ID baculite-shaped fossil with attachments?

[HuckMucus]

I found this in 1989 on the upper Powder River in Wyoming.  It was in an area with lots of these baculite-shaped things.  I thought it would make a great knife handle so that's what I did.  However, I've never seen anything like it.  It has the general shape of a baculite but the exterior seems to be covered by something.  I get the "sense" of a type of sea weed, or a jelly fish or something, but I doubt very seriously something soft like that could fossilize.  So I am looking for an expert to tell me what I have.  Also interesting, is different aspects of the "raised" features are different colors.   If you can enlarge these pictures, you might be able to see the roundish darker thing.    Thanks in advance for any input.

[westcoast]

Probably encrusting bryozoan epibionts that would have hitch-hiked a ride on the bacculite while it was still alive.

[Rockwood]

I see no reason to call this a fossil of anything. It is a fine looking handle though.

[jpc]

This is indeed a baculite fossil.  The squiggles are generally believed to be formed by various worms crawling through the bottom of the sea muck eating the dead baculite.  Often they are indented, but they seem raised on this one suggesting to me that there is more calcite (harder substance) or something in the worm burrows than in the baculite infill.  Not sure about the darker circular thing, but probably similar trace of bottom-of-the-sea critter(s). 

Nice job on the knife handle.   

[Rockwood]

14 minutes ago, jpc said:

This is indeed a baculite fossil.

Without intending to question the conclusion ; how can you tell ?

[HuckMucus]

Thank you all for the input.  It makes sense.  All the baculites I see are "cleaned up" so I'd never seen one with all the stuff on it and hence my curiosity.  There were tons of them in the area where I found this, but this is the only one that had texture all over it.  The others were smooth (not shiny, with the detail like you see on polished examples, but smooth, without the attachments like the one I took.  I hope to get back there again some day and give it a better investigation.  I was actually looking for bison skulls, which is more my area of interest.  Thanks again.

[jpc]

2 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Without intending to question the conclusion ; how can you tell ?

good question, and thought you might ask it.  I have no photos to show you so it will be words.  Baculites are often preserved as variably shiny oval tapering tubes with sutures, but the sutures do not go the whole length of the shell.  The last 1/3 or so is where the animal lived, the living chamber, and is suture-less.  This is often preserved as a simple muddy oval tapering tube.  If the shell falls off (which it often does, and it must have fallen/eroded off to to see the sutures) this living chamber would indeed be difficult to ID if seen solo.  But if you are in an area with lots of baculites pieces, when you find these oval tapering tubes they are indeed in-fills of the living chamber.  You will also find some examples  where the last suture is preserved on one end of these tubes, the nail in the coffin for baculite ID.  You might also find many examples of infilled living chambers with various ichnofossils... tubes, fecal pellets, etc. , and even smaller baculites and ammonites.   

The OP said he was in an area with lots of baculites; from that clue alone and the fact that he made a knife handle out of it, I knew what he had found before I saw the picture.  Not bragging, just years of experience with these things.  Nay, decades. 

 

There is a paper somewhere about these ichnofossils found in baculite living chamber steinkerns, but I'll be darned if I can find it.  

[LabRatKing]

This is incredible. Now I need a fossil knife...

[HuckMucus]

A little off topic, but jpc's post about segmentation got me to thinking: Even though you can no longer see the ends of the fossil, I opted to not cut the ends flat to fit my brass but, rather, to grind the brass to fit the un-even ends of the fossil; maintaining the fossil whole.  It didn't come out perfect but I'm happy.  Don't ask me why, but I felt like I should leave the fossil whole, considering it made it all these years without me messing with it.  I did bore a hole through the center for the tang though, so there's that.

 

I wish I could travel back in time and meet it/him/her when alive.  Not that it "thought" but I can't help but feel it might be interested in knowing that folks were still talking about it millions of years hence.  

 

It feels good in the hand.  Also, as I make the sheath for the knife, rather than stamp or carve the leather with tools, I intend to case the leather and roll the handle into the leather in the hopes of having the sheath "tooling" match the handle.  We'll see.

 

[Kato]

11 minutes ago, HuckMucus said:

A little off topic, but jpc's post about segmentation got me to thinking: Even though you can no longer see the ends of the fossil, I opted to not cut the ends flat to fit my brass but, rather, to grind the brass to fit the un-even ends of the fossil; maintaining the fossil whole.  It didn't come out perfect but I'm happy.  Don't ask me why, but I felt like I should leave the fossil whole, considering it made it all these years without me messing with it.  I did bore a hole through the center for the tang though, so there's that.

 

I wish I could travel back in time and meet it/him/her when alive.  Not that it "thought" but I can't help but feel it might be interested in knowing that folks were still talking about it millions of years hence.  

 

It feels good in the hand.  Also, as I make the sheath for the knife, rather than stamp or carve the leather with tools, I intend to case the leather and roll the handle into the leather in the hopes of having the sheath "tooling" match the handle.  We'll see.

 

I think what you wrote tells me that you somehow 'drilled' this to accept the tang versus slabbed and joined it together with adhesive. 

[Top Trilo]

11 minutes ago, HuckMucus said:

Not that it "thought" but I can't help but feel it might be interested in knowing that folks were still talking about it millions of years hence.  

Baculites are in the class cephalopoda along with octopi, and octopi are known for their intelligence so who knows. Octopi also have been seen using tools so a baculite might of as well. And who knows maybe they used a shell millions of years old as a knife just like you did. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_intelligence

[HuckMucus]

2 minutes ago, Kato said:

I think what you wrote tells me that you somehow 'drilled' this to accept the tang versus slabbed and joined it together with adhesive. 

 

Correct.  It took forever with diamond tipped Dremel pieces to drill a fitted hole through the fossil.  I left about a half inch of the tang sticking out, fitted the brass pommel and then drilled an 1/8"' hole through the pommel and tang stub, pounded an 1/8" brass rod through the hole and polished it down.  Can't even see the brass rod/hole.  It's strong with that rod going through the brass pommel and the steel tang end.     

[HuckMucus]

6 minutes ago, Top Trilo said:

Baculites are in the class cephalopoda along with octopi, and octopi are known for their intelligence so who knows. Octopi also have been seen using tools so a baculite might of as well. And who knows maybe they used a shell millions of years old as a knife just like you did. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_intelligence

You're talking to a guy who thinks rocks think, so I'm open to it.      I always get the feeling everything is looking at me, not with pity, sympathy, hate, laughter or whatever, but the same way a patient teacher looks at an excited student.  Everything but us "understands" the concept of "All" and their position within it.  We're coming along, albeit slowly.  

[Rockwood]

4 minutes ago, HuckMucus said:

rocks think

We are studying their memory so obviously they must think. 

[HuckMucus]

3 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

We are studying their memory so obviously they must think. 

An old man once asked me: "You know what a rock says? . . . It's your move."

[HuckMucus]

Long shot question:  My wife and I rolled the handle into some of her pottery clay to get a more complete picture.  Attached.  Is it possible for anyone to identify these marks?  Some say worm excavations?  To me it looks like some kind of sea weed, or maybe even a creature that was attached, or smashed and attached, or?  Keep in mind the handle was rolled over and over so the pattern repeats.  Any educated guesses would be appreciated.  Thanks.

[IsaacTheFossilMan]

Dang, I want one of those knives! 

 

1 hour ago, HuckMucus said:

Long shot question:  My wife and I rolled the handle into some of her pottery clay to get a more complete picture.  Attached.  Is it possible for anyone to identify these marks?  Some say worm excavations? 

I agree with @jpc, little scavenging worms are what I'd say here. I'm unsure if they're just ichnospecies? J, if you could shed some more information on these wormies, I shall attempt to find the paper on them.

[IsaacTheFossilMan]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1985.tb00710.x

I've found this, however you need a login to view the full text.  Harvest all you can from the abstract! That is, unless you have a login. 

[HuckMucus]

21 minutes ago, IsaacTheFossilMan said:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1985.tb00710.x

I've found this, however you need a login to view the full text.  Harvest all you can from the abstract! That is, unless you have a login. 

Thank you.  Just the abstract, and the large number of words therein, which I don't understand, is enough to keep me busy with research for a spell.  But you know what, I like learning, so I will tackle that.  Since I am not a scientist, my wife raises an eyebrow when she sees me reading "Post-cranial skeletal characters of bison and bos", along with a bedside bookshelf full of science papers on bison, so I imagine I'm in for some more ribbing.  But I'll try it.  Master of none.  

[IsaacTheFossilMan]

6 minutes ago, HuckMucus said:

Thank you.  Just the abstract, and the large number of words therein, which I don't understand, is enough to keep me busy with research for a spell.  But you know what, I like learning, so I will tackle that.  Since I am not a scientist, my wife raises an eyebrow when she sees me reading "Post-cranial skeletal characters of bison and bos", along with a bedside bookshelf full of science papers on bison, so I imagine I'm in for some more ribbing.  But I'll try it.  Master of none.  

Haha, I'm sure you'll enjoy it, learning what you want to is fun, I've found, too. Enjoy!

[jpc]

7 hours ago, HuckMucus said:

Thank you.  Just the abstract, and the large number of words therein, which I don't understand, is enough to keep me busy with research for a spell.  But you know what, I like learning, so I will tackle that.  Since I am not a scientist, my wife raises an eyebrow when she sees me reading "Post-cranial skeletal characters of bison and bos", along with a bedside bookshelf full of science papers on bison, so I imagine I'm in for some more ribbing.  But I'll try it.  Master of none.  

I am a scientists (of sorts, more of a technician in the science) and my wife ribs me about my bedtime reading.  To be fair,I like to read share obscure titles with her.  

[LabRatKing]

1 hour ago, jpc said:

I am a scientists (of sorts, more of a technician in the science) and my wife ribs me about my bedtime reading.  To be fair,I like to read share obscure titles with her.  

This is an issue at my house too...strategic piles of journals everywhere.

[HuckMucus]

After reading the abstract and googling each word I did not understand (most of them) and putting it all together, I think I get the gist of it.  It seems they are talking about infilling of voids that were accessed by holes bored into the shell by various different organisms, as opposed to infilling through the natural shell opening.  The straight-bodied shells were more predominant in their location because their single chamber was more accessible to sediment.

 

Running down the rabbit hole brought me to other cases where the critters left trails/tunnels that were infilled, as well as a sea weed that bored a hole.  Some of these critters and the sea weed actually look like the attachments on my baculite.  Phoronida on emaze was one (https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=P7N9iUdK&id=AA50A36FE0CF0024590C0E646FE8B71EA86FD927&thid=OIP.P7N9iUdKQbCxo1plPXLVFQHaF3&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR3fb37d89474a41b0b1a35a653d72d515%3frik%3dJ9lvqB636G9kDg%26riu%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.imas.utas.edu.au%2f__data%2fassets%2fimage%2f0008%2f192608%2fphoronida_anatomy_full.jpg%26ehk%3dOq%2fu3ek75f6%2bvr64JFxrKc9g7is8dJSYIrRnWMtBSTM%3d%26risl%3d%26pid%3dImgRaw&exph=811&expw=1024&q=phoronida+on+emaze&simid=608036626664655649&ck=71E1B20358A5107277589A502A8BE5F8&selectedIndex=0&FORM=IRPRST&ajaxhist=0) and some of the thallophytes.    

 

I know they are all soft bodied and unlikely to fossilize, but that weird thing (kind of looks like a ) is darker than the rest of the surface and it has a shape and some outline that is different than the random trail-like features.   Some of those random trail-like features also have branching from larger, main trunks into much smaller branches which seems more like vegetation than a worm track.  At least in my eye.

 

In the case of my baculite, all the "attachments" are raised, as opposed to recessed (they look raised on the handle itself, but they also look raised on the clay, which they are not.  On the clay they are actually recessed).  So, if they are infilled tracks then the tracks themselves must have been through sediment on top of the baculite which were then infilled by harder sediment that remained when the softer stuff eroded?

 

I probably need to spend more time studying taphonomy. ;-)  I'ma larn'in.

 

    

[doushantuo]

some of you may like:

hydrostatics,propulsion and life habits of the Cetaceous ammonoid BACULITES

G.E.G.Westermann

revue de paleobiologie,32-1/2013

recommended!!

 

NOTE: Gerd Westermann has written authoritatively and extensively on cephalopod ecology,life habits,bathymetry,etc 

as can be inferred from ,e.g.,theoretical hydrodynamics

second note (on afterthought):a new functional model for the hyponomic sinus is proposed

 

westermammonitmolluschydrodynamipal_32_1_06.pdf

[jpc]

16 hours ago, HuckMucus said:

 

In the case of my baculite, all the "attachments" are raised, as opposed to recessed (they look raised on the handle itself, but they also look raised on the clay, which they are not.  On the clay they are actually recessed).  So, if they are infilled tracks then the tracks themselves must have been through sediment on top of the baculite which were then infilled by harder sediment that remained when the softer stuff eroded?

 

 

    

exactly.

 

That little creature you your link  took me to is microscopic.  So probably not a culprit.