Mockrabbit Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Hello, I found what I believe are marine fossils, but I have not been able to identify them thus far. I'm hoping I might find some help here. The photo lighting isnt the best, but I hope there is enough info here to help. These were all picked up in October 2018, on Vancouver Island in BC, Canada. The area is the Comox valley, and found in shale. The fossils found in this region are marine species from the Cretaceous period. Fossil 1: This was picked up along the Trent River, above the Trent Falls (about 150 yards following the river back up stream from the falls). The area is south of the town of Courtenay. It was found with the 'point' down in some harder rock that accompanies the shale formation there. It was loose enough that I was able to pick this out after tapping along the edges with a chisel. The fossil is not wet in photos. The 'point' is smooth, for the most part, and shiny. Bottom view - What I seen when I found it: Close up of bottom: Top view of 'point' - This was the part embedded in the stone, point down: Side view: Another side view: A couple of close ups of the point: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldigger Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 This looks to be a large solitary rugose coral ( also called "horn coral" ). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockrabbit Posted June 25, 2019 Author Share Posted June 25, 2019 Fossil(s) 2: These following fossils were picked up in the shale at the Brown's River, just east (down stream) from the Brown's falls about 30 yards from the falls following the river bank on the north side. This is also west of the town of Courtenay. I found what I initially though were ribs in the shale, but after looking around the the river bed shale I found that this wasn't the case. The reason for this is because of the shear number of these in the area, the large area they cover, and the lack of any other type of fossil that could resembled bone from a vertebrate animal. They were very dense in the area, and seemed to spread almost light roots. The shapes of these also varied. Some had slight bends/curves, other were formed into 'U' shapes. I have attached a photo of the samples I collected, and a couple of photos of some of the species in situ. Plant life possibly?: I do need to note that I found a smaller collection of these near the Stanton Falls just outside of Courtenay. Also, the grouping was very small, tan in colour, and intermingled. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockrabbit Posted June 25, 2019 Author Share Posted June 25, 2019 58 minutes ago, caldigger said: This looks to be a large solitary rugose coral ( also called "horn coral" ). Well, that helps me out tremendously, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldigger Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 I would say your second entry looks like infilled burrows of something. But of what, I can not say. Definately not vertebrate bones. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TqB Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 I think the first one is a nodule showing a slickenside surface due to sediment slip over it. (Not a coral - there aren't any rugose corals in the Cretaceous although there are scleractinians but it doesn't look like one.) I agree the others are trace fossils - burrows of some sort. 6 Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilNerd Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 3 hours ago, TqB said: I think the first one is a nodule showing a slickenside surface due to sediment slip over it. (Not a coral - there aren't any rugose corals in the Cretaceous although there there scleractinians but it doesn't look like one.) I agree the others are trace fossils - burrows of some sort. Agreed that number 1 is not a Rugose (horn) coral as they were extinct long before the Cretaceous. I also don’t see any anatomical structures on the flattened side (septa, tablua, growth lines, etc.). With it being as smooth as it is, I would expect to see some structure as it appears to be flattened down halfway through the specimen. As for what it is... 7 hours ago, Mockrabbit said: Fossil(s) 2: ... I do need to note that I found a smaller collection of these near the Stanton Falls just outside of Courtenay. Also, the grouping was very small, tan in colour, and intermingled. Number 2 does appear to be burrows like the others have stated, but I don’t know much about them to say for sure. I have seen burrow clusters like the small, intermingled grouping you mentioned. 1 The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -Neil deGrasse Tyson Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't. -Bill Nye (The Science Guy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plax Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Am defiinitely not saying #1 is a rudist but would welcome someone familiar with them to take a look. TqB may know better than I but the slickensides I've seen are between bedding planes. It's shiny and I'm not sure what all causes shininess but it's common in some formations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockrabbit Posted June 25, 2019 Author Share Posted June 25, 2019 Well, this has been interesting for me. Filled burrows, for #2, does make sense based on what I had seen in the shale, never crossed my mind as a possibility. I'll keep reading up to see what the consensus on #1 may be. I'd like to thank everyone for their input thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 The localities you describe are all in the Haslam Formation (previously called the Trent River Formation), which is of Upper Cretaceous (Santonian) age. I recall seeing concretions with that appearance, which is sometimes called "squish-out". It happens when a consolidated concretion (perhaps just at the stage where is it firm but somewhat plastic, like modeling clay) is embedded in a less consolidated sediment that moves. For example, a local slumping or submarine landslide may cause the less consolidated sediment to flow around the concretion, producing the "slickenside" surface. It's hard to be certain, but it is possible that the concretion formed around a large snail. @fossisle is a very knowledgeable local collector who can probably tell you more about your specimens and what can be collected in the area. I have several ammonites and crustaceans I collected from that area back in the 1980s, but when I spent a day on the Trent with fossisle last November we left empty handed. I suspect collecting pressure on the area is much more intense than it was 30+ years ago. Don 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockrabbit Posted June 25, 2019 Author Share Posted June 25, 2019 2 hours ago, FossilDAWG said: The localities you describe are all in the Haslam Formation (previously called the Trent River Formation), which is of Upper Cretaceous (Santonian) age. I recall seeing concretions with that appearance, which is sometimes called "squish-out". It happens when a consolidated concretion (perhaps just at the stage where is it firm but somewhat plastic, like modeling clay) is embedded in a less consolidated sediment that moves. For example, a local slumping or submarine landslide may cause the less consolidated sediment to flow around the concretion, producing the "slickenside" surface. It's hard to be certain, but it is possible that the concretion formed around a large snail. @fossisle is a very knowledgeable local collector who can probably tell you more about your specimens and what can be collected in the area. I have several ammonites and crustaceans I collected from that area back in the 1980s, but when I spent a day on the Trent with fossisle last November we left empty handed. I suspect collecting pressure on the area is much more intense than it was 30+ years ago. Don Thanks for the info, I'm learning something new. As for collecting in the area, you would be correct, from what I've read. Collecting in the area means far less specimens present. I collected these, quite a few different bivalve specimens, a very tiny snail shell, some ammonite pieces and casts, but no complete/semi-complete ammonites from the area last October. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossisle Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 FossilDawg is correct the first is sediment which has been squeezed under pressure which gives it the unique shape. The second are trace fossils, zoophycos Rick 1 Cephalopods rule!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldigger Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 16 minutes ago, fossisle said: FossilDawg is correct the first is sediment which has been squeezed under pressure which gives it the unique shape. The second are trace fossils, zoocophys Rick OK, OK...it was from out of my realm. You win! It's some squishy geological thingy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randyw Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 19 minutes ago, caldigger said: OK, OK...it was from out of my realm. You win! It's some squishy geological thingy. Squishy geological thingy is my new favorite saying for these things! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 I think , there are no proper patterns to say something about Zoophycos igen, but I'm inclined to think there are ichnofossils, as it was said. I'm referring to " Fossil(s) 2 " . 2 " We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. " Thomas Mann My Library Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TqB Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 22 hours ago, Plax said: Am defiinitely not saying #1 is a rudist but would welcome someone familiar with them to take a look. TqB may know better than I but the slickensides I've seen are between bedding planes. It's shiny and I'm not sure what all causes shininess but it's common in some formations. This occurs quite commonly around nodules (and some fossils that aren't in nodules) in some beds, and is formed by slippage around the harder object at some stage. So it's a 3-D slickenside of sorts. 1 Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockrabbit Posted June 30, 2019 Author Share Posted June 30, 2019 Thank you everyone for your help! no I have an idea of what is in my collection 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