Jump to content

Fossil ID needed


Kimi64

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

I was doing a beach cleanup on Sunday along the Port Tobacco River, & I noticed this little rock sitting next to an old beer can. It is 3 cm wide at it's widest point. The whitish grey color made it a challenge to photograph, so I added a slight wash to it. Any help with an ID would be greatly appreciated. I looked at many images of worms last night, but I didn't see anything with the same shape or length, & without knowing the age of the rock, I am not sure how to identify it. While it is whited out in the middle, when I look at it under a magnifying glass I can see that the horizontal lines extend through almost the whole length of the ovalish shape. This photo was magnified 2x. Thanks for looking! 

IMG_20191216_234958925.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like some shell bits and cross-sections. 

Not sure you can narrow it down more than that.  :unsure: 

 

Contrasted:

 

IMG_20191216_234958925.thumb.jpg.8fd213f0e2776a48500b5691eec79f6a.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi FD, when I am looking at it, it looks way more like worm burrows & an oval shaped wormish creature sitting in the lower left quadrant. I have plenty of shell trace fossils, & this really doesn't resemble any of them. But if that is what it turns out to be, it is still interesting to find that along the Port Tobacco. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see the oval, striated object being a trace fossil. Probably a fossil though. As "FD" says, shell bits are a possibility. 

 

Mike

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @Fossildude19 in that it looks a lot like shell bits from this picture. The piece in the bottom left seems to show a valve and evidence of plications.  To the right of this piece I see cross sections of other shell bits and pieces.

 

That being said... Things are hard to ID from pictures (and especially from just one).  Maybe a few more pictures from other views will show us differently. 
 

80767753-CC7A-489A-BF66-DE6336B725D5.jpeg.dd477fd8f24435ed6e63c8678e387c7f.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a passing resemblance to Naktodemasis bowni*, which is probably not significant.

*basically non-marine

Out of stratigraphic and sedimentological context,and with some information missing, this will be hard to ID properly

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, minnbuckeye said:

I just don't see the oval, striated object being a trace fossil. Probably a fossil though. As "FD" says, shell bits are a possibility. 

 

Mike

Thanks, I will correct that. I mislabeled it as a trace fossil only because it has the faintest appearance of any fossil that I have found or handled so far. Definitely didn't see anything like this in my historical geology lab classes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to picture what a whole shell would look like either partially covered in stone or ground down and viewed in cross section. I see two fairly obvious shells. One partially exposed the other viewed in cross section. This may be a piece of indurated Aquia Formation is that's exposed in the general area you collected this. Also keep in mind that paleozoics occasionally show up in river gravel in the area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...