that look even similar.

 

I also genuinely wonder if it had begun to fossilize, as I believe the closer images show.

[Kane]

In paleontology, there is a strong bias in favour of verifiable data on provenance, just as the mantra in real estate is "location, location, locaton" (ditto can be said in archaeology where certain areas are not dug because it provides an index for other finds in nearby areas).

 

Due to deep tidal storm wave movements of large bodies of water, a lot of anomalous stuff gets churned up and is transported long distances. When reconstructing paleoenvironments, there are anomalies that seem to upset our understanding of faunal provinces, but they are largely treated as "errata" and tend to fall off any statistically based faunal inventory. The farther back we go, the more other factors intervene, such as tectonic movement / subduction, underwater superplume formation, sea level fluctuations, cratonic infilling, depositional environment (such as reworking of the bed), etc. The older the piece, the harder it becomes to plot distance ranges, and to factor in ever more of those contributing influences.

[Rockwood]

1 hour ago, Kane said:

there are anomalies that seem to upset our understanding of faunal provinces, but they are largely treated as "errata"

It would be interesting to know how many babies have been thrown out with the bath water because of this convenience. I mean in an overall scientific way.

You'll never find something if procedure is to ignore it. 

[Kane]

2 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

It would be interesting to know how many babies have been thrown out with the bath water because of this convenience. I mean in an overall scientific way.

You'll never find something if procedure is to ignore it. 

It doesn't happen very often. There are very good use of controls in data collection and analysis to prevent against undue exclusion. In addition, erratic specimens are recorded (and hopefully stored) should there be a reassessment from new data arising. Recall that science is driven by a process of constant falsification.  

[InfoHungryMom]

Kane, “I hear you”, but our physical environment is increasingly artificially altered.  I don’t know if there could be a way to measure it.  The world is increasingly “errata”.  At what point will “the exception” be scientifically recognized as “the rule”?