historianmichael Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Recently made a trip to Ramanessin Brook and Big Brook. I was able to confidently identify most of my finds, except for these few. Here is what I think they are. Please let me know what you all think. Thank you! #1- coprolite #2- coprolite #3- petrified wood #4- petrified wood #5- bone fragment - is there any way to know where it came from? #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 Follow me on Instagram (@fossil_mike) to check out my personal collection of fossils collected and acquired over more than 15 years of fossil hunting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Hi, The last one is a part of chimera dental (ratfish) ! Good to give number to your pics ! Coco ---------------------- OUTIL POUR MESURER VOS FOSSILES : ici Ma bibliothèque PDF 1 (Poissons et sélaciens récents & fossiles) : ici Ma bibliothèque PDF 2 (Animaux vivants - sans poissons ni sélaciens) : ici Mâchoires sélaciennes récentes : ici Hétérodontiques et sélaciens : ici Oeufs sélaciens récents : ici Otolithes de poissons récents ! ici Un Greg... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 I have doubts about 1 and 2 being coprolites. They look more like concretions to me. Maybe @Carl will have a look. 1 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...
Misha Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 28 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said: They look more like concretions to me I agree, these are not coprolites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankh8147 Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 I do think 1 and 2 are concretions but I also think 3 and 4 are bone. Number 4 is fossil, I'm not 100% sure if number 3 is fossilized but if I had to guess I would say it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historianmichael Posted May 17, 2019 Author Share Posted May 17, 2019 My apologies. As anyone who has collected in those brooks knows, there are a lot of deceptive stones in the water. @Coco Thank you for your reply. When you say dental, do you mean part of the jaw? Follow me on Instagram (@fossil_mike) to check out my personal collection of fossils collected and acquired over more than 15 years of fossil hunting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historianmichael Posted May 17, 2019 Author Share Posted May 17, 2019 Thank you for the responses. Here are some further photos of #3 and #4. #3 #4 Follow me on Instagram (@fossil_mike) to check out my personal collection of fossils collected and acquired over more than 15 years of fossil hunting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 I agree with the others: #1- concretion #2- concretion #3- bone #4- bone #5- chimaeroid jaw fragment (Ischyodus sp.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 5 hours ago, historianmichael said: @Coco Thank you for your reply. When you say dental, do you mean part of the jaw? Yes ! Coco ---------------------- OUTIL POUR MESURER VOS FOSSILES : ici Ma bibliothèque PDF 1 (Poissons et sélaciens récents & fossiles) : ici Ma bibliothèque PDF 2 (Animaux vivants - sans poissons ni sélaciens) : ici Mâchoires sélaciennes récentes : ici Hétérodontiques et sélaciens : ici Oeufs sélaciens récents : ici Otolithes de poissons récents ! ici Un Greg... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jersey Devil Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Nice finds, I agree with others on IDs. Not too common to find the ones that are identifiable to position. That’s a palatine. 16 hours ago, historianmichael said: “You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one.” ― Mikhail Tal 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