caldigger Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 A friend of mine was hunting the N. Sulfur River in Texas and came across this piece of ? Late Cretaceous Ozan Formation Any ideas as what this is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heteromorph Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 Ah! I see you are posting for [my friend too]. Just saw her at the DPS meeting tonight. She thought it looked like some kind of ray tooth, so she showed it to Roger Farish since he is an expert on Elasmobranchii, but he didn’t know. Not sure what to make of it myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 I think these are small bones found in the fin rays of a large fish, probably from the tail. I’m having trouble finding a good photo but I’ve attached a couple that are somewhat similar from this page- http://www.northtexasfossils.com/tarrant.htm 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JarrodB Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 I think @Al Dente nailed it. I have a few similar pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 I don't see fish there. More structurally complex in my opinion. EDIT -- Any nautiloids at NSR? Fragment of an endocast? Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 I agree with a piece of a cephalopod shell. Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 5 hours ago, Mark Kmiecik said: I don't see fish there. More structurally complex in my opinion. EDIT -- Any nautiloids at NSR? Fragment of an endocast? 38 minutes ago, ynot said: I agree with a piece of a cephalopod shell. No straight cephalopods there - too young. Cretaceous. Doesn't look like a baculite or ammonite to me. Fish fin ray pieces is the likely ID. . Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldigger Posted May 10, 2019 Author Share Posted May 10, 2019 Thank you everybody. I shall relay your assessments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 18 hours ago, Fossildude19 said: No straight cephalopods there - too young. Cretaceous. Doesn't look like a baculite or ammonite to me. Fish fin ray pieces is the likely ID. . Even so, I'm just not getting a fish "vibe" from this specimen. I'm looking at spatial and angular proportions and they seem "wrong" for lack of a better way to state it. Not saying it's impossible that it is a fish fossil, just that to me it begs further investigation. Would you say that the longitudinally centered segment is a portion of the spine? I'm intrigued by this specimen. EDIT: Which fish species are found at NSR? Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 Fragment of crinoid calyx? Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 The North Sulphur River exposes Late Cretaceous marine formations. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Mark Kmiecik said: Even so, I'm just not getting a fish "vibe" from this specimen. I'm looking at spatial and angular proportions and they seem "wrong" for lack of a better way to state it. Not saying it's impossible that it is a fish fossil, just that to me it begs further investigation. Would you say that the longitudinally centered segment is a portion of the spine? I'm intrigued by this specimen. EDIT: Which fish species are found at NSR? Any of the Western Interior Seaway species. Xiphactinus. Pachyrhizodus. Cimolichthys. Enchodus. Martinichthys. Bonnerichthys. Pentanogmius. Saurodon. Protosphyraena. Etc. Etc. 2 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Rico Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 8 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said: Seaway species. Tim you really do know your fish . I think you have got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 8 minutes ago, Bobby Rico said: Tim you really do know your fish . I think you have got it. Nah, Bobby. Just a fast Googler. Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 I extrapolated the size of the fish according the approximate size of the fossil specimen and arrived at a min/max of 4 to 5 meters. I thought ok, that's large. I Googled Xiphactinus, and "Holy ___ , Batman", I'm convinced. It's just a cute little fishy fossil. Now I'm going to look at the rest of that list. EDIT: We're gonna need a bigger boat. And now, looking at the asymmetry of the specimen, I can see why Al Dente would suggest that it was part of the caudal fin. Thank you, both. Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 18 minutes ago, Mark Kmiecik said: I extrapolated the size of the fish according the approximate size of the fossil specimen and arrived at a min/max of 4 to 5 meters. I thought ok, that's large. I Googled Xiphactinus, and "Holy ___ , Batman", I'm convinced. It's just a cute little fishy fossil. Now I'm going to look at the rest of that list. EDIT: We're gonna need a bigger boat. Keep in mind, the image I posted was just to show the type of thing (fin rays) I was talking about. So you can't really extrapolate by that. The Cretaceous fish could get large, but that could be part of a tail, or any other fin. I was merely illustrating how the fin rays look, and what they consist of. Here are some fins of a small paleoniscoid fish (negative image) A bit similar to the fish in question. Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 6 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said: Keep in mind, the image I posted was just to show the type of thing (fin rays) I was talking about. So you can't really extrapolate by that. The Cretaceous fish could get large, but that could be part of a tail, or any other fin. I was merely illustrating how the fin rays look, and what they consist of. What I said is that I estimated the size of the fish from the size of the specimen if it was a fragment of one of the soft rays -- in other words, my size estimate was dead on with your argument of what it is. I used a best-guess average size for all fins. I proved your point to myself, and now agree with your assessment. Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 Just making sure, Mark. Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said: Just making sure, Mark. Thank you. I appreciate the discussion. It's one of the best ways to learn. Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them! 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