GaRelicHunter Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) I'm new to fossils, I actually have been finding a bunch of interesting rocks when out metal detecting. I found this one and I'm convinced it's some type of fossil but I'm not sure what it could be? Found in North GA near Rome. I'd estimate the ridges are only 3 inches long and each rib is 1/4''-1/2'' Edited March 8, 2017 by GaRelicHunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Welcome to TFF! Interesting piece. I have no clue what it could be, so You will have to wait for others to reply. Tony Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaRelicHunter Posted March 8, 2017 Author Share Posted March 8, 2017 Just now, ynot said: Welcome to TFF! Interesting piece. I have no clue what it could be, so You will have to wait for others to reply. Tony Thanks for the welcome, I'm glad I found this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peat Burns Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 My guess is chambers of an orthoconic nautiloid. Although trilobite thoracic segments crossed my mind too. Not sure of the age of the exposures in your area. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaRelicHunter Posted March 8, 2017 Author Share Posted March 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, Peat Burns said: My guess is chambers of an orthoconic nautiloid. that's a good guess, I found some pictures on google that do look similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace river rat Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Not an expert, but this no vertebrae I am familiar with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpc Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 I agree, no vertebra, and without bragging, I will claim to be an expert. : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDudeCO Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 As stated. not a vertebrate, I can tell you that much! P.S. I went to school in Rome, didn't know there were any fossils there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaRelicHunter Posted March 8, 2017 Author Share Posted March 8, 2017 39 minutes ago, FossilDudeCO said: As stated. not a vertebrate, I can tell you that much! P.S. I went to school in Rome, didn't know there were any fossils there! Yeah I found a picture of all these guys digging in the Coosa tributaries http://www.ben.edu/faculty/pnovack-gottshall/PaleoDIMPL/DIMPL_PhotographingFossils.html I didn't know there were any there either until last month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDudeCO Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Well that site also gives us a date! Looking at Mid-Cambrian rocks here folks. Any more suggestions on what our friend has found? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Mid cambrian rules out an orthocone. Does not look like a trilobite, but could be part of one. Maybe @piranha can shed some light on this one. Tony Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike from North Queensland Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 A photo from the other angle may help as there appears to be some hidden detail on the left side of the first photo that may help. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 A word of caution about the possible age of the specimen: there is a lot of Middle & Upper Cambrian Conasauga Formation shale with chert nodules in the Coosa Valley area, but Rome itself is geologically very complex with Ordovician, Mississippian, and Pennsylvanian. All the Paleozoic formations, with the exception of the Lower Cambrian Rome Formation, have a large amount of chert. It's always a bit of a risk guessing provenance based on a photo, but the appearance of the specimen looks like a chunk of chert from the Mississippian Fort Payne Formation; at least, it does not look anything like the solid smoothly rounded chert nodules from the Conasauga. It also does not look like the massive black cherts that characterize the Ordovician formations in the area. That being said, the identity of the fossil is a bit of a mystery to me. It does not really look like trilobite pleural lobes, and the dimensions are much larger than the local species. Don 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peat Burns Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 On 3/7/2017 at 11:31 PM, GaRelicHunter said: If it ended up being later Paleozoic, one other possibility that crossed my mind was a slightly offset stack of columnals of Platycrinites sp. (Crinoid) which can be large (that large?) and oval in shape. 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