Bearsky Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 I found this from a park close to virginia beach. I feel it is a clam fossil but I am not sure. Can u guys tell? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsky Posted June 14, 2014 Author Share Posted June 14, 2014 Oops here is the pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsky Posted June 14, 2014 Author Share Posted June 14, 2014 This is the other side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 It looks like the internal mold of a clam. When it is not wet, does the surface look more like stone, or shell? "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsky Posted June 14, 2014 Author Share Posted June 14, 2014 It looks like the internal mold of a clam. When it is not wet, does the surface look more like stone, or shell? It is more like a stone to me. Here is a pic when it is dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Yup, this is the lithified mud that in-filled the shell after the clams demise; the shell has since dissolved away. Internal molds like this are also called "steinkerns" (German for "stone seed"). As evidence of ancient life, it is a fossil, but the now-hardened ooze that filled the original shell may contain microfossils; then you get a fossil made of fossils! Pretty cool gig for an old clam, ain't it? "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsky Posted June 14, 2014 Author Share Posted June 14, 2014 Yup, this is the lithified mud that in-filled the shell after the clams demise; the shell has since dissolved away. Internal molds like this are also called "steinkerns" (German for "stone seed"). As evidence of ancient life, it is a fossil, but the now-hardened ooze that filled the original shell may contain microfossils; then you get a fossil made of fossils! Pretty cool gig for an old clam, ain't it?Wow. That is so cool. I am layman to fossils. But I was very excited when I see this. I called it "my precious" like in The Lord of ring. Lol.Thank you for helping identifying this. Is this kind of fissile common to be found? I also have a separate question. How can I tell a shell is a fossil or not. To me a shell is hard like a rock already...so whether it turn to fossil or not it feels the same to me. How do u if it is an old shell or a fossil...thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 ...How can I tell a shell is a fossil or not... If you dig a specimen out of strata known to be of ancient age, or if it can be identified as an extinct species, then you can be assured that it is a fossil. Loose specimens on a beach or in a stream (called "float"), especially where commingled with modern specimens, and which are either still living species or cannot be identified (due to condition, etc.) shouldn't be labeled as fossil without expensive radiometric dating to establish their antiquity. Your steinkern, being completely lithified, passes the fossil test, because it takes a long time for ooze the turn completely to hard stone. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 I should add that 'turned to stone' is not the definition of a fossil. There are 70 million year old fossil shells that are unmineralized and look just like new, and some 50 year old bones that are heavily stained and mineralized. The state of preservation is not the most reliable indicator. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsky Posted June 15, 2014 Author Share Posted June 15, 2014 Thanks for the explanation, Auspex. Very helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts