but from what? Or is it a claw? 
It is fossilized and approx. 3/4" in length. Thanks for looking and any help!sandcreek4 said:Found this at the creek awhile back----I think its a tooth
sandcreek
It is?! I thought I'd found something really neat and its just a crinoid spinereef12 said:sandcreek4 said:Found this at the creek awhile back----I think its a tooth
sandcreek
Crinoid spine
. 
.
I thought it looked like a claw maybe. It's still different, how many of those have you found compared to the number of crinoids laying around? It's different, cool find in my book. Keep looking Sandcreek, one of us HAS to find an awsome fossil! (Oh yeah, I had no idea crinoids had spines)
naturegirl said:I was watching this one, just a crinoid spine?
Me either, naturegirl! I used to pick up every crinoid I would find---I've got a big jar full of them 
. Now I just leave them where they lay unless they are really big. 
So, you think its probably something like this, Harry? (This picture came off of google images) http://digsfossils.com/fossils/pics/Turbotsville-crinoid-holdfast-001.jpgHarry Pristis said:
This is the only one of these I've ever found and I found it on a little bitty gravel bar on the bend of the creek(where a bunch of small gravel had lodged in the bend.....I always like to look that small gravel for arrowheads cause they seem to get caught up in that stuff).naturegirl said:
. Here's some pics of the stems.
Yes, I was wondering about those "dimples" on the stems. Did these tiny animals(zooecium) attach themselves to other things, forming what looks like "layers"? I've found some hump-back shaped fossils with the dimples. It looks like there are remnants of a brachiopod( is that right?) on the bottom of some of these fossils. Here's some pics.....Harry Pristis said:The "stem" seems to be a portion of the skeleton of a colonial animal such as a coral or a branching bryozoan. I believe it to be a bryozoan fossil.
Each dimple - a zooecium, if it's a bryozoan - covering the stem is evidence of an individual animal. The bryozoan skeleton - the "stem" - is called a "zooarium."
There will be a quiz later.
.
Yes, I was wondering about those "dimples" on the stems. Did these tiny animals(zooecium) attach themselves to other things, forming what looks like "layers"? I've found some hump-back shaped fossils with the dimples. It looks like there are remnants of a brachiopod( is that right?) on the bottom of some of these fossils. Here's some pics.....Harry Pristis said:The "stem" seems to be a portion of the skeleton of a colonial animal such as a coral or a branching bryozoan. I believe it to be a bryozoan fossil.
Each dimple - a zooecium, if it's a bryozoan - covering the stem is evidence of an individual animal. The bryozoan skeleton - the "stem" - is called a "zooarium."
There will be a quiz later.
.
"Brachiopod"? They look like sea shells to me. I collect vertebrate fossils, so I don't know much about these inverts.Harry Pristis said:Yes, I was wondering about those "dimples" on the stems. Did these tiny animals(zooecium) attach themselves to other things, forming what looks like "layers"? I've found some hump-back shaped fossils with the dimples. It looks like there are remnants of a brachiopod( is that right?) on the bottom of some of these fossils. Here's some pics.....Harry Pristis said:The "stem" seems to be a portion of the skeleton of a colonial animal such as a coral or a branching bryozoan. I believe it to be a bryozoan fossil.
Each dimple - a zooecium, if it's a bryozoan - covering the stem is evidence of an individual animal. The bryozoan skeleton - the "stem" - is called a "zooarium."
There will be a quiz later.
Thanks so much Harry for all the information---But I don't think I want to take a quiz from you
....I was hoping you could tell me more about them and how old. I'm in the northern part of Oklahoma, Harry, in the Flint Hills, if that would help any with age of these fossils.
That was during the Paleozoic Era, right? I think this part of Oklahoma was covered with shallow seas. There is a hill, north of where I live, that is covered with huge horn corral----It is just beautiful to see! When I was a little girl my grandpa used to take me there to collect it.Harry Pristis said:
Yes, trying to ID the fossils I've found has been a bugger---I looked at all the sites online for "common" Oklahoma fossils and couldn't find much of anything---they say most Okla. fossils are found in the southern part of the statenaturegirl said:Nothing like that -yet. But it seems everytime we go out, we are finding more. I guess the eyes have to train to pick up the fossils the same way they do for flint and points. I'm just as happy with a fossil as a point. Trying to Id them is a bugger though. There doesn't seem to be much online for Okla. But the Kansas info is good for us too. I think most of what I find is from the Pennsylvian age, and the oil was formed during the Permian age, so I figure that's going to be most of what we find?
. 
.
Most of the fossils I find are on the "lowest of elevations"---the gravel bars/creeks that produce the most fossils for me are next to really tall rocky bluffs......which would only be logical I guess....I never find anything on the creek where its level with the surrounding terrain.naturegirl said:
.
