Jump to content

Central Texas - coral, bone, something else?


TSCannon

Recommended Posts

Hi all - any ideas on this fossil I found today? Google image search is giving me photos of snake skin. Is this coral, sponge, bone, or something else? Thanks! 

EB70E8B9-DE64-473A-B386-55F8FA9557EA.jpeg

7542F31D-1627-447D-AFE7-72EFA89B4284.jpeg

4B4BF146-6754-4075-A6F0-DF7960CD4AE6.jpeg

E0C5EC8B-40EC-4A1D-81BB-DB956ACC4FD6.jpeg

946E83D2-E2B0-4859-BC53-03C366647F19.jpeg

2CBFD15E-35D5-48F3-A71B-02A28C0FFEE8.jpeg

684D1415-DE49-421A-B73B-1D7976875AF0.jpeg

FAE4FAAE-6C2D-4054-82E8-4C311ED7DD20.jpeg

E37DD4D8-E952-4898-93CC-806EDF39C9BA.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea but I just brought up snake wood the other day they say is pretty rare and I'm curious if this could be that...or perhaps it's just something else. Pretty cool find tho. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a fragment of the rudist, Durania.

  • I found this Informative 3
  • I Agree 5

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John is probably right if this is Cretaceous; thanks. I missed the best clues. Rough pieces are easier to ID as Durania than polished pieces as they have distinctive fracturing and ripples. The tell is the curvature shown in red. 
 

Plus, I must remember that the feature in Durania that looks like horizontal tabula all line up in long planes. Coral tabula don’t usually line up that way. They are parallel, but are not at the same level in every corallite.

 

I remember how mystified I was when I first saw a piece of Durania. Coral was one of my guesses as was petrified wood. Bivalve was not one of them.

01F60F3C-1198-4467-9CDC-A35CC6223989.jpeg

392CAA5F-C40A-4AE5-9B71-01F692596255.jpeg

  • I found this Informative 3
  • Enjoyed 2
  • I Agree 1

My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned.   

See my Arizona Paleontology Guide    link  The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must remember that helpful phrase: it you can’t ID it and it is from Texas than it is a rudist.

  • Enjoyed 4
  • I Agree 2

My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned.   

See my Arizona Paleontology Guide    link  The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, DPS Ammonite said:

John is probably right if this is Cretaceous; thanks. I missed the best clues. Rough pieces are easier to ID as Durania than polished pieces as they have distinctive fracturing and ripples. The tell is the curvature shown in red. 
 

Plus, I must remember that the feature in Durania that looks like horizontal tabula all line up in long planes. Coral tabula don’t usually line up that way. They are parallel, but are not at the same level in every corallite.

 

I remember how mystified I was when I first saw a piece of Durania. Coral was one of my guesses as was petrified wood. Bivalve was not one of them.

01F60F3C-1198-4467-9CDC-A35CC6223989.jpeg

392CAA5F-C40A-4AE5-9B71-01F692596255.jpeg

Yes, it is Cretaceous. Thanks for the help all! 

  • Enjoyed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TScannon: you have found a (piece of) a cretaceous bivalve(mollusc), a canaliculate RUDIST.

So it is related to clams.

Its shape is a departure form the usual shape of bivalves, the cause of that aberrant shape usually attributed to hinge migration.

They formed buildups ("REEFS") that are important oil reservoirs.

The large crystallites are attributed to fast growth, and their oxygen isotope content can be used to infer Cretaceous environmental conditions.

edit : the last (I sincerely hope) of many grammatical and spelling corrections:ninja::(

 

Edited by doushantuo
  • I found this Informative 2

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, doushantuo said:

So TScannon: you have found a (piece of) a cretaceous bivalve(mollusc),a canaliculate RUDIST.

so it is related to clams

Its shape is a departure form the usual shape of bivalves,the cause of that that aberrant shape usually attributed to hinge migration

The formed buildups("REEFS") and are important oil reservoirs.

The large crystallites are attributed to fast growth,and theur isotope content can be used  to infer Cretaceous environmental conditions

 

Thank you! How did I end up with such a nice, polished looking slice, I wonder? The other images I’m finding of Durania look very different. (I’m a newbie, just curious). Thanks again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At some point in the geological past, your piece might have been submerged and polished by the action of water.

  • I found this Informative 1
  • I Agree 1

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TSCannon said:

How did I end up with such a nice, polished looking slice, I wonder?

 

Their fossils are primarily calcite.  They are commonly fractured and eroded over time.

  • I found this Informative 2

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, JohnJ said:

It is a fragment of the rudist, Durania.

Wow! This is extremely good to know. I was certain it was Favosites. Now all I have to do is remember this info...

  • Enjoyed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is very neat looking!  And, as usual, I would have never guessed rudist, I still have not adequately learned the "Texas Rule" - haha!!

  • Enjoyed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

cool stuff. Fun fact that I enjoy about rudists is that they were the dominant reef building organism in the cretaceous, corals were not. Nice find

  • I found this Informative 2
  • Enjoyed 1

“Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think” -Werner Heisenberg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I put "reefs" in quotation marks .

There are those (Skelton) who don't think "reef" is the proper nomenclature for a rudist buildup

  • I found this Informative 1
  • I Agree 1

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, doushantuo said:

I put "reefs" in quotation marks .

There are those (Skelton) who don't think "reef" is the proper nomenclature for a rudist buildup

Nice websites about rudist “reefs”.

 

https://alchetron.com/Rudists

 

https://ferrebeekeeper.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/rudists/

  • I found this Informative 1

My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned.   

See my Arizona Paleontology Guide    link  The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the image on the ferrebeekeper site should be credited to Steuber,BTW

edit :see below

 

Edited by doushantuo
  • I found this Informative 1

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, doushantuo said:

the image on the ferrebeekeper site should be credited to Steuber,BTW


Both sites need to credit all their diagrams and photos. 

  • I found this Informative 2

My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned.   

See my Arizona Paleontology Guide    link  The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

apologies to everyone concerned: I was working from memory

The rudist accumulation shown on the Ferrebeekeeper site was the cover of volume 32/1 of facies,and accompanied an article by Schumann on the rudist/stromatoporoid

facies of the cretaceous of Oman.

If you don't hear from me ever again: a big gaping hole opened up in the floor of my dwelling ,and is about to swallow me up

Farewellll,cruel w...

ok; the hole just spoke to me and forgave me

Still ,it was a close call

Edited by doushantuo
  • Enjoyed 2

 

 

 

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...