MebTex Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 Hi everybody, With plenty of rain past couple of years lots of things wash up even here in NM desert. Both of these neat things found on our 5 acres of middle of nowhere, east of Albuquerque. My husband did some sort of electricity conductivity test (he likes that kind of thing) thinking one was flattened/smashed old bullet. Neither had conductivity. The round one - abt 1" in diameter - looks snail-like but the other - abt 1" long - looks like - well - I have no idea... (also have pics from different angles) Ideas welcome ! MebTex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 I'll kick off the bidding by throwing in that the first one is a cephalopod, and the second one I think is a cephalopod. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 The first one could be a cephalopod, but gastropod more likely since I do not see any septations in it. The second one could be a straight cephalopod or a crinoid segment, tough to tell. More pics from different angles will help. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 The first one looks like an internal cast. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 The first one , for me, looks like a coiled cephalopod, according to the camerae what I think I could see (or just it is regarding to the fragmentation process). Gastropods don't have camerae. The second one has "V" shaped ribbing along each segment, but they tend to be in opposite direction (due to the crystallization process ?). Cephalopod could be a good guess (tmaier). End views could help for this. 3 " We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. " Thomas Mann My Library Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 The first specimen is either a snail or a coiled cephalopod. It seems to have some septa dividing the shell into chambers, which would point to a cephalopod, but the spacing seems irregular and it is possible the structures are geological and not part of the shell, in which case it would be a gastropod. Hard to say without other views or having the specimen in hand. The second one again looks like a straight-shelled cephalopod at first glance. However again the spacing or the segments is more irregular than I would expect for a cephalopod, where there is usually little variation in the thickness of each camerae (the chambers formed by the septa). An end-on view could be useful, as I would expect to see a siphuncle if it is a cephalopod. At this point my inclination is to call it a worn chunk of banded chert, rather than a fossil, though I'm not 100% certain of that. Don 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MebTex Posted October 7, 2016 Author Share Posted October 7, 2016 Thanks all. I'll try to pick out the best pic or two of diff angles, or take more if I don't think mine show what you might be looking for. If focus is too fuzzy I can re-shoot. Margaret Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monica Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 Hi Margaret! I think you may indeed have an orthocone nautiloid - the segmentation does look a bit wierd on the outside, but I think I see evidence of a siphuncle - I circled it in red below: Does the part circled in red continue towards the other end of your specimen in a straight line? If so, then I think it would be safe to say that it is indeed where this cephalopod's siphuncle was once located. Enjoy your cool-looking finds! Monica 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossiling Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 look at the line running through the middle of those weird sections in specimen number 2. I don't know what it means or indicates but it might help.I'm thinking it might be some indentation where the siphuncle runs down the shell? 2 Keep looking! They're everywhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 The new end-on photo clearly shows a siphuncle. The specimen is certainly a fossil of a straight-shelled (orthoconic) nautiloid. Don 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Julia) Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 (...looking up every other word to figure out the heck they're talking about.... "hmmm....") 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 1 " We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. " Thomas Mann My Library Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MebTex Posted November 10, 2016 Author Share Posted November 10, 2016 Thanks everyone. I have a pic of opposite end, although it might have been crimped a little upon its long-ago demise, it does appear to go all the way through. Therefore, I'm very hopeful it's a siphuncle (Julia, I've been looking up many terms too ! ) passing through a (thanks, Don ! ) "straight-shelled (orthoconic) nautiloid." This inspires me to look outside my comfort zone - i.e., places I have to drive to as opposed to the 5 acres around the house. Also, I've added "new lens for camera" to my Christmas list, since the 18-55 lens that came with my Canon is pretty good, but I want sharper close-ups. Of course these days Canon is including both the 18-55 and a 75-300 for the same price as when I bought mine several years ago...sigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagebrush Steve Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 2 hours ago, MebTex said: Thanks everyone. I have a pic of opposite end, although it might have been crimped a little upon its long-ago demise, it does appear to go all the way through. Therefore, I'm very hopeful it's a siphuncle (Julia, I've been looking up many terms too ! ) passing through a (thanks, Don ! ) "straight-shelled (orthoconic) nautiloid." This inspires me to look outside my comfort zone - i.e., places I have to drive to as opposed to the 5 acres around the house. Also, I've added "new lens for camera" to my Christmas list, since the 18-55 lens that came with my Canon is pretty good, but I want sharper close-ups. Of course these days Canon is including both the 18-55 and a 75-300 for the same price as when I bought mine several years ago...sigh Make sure when you are taking photos to stop down the lens to something like f/22. This will give you better depth of field, which is the range of distances over which you get good focus. If you have everything set to automatic you may not get as good a depth of field. You may need to change the setting of your camera to "aperture preferred" (sorry, I use Nikons, not sure what Canon calls it). That will allow you to choose the aperture, and the camera will automatically adjust the exposure time. You will need to use a tripod because the exposure will be much longer. But your current lens may be ok. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagebrush Steve Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, Sagebrush Steve said: Make sure when you are taking photos to stop down the lens to something like f/22. This will give you better depth of field, which is the range of distances over which you get good focus. If you have everything set to automatic you may not get as good a depth of field. You may need to change the setting of your camera to "aperture preferred" (sorry, I use Nikons, not sure what Canon calls it). That will allow you to choose the aperture, and the camera will automatically adjust the exposure time. You will need to use a tripod because the exposure will be much longer. But your current lens may be ok. Of course don't let this stop you from putting "new lens" or even "new camera" on your Christmas list! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MebTex Posted November 19, 2016 Author Share Posted November 19, 2016 Thanks Sagebrush ! I will definitely use this tip. Also, though, per your suggestion, I do not plan to remove "new lens" (& possibly new camera - still a Canon gal) from my Christmas list ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now