|
|
Post by Peruano on Jul 24, 2014 7:13:55 GMT -5
Tom, Your fossil from the store is one of a large group of marine reptiles characteristically with very elongate necks and relatively small heads. Hence what you might have been tempted to call the lure, is the head and neck. If I'm not mistaken they are mosasaurs, but there probably were many other aquatic reptile groups that had that general body form. I wouldn't be surprised to see the paddles (limbs) missing from most fossils as they are in this one. I'm too lazy to check but its a reptile.
As to the Fish I'd go with the possibility that the structure above the tip of the snout may be extraneous, i.e. not part of that specimen. Things often are fossilized in juxtaposition with other things and hence present confusing pictures. My bet would be that its not a lure, and not part of that fish (or in the correct position if it is).
I wish the state of things was such that you could take something like that to any close university and get it identified, but it just ain't so. Fish paleontologists are pretty rare breed. Maybe there are 70 in the country that could give you a real id if they worked on it for weeks (or faster if it indeed came from a real well studied fauna and was a perfectly complete specimen).
Giving you a cruder guess as to what it might be might be possible by twice that many, but most zoologists are going to look at it and say its a fish fossil and out of their kin. Paleontology is a vastly more complicated field than most folks realize and when it comes to being an expert on a specific group there often are only 3 or 4 people that can claim such knowledge. I realize you might be seeking more general characteriztion, but still that is something that would take a regional or highly trained paleontology researcher, and not likely to be found but at major museums or specialized situations in a university. Just saying. Tom
|
|
Tom
fully equipped rock polisher
My dad Tom suddenly passed away yesterday, Just wanted his "rock" family to know.
Member since January 2013
Posts: 1,557
|
Post by Tom on Jul 24, 2014 8:53:32 GMT -5
Tom, that's a really good explanation of the reptile and the world of identification. I would have thought there to be more pro's in the universities and museums. Thanks for the explanation of both the store fossil and the fish fossil. Always learning.
Tom
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller 
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,600
|
Post by jamesp on Jul 24, 2014 9:12:36 GMT -5
This fellow may help. The Florida section of the 'Fossil Forum' gets help from Richard on a regular basis. He is the Florida state paleontologist.
Florida requires a permit for collecting vertebrate fossils and if not mistaken your finds are supposed to be shown to him.
He may or may not help you on an out of state fossil but it is worth a try.
Another idea is to post it on the Fossil Forum in the section of the state the fossil was found. I can not speak for other states but the Florida
collectors are advanced hobby paleontologists quite capable of ID. I know that the Fossil Forum frowns on posting an Oregon fossil in the
Florida section since I posted a Montana fossil for a friend in the Florida section and was asked not to. But collectors from all over the nation
visit all sections of this forum. Mention of angler fish or lizard should draw attention.
Dr. Richard Hulbert
Program of Vertebrate Paleontology
Florida Museum of Natural History
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Tel: (352)273-1821
|
|
|
|
Post by Peruano on Jul 24, 2014 17:05:32 GMT -5
James, While wagers may be illegal on the forum, I'm in possession of a nice piece of horn coral thats yours if he says anything more specific than "its a fish; its a toothy fish; or maybe its a fish, but I can't say without more material, more time, and better information. Let me know if I owe you a piece of coral. Tom
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,600
|
Post by jamesp on Jul 24, 2014 22:36:59 GMT -5
James, While wagers may be illegal on the forum, I'm in possession of a nice piece of horn coral thats yours if he says anything more specific than "its a fish; its a toothy fish; or maybe its a fish, but I can't say without more material, more time, and better information. Let me know if I owe you a piece of coral. Tom That guy is thorough. You may be right but if you look at the Florida section of the Fossil Forum you may be impressed with these guys. They are serious and show deep intellect about some complicated ID's. However most of the work is with mammals. And fish may throw him. He may still have knowledge of the fossil in this thread. He does give a phone number making him accessible. I may try him. It's worth a try. We could call it an offer instead of a wager... |
|
|
|
Post by Peruano on Jul 25, 2014 7:24:05 GMT -5
I could be way wrong. There are people with extremely broad knowledge and a willingness to invest time to meet a public need.
In many ways there are way more fossils (many inadequately preserved or documented) than there is time to study them. The complexities of the fossil record are innumerable, and that forces most paleo folks to be specialists and to speak with caution outside their special fields of expertise. On the other hand some species of animals got preserved in such large numbers they are easy to recognize. I had an undergrad job working for a man who specialized in research on fossil snakes of Florida (mostly Pleistocene). So being relatively recent, he could compare with living groups, something that is harder when you go back 40, 50, or 100 million years. Talk about a specialty, and talk about lack of clues as to what that vertebra was - he was a patient man and a great mentor for a budding zoologist. Thanks Alan. Tom
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,600
|
Post by jamesp on Jul 25, 2014 11:10:32 GMT -5
I could be way wrong. There are people with extremely broad knowledge and a willingness to invest time to meet a public need. In many ways there are way more fossils (many inadequately preserved or documented) than there is time to study them. The complexities of the fossil record are innumerable, and that forces most paleo folks to be specialists and to speak with caution outside their special fields of expertise. On the other hand some species of animals got preserved in such large numbers they are easy to recognize. I had an undergrad job working for a man who specialized in research on fossil snakes of Florida (mostly Pleistocene). So being relatively recent, he could compare with living groups, something that is harder when you go back 40, 50, or 100 million years. Talk about a specialty, and talk about lack of clues as to what that vertebra was - he was a patient man and a great mentor for a budding zoologist. Thanks Alan. Tom Florida has no dino fossils. But a wealth of mammals. I worried about the age of the fish in this post after I posted the state paleontologist. However, he does work w/the forum and it is odd but open minded that Florida has collectors report their finds to a state paid paleontologist. I credit Florida for their interest. The answer to the issue in this thread may boil down to how much he knows of course, as he is a paleontologist. What you said about 'large numbers of animals' is the truth. And Florida has cultivated a large number of collectors helping to spread the knowledge. It is an interesting arrangement. And backed w/an extensive collection and fossil data bank accessible by us on the net. The ID part motivates people a lot. They want to know what part of what animal the fossil belongs to or what it is. This particular thread is a good challenge. I still think it is an angler fish. Probably a slim chance. All those teeth like structures are swaying me. Holding out and seeing where it settles. If it were a fossil angler it would draw big attention. Worth pursuing... |
|
