Vertebra and a piece of bone (Big Brook, NJ)

[TRexEliot]

I found both of these a couple days ago on my last trip to Big Brook in the same pan, and both have a very similar texture and appearance that leads me to believe they could have belonged to the same animal. I shared both via PM with @Trevor, who suggested the vertebra was likely Mosasaur (but that it might have a diagnostic ID), and that the bone was some type of marine reptile. Just thought I'd re-post here in case others might have any thoughts to add to that. Also, if either is worth taking in for a more diagnostic identification, where/to whom should I take them? I have heard there is a museum that most people take their big brook finds to, but I have never been there and forget which museum it is.

@frankh8147

[Rockwood]

5 minutes ago, TRexEliot said:

, who suggested the vertebra was likely Mosasaur (but that it might have a diagnostic ID)

I can second it, but not best it.

I think the second is a dud though. It looks like iron concretion to me.

[TRexEliot]

1 hour ago, Rockwood said:

I can second it, but not best it.

I think the second is a dud though. It looks like iron concretion to me.

Definitely not an iron concretion. You can see the spongy internal structure in the top view of the broken end in the first picture.

 

Edit: just for clarity, the first picture of the second bone, not the first picture over-all.

Edited July 9, 2021 by TRexEliot

[Rockwood]

1 hour ago, TRexEliot said:

Definitely not an iron concretion. You can see the spongy internal structure in the top view of the broken end in the first picture.

 

Edit: just for clarity, the first picture of the second bone, not the first picture over-all.

I still think the ID will hold.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

The first piece is definitely a mosasaur caudal. Yet while I have heard people ID mosasaur vertebrae on their shapes, as I understand it this wouldn't be possible as mosasaur vertebral shape, much as with ichthyosaurs, shows more variation with position along the spine than between species.

 

(Source)

 

As to the second specimen, while I agree it does look like bone, I'm not sure whether it's pachyostic enough to be marine (the walls of the bone look rather thin to me). Yet even if it were bone from a marine animal, I doubt there's sufficient indications to identify it. If marine, my best bet would be a section of an upper arm or leg bone (propodial) - that is, a paddle-bone.

Edited July 10, 2021 by pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon

[frankh8147]

I agree with Mosasaur vertabra for the first one - that's about as far as I would take that ID. The second one does look like marine reptile bone but I highly, highly doubt it is associated with the vert. Even if it is, there's no way to prove it. I once found three sections of Mosasaur jaw in the same small area and we weren't able to prove it was from the same animal!

[Rockwood]

17 hours ago, Rockwood said:

I still think the ID will hold.

Time to concede.

[TRexEliot]

19 hours ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

The first piece is definitely a mosasaur caudal. Yet while I have heard people ID mosasaur vertebrae on their shapes, as I understand it this wouldn't be possible as mosasaur vertebral shape, much as with ichthyosaurs, shows more variation with position along the spine than between species.

 

(Source)

 

As to the second specimen, while I agree it does look like bone, I'm not sure whether it's pachyostic enough to be marine (the walls of the bone look rather thin to me). Yet even if it were bone from a marine animal, I doubt there's sufficient indications to identify it. If marine, my best bet would be a section of an upper arm or leg bone (propodial) - that is, a paddle-bone.

What might it be if it were not marine? Dinosaur? 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

40 minutes ago, TRexEliot said:

What might it be if it were not marine? Dinosaur? 

 

Unfortunately, I'm not myself familiar with Big Brook, nor am I particularly knowledgable on dinosaurs, so can't really give you an answer on that one. I do deal a lot more with Mesozoic marine material, however. And from that perspective, this second bone feels too thin-walled to me. But it's always possible I'm wrong, of course

 

I was thinking that may be the piece could have washed in from a different stratum, but I'm not quite sure whether that'd be possible for the location... You'd need to have someone with a lot more local knowledge for that (but, if I'm honest and keeping all the above in mind, dinosaur did cross my mind) 

[TRexEliot]

2 hours ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

 

Unfortunately, I'm not myself familiar with Big Brook, nor am I particularly knowledgable on dinosaurs, so can't really give you an answer on that one. I do deal a lot more with Mesozoic marine material, however. And from that perspective, this second bone feels too thin-walled to me. But it's always possible I'm wrong, of course

 

I was thinking that may be the piece could have washed in from a different stratum, but I'm not quite sure whether that'd be possible for the location... You'd need to have someone with a lot more local knowledge for that (but, if I'm honest and keeping all the above in mind, dinosaur did cross my mind) 

Thanks for the insight! To the best of my knowledge, the only fossil layer represented at Big Brook is upper cretaceous with some devonian invertebrates that were deposited by glaciers during the last ice age from upstate New York and some pleistocene mammal bone mixed in. To the best of my understanding, any bone as heavily permineralized as this would be upper cretaceous, but I am still learning.

Edited July 10, 2021 by TRexEliot

[Rockwood]

4 hours ago, TRexEliot said:

Dinosaur?

There's one out there. Pieces have been found that tend to indicate it.