Big Brook find....bone?

[Linda Ann]

This is a Big Brook, NJ find in Feb. 2019.  I'm new and still trying to figure out fossil from non-fossil. I thought this looked like a piece of bone.

 

[ynot]

Looks like bone to me also.

[Carl]

Definitely looks like bone. And based on general appearance, I think it looks Cretaceous rather than Pleistocene or modern. What is it? Who can say...?

[Max-fossils]

Agreed, it's bone, but it's gonna be hard to say much more about it I'm afraid...

 

1 hour ago, Carl said:

And based on general appearance, I think it looks Cretaceous rather than Pleistocene or modern.

I'm not disagreeing (or agreeing), but what is it that makes you think this? The Pleistocene bones I find at the Zandmotor look very similar to this conservation-wise... 

I'm not familiar with Big Brook at all (although I did hear both Cretaceous and Pleistocene bones occur there), so maybe there's a feature this bone has that allows to tell Pleistocene Big Brook bones apart from the Cretaceous ones which I'm not aware about?

Just trying to learn and see what brought you to that conclusion  

[Bronzviking]

I agree with others, unknown bone fragment. The spongy bone end will help you differentiate rock from bone.

 

Cancellous bone is made up of spongy, porous, bone tissue that is filled with red bone marrow. It is not as strong as cortical bone, which is found in the long bones, but it is very important for producing blood cells. It is found in the ends of long bones and in the bones of the pelvis, ribs, vertebrae, and skull.

 

How is compact bone structurally different from spongy bone?

Compact bone tissue forms the outer layer of all bones while spongy or cancellous bone forms the inner layer of all bones. Spongy bone tissue does not contain osteons. Instead, it consists of trabeculae, which are lamellae that are arranged as rods or plates . Red bone marrow is found between the trabuculae.

 

 

[The Jersey Devil]

It’s a Cretaceous reptilian bone fragment.

[Carl]

20 hours ago, Max-fossils said:

Agreed, it's bone, but it's gonna be hard to say much more about it I'm afraid...

 

I'm not disagreeing (or agreeing), but what is it that makes you think this? The Pleistocene bones I find at the Zandmotor look very similar to this conservation-wise... 

I'm not familiar with Big Brook at all (although I did hear both Cretaceous and Pleistocene bones occur there), so maybe there's a feature this bone has that allows to tell Pleistocene Big Brook bones apart from the Cretaceous ones which I'm not aware about?

Just trying to learn and see what brought you to that conclusion  

As I wrote that I was afraid someone might seek clarification. Sadly, a lot of it is a gut feeling based on the color, grain, apparent porosity, and apparent level of mineralizaton I see in the photos -- all things that are exceptionally hard to verbalize. And this will change from site to site. Based on my decades-long familiarity with these sites and what they produce, my eye nudges me towards the Cretaceous.

[Max-fossils]

Just now, Carl said:

As I wrote that I was afraid someone might seek clarification. Sadly, a lot of it is a gut feeling based on the color, grain apparent porosity, and apparent level of mineralizaton I see in the photos -- all things that are exceptionally hard to verbalize. And this will change from site to site. Based on my decades-long familiarity with these sites and what they produce, my eye nudges me towards the Cretaceous.

Oh alright I get it. I see what you mean with it being hard to word it out, I have that sometimes too. 

I was just wondering if there was a clear tell-tale sign. 

Thanks anyways  

[erose]

I agree with Carl and Jersey Devil and believe it is Cretaceous in age. I have seen some of the bones in the MAPS collection as well as others and this has the right color and texture. The majority of the bone fragments are busted and worn.  There is a transgressive/regressive lag deposit that produces much of the vertebrate material and, except for teeth, it was tumbled before even being deposited.

 

 

[The Jersey Devil]

3 hours ago, erose said:

There is a transgressive/regressive lag deposit that produces much of the vertebrate material and, except for teeth, it was tumbled before even being deposited.

 

Are you talking about the basal Navesink lag? Why do you think that the teeth weren’t tumbled like everything else?

[erose]

2 hours ago, The Jersey Devil said:

 

Are you talking about the basal Navesink lag? Why do you think that the teeth weren’t tumbled like everything else?

Oops! Poor choice of words. Yes, the teeth in the lag were also tumbled, just more resistant than the bones.