Please help to confirm bird beak elements found in flint erratics of Lithuania

[D.N.FossilmanLithuania]

Dear Guys,

I recently found many possible beak parts in flint erratics- three premaxillas, one maxilla with teeth, one culminicorn and one latericorn.

The age of flint erratics in my area is Late Cretaceous- Paleocene. If there are any specialist who work with bird bones, please help to confirm this identification. 

The remains are found in Varena town, South Lithuania (The Baltic Region). 

Best Regards 

Domas

[D.N.FossilmanLithuania]

I also add two halves of possible culminicorn bone.

 

[Miocene_Mason]

Maybe @Auspex

[Spongy Joe]

Hmm... bird remains in flint would be challenging to understand in terms of the environment. The odd one, possible... but lots of them? Hard to imagine.

 

Vertebrates really aren't my thing, especially when it comes to bits of bone... but can you be sure these aren't fish?

[Fossildude19]

Darkened:

 

      

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with Joe - These appear to be, and are more likely to be fish elements. 

Premaxilla, gular plate, basisphenoid, parasphenoid, possible fin elements or girdle plates. (Pectoral or shoulder girdle, pelvic girdle) 

These bones are differently shaped on different types of fish, so you would really need a fish expert who is experienced with local finds to be sure of what genus/species.

You don't make mention of the size of these bones. Are the photos being taken with a microscope?

These items appear to be very small, which would again, indicate fish.

Regards,

 

 

 

[D.N.FossilmanLithuania]

Dear Fossildude19,

 

These bones are between 5 and 15-18 mm length. I would think 5th and 6th photos represent latericorn and premaxilla of bird and I am very unsure if the premaxilla has the same appearance in fish and bird bodies...

http://dinogoss.blogspot.lt/2011/04/youre-doing-it-wrong-birds-with-teeth.html

(In the first picture you can see the segmented bird beak)

Spongy Joe please tell which picture is similar to bird in your opinion.

 

Best Regards

Domas 

[Fossildude19]

Domas,

These would be incredibly small for bird parts.    

I would not expect juvenile bird bones so small to be strong enough to be preserved, 

The texture of the bones looks more fish-like that bird-like, in my opinion. 

Without knowing with absolute certainty the age, the origin of the rock, and a faunal list for the area, I would say fish is more likely than bird.

You find fish scales in these chert cobbles, correct? That would point me into a more plausible instance of fossilization, being more numerous than say, feathers, or egg shell bits. 

Let's see what @Auspex has to contribute to the conversation.  

Regards,

 

[Spongy Joe]

Hi Domas,

Sorry, you misunderstood me: I'm no expert, but I don't see anything here that looks like bird rather than fish.

 

Given how little I know about vertebrate bony bits, that doesn't really mean much... but I do know a bit about palaeoenvironments, and I just can't imagine it is likely that you will find bird remains in flint. Perhaps, very rarely, a bird would die far out at sea (at this time, though, most birds were not strong fliers...), and the delicate bones survive for long enough that it was buried... but they would be extremely rare fossils. To have several of them makes me think they cannot possibly be birds, I'm afraid!

[Carl]

I also see fish bones there. The bone shown in photos 3, 4, & 8 seems to be a fish dentary with teeth.

[Peat Burns]

51 minutes ago, Carl said:

I also see fish bones there. The bone shown in photos 3, 4, & 8 seems to be a fish dentary with teeth.

+1

[Auspex]

Fish its, me thinks.