Fossil?

[Anonymous No.9953681]

I wasn't sure if I should post this in /out/ but I recently moved rooms and found my old rock collection from when I was a kid. I always wondered if this was a cool ancient fossil. Lecture me /sci/entists. What do you think it is?

[Anonymous No.9953690]

No doesn't look like it. Looks like clay or some shit with seashells removed

But hey wtf do I know, I'm just a chemist. Maybe someone here can offer more insight

[Anonymous No.9953712]

>>9953690
I mean it could be that. I found it maybe 10 to 11 years ago when I went camping with my family. It was near a river, I just picked it up and have had it ever since.

[Anonymous No.9953736]

>>9953681
Looks like the gill portion of some sort of crustacean to me, but thats definitely a fossil.

[Anonymous No.9953740]

>>9953712
Wh...what are you doing anon?
Nothing much... just picking this rock up and taking it home.

[Anonymous No.9953743]

>>9953736
What Crustacean though? It always looked like a beetle shell to me. I also wish I had put a size of reference and I've already packed it up. It's not a small rock though. It could fit inside of a baseball.

>>9953740
If you're worried about conservation, I was not at a national park. I understand all places should be regarded with the same care as one, but I was young and collected rocks that looked cool.

[Anonymous No.9953745]

>>9953681
A piece of rock without information on where you pick it is useless. It loses context and origin in which makes it valuable.

[Anonymous No.9953746]

>>9953740
I used to go on rock collecting trips with my gramps when I was a kid. First I tried to emulate stone napping techniques, but once I uncovered a fossil it morphed into fossil hunts where Id split open random rocks to find stuff.

People who havent done this dont deserve to be on /sci/

[Anonymous No.9953751]

>>9953745
We mostly only ever went to Tennessee or Connecticut. I'm almost positive it was in Tennessee at Loretta Lynn ranch Campsite. I can't stress how much my parents loved camping. I went all the time, but that campsite is the only one I remember where we camped by a river and where I spent most of my time.

[Anonymous No.9953765]

>>9953743
>>9953746
All rocks belong in a museum.

[Anonymous No.9953769]

>>9953746
I used to smash rocks together to try to find crystals. They we're all quartz.

[Anonymous No.9953803]

>>9953751
>I'm almost positive it was in Tennessee
Then it should be an Ordovician rock, unless you guys went along exposed riverbeds to get older rocks.

[Anonymous No.9953804]

>>9953681

Looks like a running shoe mark

[Anonymous No.9953805]

>>9953751
>>9953803
Back in the Ordovician fish and vertebrates didn't exist. Which probably means it is likely a fossil of some anemones or weird ancient invertebrate.

[Anonymous No.9953833]

paleofag here.
very likely a mold (impression) of part of the stem of a crinoid (sea lily). which fits nicely with it being Ordovician in age; those things were everywhere in the Paleozoic.

[Anonymous No.9953968]

Geologist here. Please post dimensions of sample; better still, post an image with a coin and/or ruler for scale.

>>9953833
No way that is a crinoid, the stems are the most common thing to be preserved as crinoids are mostly soft tissue, and they are calcarious rings usually no more than 10-20mm diameter. Furthermore, they are hard to find stacked together as a stem; more common to see individual rings scattered throughout the deposition layer.

The markings are more likely to be of a bivalve of some sort; think clams or cockles. The odd thing is OPs sample seems to be a-ve impression in the rock of something. Ghost or Trace fossils do not manifest in this fashion.

I reckon OP's sample is not a fossil. Fake and gay?

[Anonymous No.9953986]

Fossilfag here, could be a Zoophycos trace fossil. Somewhat common.

[Anonymous No.9954007]

>>9953681
A Bryozoan perhaps

[Anonymous No.9954011]

I thinking that you are gay for collecting stones.

[Anonymous No.9954343]

>>9953968
I can do that for sure. Im at work right now, but when I get home today hopefully this thread is still alive.

[Anonymous No.9954506]

>>9954343
Slow board so should the bread should still be good.

[Anonymous No.9954532]

OP, you might not have to dig the sample out again. Just saw the post re:fits in a baseball and the anon who posted crinoid is not far off the mark.

Assuming the sample is Ordovician, I reckon the fossil is of a rugose coral. They are usually single corals and don't form colonies, but looks like several single rugosa have stacked themselves on each other like a colony. However, not a paleobiologist so this could still be a single rugose coral and that's just how it grows.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugosa

Pic related

[Anonymous No.9954555]

>>9954532
The Rugose looks closer to what it looks like to me at least, but after all this time I can’t get the idea of a bug shell out of my head. those fish friends who eat the fish’s tounge is what I thought it could be as well, but I don’t think those are old enough to fossilize. I may still dig it out, just because I have never been a good descriptor and feel I may be making it seem bigger or smaller than it actually is.

[Anonymous No.9955064]

>>9953968
I took more pictures, I'll post them all now.

[Anonymous No.9955068]

>>9955064

[Anonymous No.9955073]

>>9955068

[Anonymous No.9955077]

>>9955073

[Anonymous No.9955080]

>>9955077

[Anonymous No.9955083]

>>9955080

[Anonymous No.9955086]

>>9953765
>T. Rock

[Anonymous No.9955090]

>>9955083

[Anonymous No.9955096]

>>9955090
I see a flake in there like dried skeleton or scale.

[Anonymous No.9955101]

>>9955096
That's all of the pictures I took the second time around. Thank you for trying to help me figure out what it is.

[Anonymous No.9955252]

Do you have the means to split it open along its longest section? It'd be interesting to see how far these indentations go and whats on the other side.

[Anonymous No.9955265]

>>9955252
No I wouldn't even know where to begin and would be to afraid of messing up to attempt it.

[Anonymous No.9955276]

>>9955090
This is a good one!

deardiarytodayopwasnotafaggot.jpg

100% certain now that what you have is a pseudo colony of solitary rugose corals dubbed Lambeophyllum. There is a large area called the Cincinnati Arch with Lower to Upper Ordivician rocks. This huge area carries on Southward toward the Tennessee area so fits perfectly with where you found the rock.

There is a not very long pdf from the US Geological Society about the area and the fossils that can be found therein. Link below, well worth the 15min read as it describes your 460 million year old fossil perfectly as well as the area's geology.

https://www.google.es/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1066n/report.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiD_YDtvoTdAhWMAcAKHTSkAl0QFjAJegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw0hczi8TRt4VImIlrQErpLf

[Anonymous No.9955308]

>>9955276
Thank you so much! I didn't understand much of the pdf, but what I did was really interesting. I liked how it showed examples.
The fossil I have is basically the coral on it's side, right? Or rather a bunch of corals on their sides?

[Anonymous No.9955819]

>>9955308
>>9955308
You're welcome anon.

I count 6 individual rugose corals that have stacked themselves forming a pseudo (fake/pretend) colony as rugose corals are individual organisms and precursors to all later (inc. present day) corals which are not singular organisms.

You'll notice some tiny holes in other parts of the sample you have, these feature in the pdf I linked. There are also creamy colored fragments in places. Theae are calcarious deposits of the mashed up soft bits of the rugosa.

Overall, a really nice fossil find. For fun, you can fill in the gaps with plaster or better yet, some silicone rubber (more expensive) and then carefully remove once set. This way you'll be able to see better the detailed complexity of the organism. If you're lucky, you may even get an impression of the 'mouth' that sits in the centre. Usually has 3 triangle shaped 'teeth' as in the illustrations in the pdf.

Thanks for sharing, have a great day

[Anonymous No.9955832]

>>9955819
The silicone rubber can be manufactured via some careful alterations to standard caulking silicone, which dramatically drops the price. Theres teks out there, if you have strong google-fu.

[Anonymous No.9956071]

>>9955832
Indeed, curing it with tin or platinum is what's required. Not an easy thing to do as far as I'm aware, unless you know something I don't. If you do please share because silicon rubber is bl00dy expensive!

[Anonymous No.9956965]

>>9955819
>>9955832
I am no professional so I will probably just buy it outright instead of trying to make my own.
If I use the silicon I'm assuming I can just pull it out? I don't want to risk breaking it since I've kept it safe all these years.

I appreciate your help again kind anon, if you would indulge me one last question.
Is this a rare fossil? I'm assuming not, but the off chance I ever decide to part with it. Is it worth donating or if I'm being more greedy try selling it?

[Anonymous No.9957233]

>>9953681
I'm going with a coral or bryzoan.

Second choice is a mollusc shell, but those ridges inside near the top don't look like any mollusc I know.

[Anonymous No.9957234]

>>9955101
That almost looks like a stack of brachiopods, but I can't think of any process that would stack them that neatly and tightly.

[Anonymous No.9957237]

>>9953765
What about the ones in your head?

[Anonymous No.9957315]

>>9953740
>he never found a cool looking rock on a camping trip and took it home as a souvenir
disgusting

[Anonymous No.9957690]

Based thread.