GuidesMagazineShopBuy FossilsJoin Hunts
Rudston

Thanks,
that looks like it,
I cleaned off the back and there is no definition to any part beyond the small shelly part which was probably a shell.
Ammonite impression, thanks
 
 
Quote 0 0
Rudston



Hi,



This is my first post as Iƒ¢¢â€š¬¢â€ž¢m struggling to identify my
latest find, I think itƒ¢¢â€š¬¢â€ž¢s a fossil.



I found this last week at Speeton, about 100m south of the
large fall, opposite the blocks. It is quite fragile. I thought it was bone but
it does not show the expected signs of joints. Any ideas would be welcome.
Thanks ,  Rudston



[attach:fileid=uploads/3387/141023_Speeton_beds.jpg]141023_fossil.jpg 141023_fossil_1.jpg 141023_fossil_2.jpg 
Quote 0 0
prep01
Welcome Keith. Not been to Speeton, but they look like paddle or flipper bones to me - the equivalent to metatarsals. Very nice find!

Edited by prep01 2014-10-31 20:01:09
Colin Huller
Quote 0 0
deltapodus
Have you got a photo taken from the opposite side?

Finally found bone[biggrin]
Quote 0 0
deltapodus
Forgot to add - made me think sacral vertebrae.

Finally found bone[biggrin]
Quote 0 0
Rudston

Thanks for the replies,
Photos from the sides, underneath is still Speeton clay, now quite solid. I can't see any sign of joints for a paddle, sacrum? =  sacroiliac? 141023_fossil_4.jpg 141023_fossil_5.jpg 141023_fossil_3.jpg 
Quote 0 0
ThomasM
I think this is a phosphatic cast of where a large ammonite lay, note the pieces of aragonite shell still adhering to it. Also in situ to can see how it's curved slightly.
Thomas

If you don't look, you won't find.
Quote 0 0
deltapodus
Now I've seen it from the other side, the curve on the "ribs"  would rule out a sacrum. Thomas' answer has me convinced.
Finally found bone[biggrin]
Quote 0 0
Rudston

Thanks for your help,
 I think you are right.
An impression would explain the shape and lack of 'joints' to the structure.
I expect an impression to look like its 'grown' out of the background material ie have no structure underneath, and that's how its mostly looks. 
Just to be sure of this identification,  I soaked one of the 'toes' to remove the clay from the underside. An impression should have no shape underneath?
The 'toe' I chose did have what looked like a 'shell' on the underside, I think that maybe a fluke and so I'm going to soak some more.toe_top.jpg toe_underneath.jpg 
 
 
Quote 0 0
Doggerfan
I also agree with Thomas. That was my first thought as I saw the in situ photo.
Best wishes from the Lake of Constance. Roger.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...


Discussions on fossils, fossil hunting, rocks, locations, and identifying your finds.
(C)opyright 2019 - UKGE Ltd and UK Fossils - Contact us