Monterey Formation -Fossil Id

[autographcollector11]

This is a fossil found in the Monterey formation in SW California. Any ideas what it may be? Looks like there may be a backbone- but I need your opinions.

Thanks

[Fossildude19]

What is the size of the fossil?

The coin in the pictures is too shiny to see what it is - could you actaully measure it?

The Miocene Monterey Formation is full of smaller fish species, but this one looks fairly large?

The few fish from there that are listed in Frickhinger's Fossil Atlas: Fishes as "Medium Sized Fish" are :

Xyne, Lompoquia, and Turio.

.

It may be very difficult for someone to narrow down the ID unless they are experts, (which, btw, ...I am NOT!)

The lack of fins may be a stumbling block.

Perhaps Boesse or Oilshale would know for sure.

Regards,

Edited May 6, 2015 by Fossildude19

[autographcollector11]

The coin is a United States Nickel. Thanks for your help. I am looking for as much info as possible so any other input would be appreciated.

[autographcollector11]

As a follow up question, putting aside an actual species, does this look like a fish of some sort?

[Carl]

Absolutely!

[fossilized6s]

The vertebrae are a "dead" giveaway for this being a fish of some sort. There looks to be ribs coming down from the verts. Other then that it looks like a tough ID, in regards of species.

Neat find.

[autographcollector11]

Thanks everyone.

There appears to be other "debris" with the fish fossils. Any idea what that may be?

Are fish this size common for the formation?

[oilshale]

What is the size of the fossil?

The coin in the pictures is too shiny to see what it is - could you actaully measure it?

The Miocene Monterey Formation is full of smaller fish species, but this one looks fairly large?

The few fish from there that are listed in Frickhinger's Fossil Atlas: Fishes as "Medium Sized Fish" are :

Xyne, Lompoquia, and Turio.

.

It may be very difficult for someone to narrow down the ID unless they are experts, (which, btw, ...I am NOT!)

The lack of fins may be a stumbling block.

Perhaps Boesse or Oilshale would know for sure.

Regards,

I am not an expert either!

There is an old (1943) publication from Lore Rose David: Miocene fishes of Southern California. Send me a PM if you are interested to get a copy (4 parts, roughly 200 pages, 60MB to download).

Thomas

Edited May 7, 2015 by oilshale

[autographcollector11]

Thanks to all the responses. As I look at this further, I have a few follow ups. I posted a few better pictures.

Here are the questions:

1) On the image that looks to be the fish head-does it appear that the mouth is open?

2) Near the back of the head, do these appear to be fins of some kind?

3) There is a stray fossil (2nd image) that is detached from the fish. I am guessing it was part of the bone structure that was removed before fossilization?

I'd appreciate your comments/suggestions in this one. Much appreciated.

[Fossildude19]

Thanks to all the responses. As I look at this further, I have a few follow ups. I posted a few better pictures.

Here are the questions:

1) On the image that looks to be the fish head-does it appear that the mouth is open?

2) Near the back of the head, do these appear to be fins of some kind?

3) There is a stray fossil (2nd image) that is detached from the fish. I am guessing it was part of the bone structure that was removed before fossilization?

I'd appreciate your comments/suggestions in this one. Much appreciated.

This is definitely a fish.

1. Yes.

2. No. Disarticulated skull elements.

3. Yes.

Here is what I am seeing.

Regards,

[autographcollector11]

Thanks Fossildude! This is great.

I know that the species is difficult to ID, but based in the size could it be a carnivorous fish?

[oilshale]

I think you can still see numerous small teeth in the disarticulated jaw.

Edited May 20, 2015 by oilshale

[Fossildude19]

Thanks Fossildude! This is great.

I know that the species is difficult to ID, but based in the size could it be a carnivorous fish?

Probably.

I am seeing some resemblances to the fish of the family Zaphlegidae,... mentioned HERE. (Description, page 97, 99.)

More info HERE.

These are the species names that are listed in the PDF Thomas mentioned.

Thyrsocles kriegeri

Thyrsion velox

Thyrsocles velox

Thyrsocles escharion

Zaphleges longurio

Zaphlegulus venturaensis

Escharion townleyi

Regards.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Fossildude19

[siteseer]

The Monterey is a super-thick formation ranging from Middle to Late Miocene in age in the parts I've collected. Fossils are found in various members. In the lower part (sites in Orange County) I have seen shark teeth. Higher up, in the Aguajito Shale member (sites in the Carmel area) you get those little pea crabs (Pinnixa galliheri) along with occasional fish bits including tiny imprints of vertebrae and partial vertebral columns. I have found one virtually complete fish in 20-25 years of collecting at a rate of maybe 1 trip per year as an average (used to prospect it more often). In some spots I found seaweed with the crabs and in others you get imprints of the clam, Arca. I have also found parts of an undescribed larger crab and even some leaves that must have floated out to sea.

The fish you found certainly looks different from anything I have collected in the Monterey - larger too.

Thanks everyone.
There appears to be other "debris" with the fish fossils. Any idea what that may be?
Are fish this size common for the formation?

[AncientEarth]

Looks like what Jordan & Gilbert described as Deprandus sp.

I've only found about 2/3 of a fish with the pea crabs, other sites will produce more frequent, and complete fish.

[Fossildude19]

Looks like what Jordan & Gilbert described as Deprandus sp.

I've only found about 2/3 of a fish with the pea crabs, other sites will produce more frequent, and complete fish.

I was interested in your source, as I am a fossil fish buff, but then saw this paper:

Stewart, J. D., and S. B. Hunter. 1997. Deprandus lestes Jordan is a synonym of Thyrsocles velox (Jordan) (Teleostei: Perciformes) and is not an eel. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 17:79

Thanks for making me look into this. Interesting.

Regards,