Predation marks

Flex68 · Jan 26, 2014

We have found numerous items over the years with interesting predation / feeding marks, but this is our 'best' in terms of the most for its size.... only 6" long x >2" wide, and with at least 10 distinct bite marks.

TJE · Jan 26, 2014

Any info on the age/type..of fossil matrix F68.

Ninjafossils · Jan 26, 2014

Whale bone with shark predation marks?

GatorBoy · Jan 26, 2014

It does look like shark.

Harry Pristis · Jan 26, 2014

These marks on the bone seem to be lighter colored than the bone, indicating they were caused AFTER the bone was exposed, already a fossil. No self-respecting shark would be chewing on a fossil bone.

Shark bite marks tend to be groups of near-parallel scratches because of the multiple teeth employed.

Flex68 · Jan 26, 2014

Harry Pristis said:
These marks on the bone seem to be lighter colored than the bone, indicating they were caused AFTER the bone was exposed, already a fossil. No self-respecting shark would be chewing on a fossil bone.

Shark bite marks tend to be groups of near-parallel scratches because of the multiple teeth employed.

Now that is hilarious. I shouldn't even attempt to respond, but there is plenty of information available to explain how different densities of bone fossilize; how damage changes the manner in which flat surfaces mineralize; the differences between fossilization of long bone surfaces, vertebrae, and internal/porous/broken bone; the effects of 'weathering' on bones bearing predation marks; the differences between a 'frontal' bite mark from elliptical/arced mouths and a distal or posterior bite; and etc.
I will say, however, that such uneducated comments are clearly coming from someone who has held very few examples of bone that bear predation marks.
Troll elsewhere, please

Yes, it is likely whale bone, and no way to know for certain that it was sharks doing the work/damage, although that is certainly a possibility. It is from the PCS mine in NC, and the age range on this reworked fossil is going to fall between the Pliocene and Miocene, or about 2 to 24 mya.

GatorBoy · Jan 26, 2014

Yes there's a lot of examples that look like yours.
It's a cool piece thanks for showing

Ninjafossils · Jan 26, 2014

Flex68 said:
Now that is hilarious. I shouldn't even attempt to respond, but there is plenty of information available to explain how different densities of bone fossilize; how damage changes the manner in which flat surfaces mineralize; the differences between fossilization of long bone surfaces, vertebrae, and internal/porous/broken bone; the effects of 'weathering' on bones bearing predation marks; the differences between a 'frontal' bite mark from elliptical/arced mouths and a distal or posterior bite; and etc. I will say, however, that such uneducated comments are clearly coming from someone who has held very few examples of bone that bear predation marks. Troll elsewhere, please Yes, it is likely whale bone, and no way to know for certain that it was sharks doing the work/damage, although that is certainly a possibility. It is from the PCS mine in NC, and the age range on this reworked fossil is going to fall between the Pliocene and Miocene, or about 2 to 24 mya.

Jeez man calm done. He is just giving his opinion and not trolling. You can say you disagree and state why, but try to not insult people.

GatorBoy · Jan 26, 2014

" no self-respecting shark would be chewing on a fossil bone"
Was more than an opinion.. And contained an attitude that would have bothered me as well.
Making a joke of that gentleman's opinion and my comment at the same time

GatorBoy · Jan 26, 2014

Flex68 · Jan 26, 2014

Ninjafossils said:
Jeez man calm done. He is just giving his opinion and not trolling. You can say you disagree and state why, but try to not insult people.

lol, I am perfectly calm, Ninja... and there is a distinct difference in offering an opinion and typing in what appears to be a 'factual' rebuttal of what I know to be true, IMHO.
Whether trolling, or simply uneducated, really doesn't matter, I suppose. Either way, my response offered no insults....just facts.

TJE · Jan 26, 2014

Hmmm, been out shovelin 3 ft. of snow..just back, think I'll go back out and finish it!

GatorBoy · Jan 26, 2014

TJE said:
Hmmm, been out shovelin 3 ft. of snow..just back, think I'll go back out and finish it!

The answer to your question was 2-24 mya

Harry Pristis · Jan 26, 2014

Flex68 said:
Now that is hilarious. I shouldn't even attempt to respond, but there is plenty of information available to explain how different densities of bone fossilize; how damage changes the manner in which flat surfaces mineralize; the differences between fossilization of long bone surfaces, vertebrae, and internal/porous/broken bone; the effects of 'weathering' on bones bearing predation marks; the differences between a 'frontal' bite mark from elliptical/arced mouths and a distal or posterior bite; and etc.
I will say, however, that such uneducated comments are clearly coming from someone who has held very few examples of bone that bear predation marks.
Troll elsewhere, please
Yes, it is likely whale bone, and no way to know for certain that it was sharks doing the work/damage, although that is certainly a possibility. It is from the PCS mine in NC, and the age range on this reworked fossil is going to fall between the Pliocene and Miocene, or about 2 to 24 mya.

Goodness! You seem to be a bit thin-skinned, flex68.

I can assure you that my opinion of your bone scrap is just that, an opinion. I have given you the logic behind that opinion. You OTOH have given us your bald assertion "that there is plenty of information available" to explain how light-colored scratches can appear on dark bone. I invite you to share that information with us.

You've already acknowledged that your bone scrap is reworked. That means transport from the original deposition. The scrap is from a mine with may mean abrasions from excavating machines.

You've acknowledged that you cannot know for certain what made the scratches. Why then have you reacted so vehemently when I suggested the marks were not made by a shark? Let's just stick to the evidence, can we.

Flex68 · Jan 26, 2014

Harry Pristis said:
Goodness! You seem to be a bit thin-skinned, flex68.

I can assure you that my opinion of your bone scrap is just that, an opinion. I have given you the logic behind that opinion. You OTOH have given us your bald assertion "that there is plenty of information available" to explain how light-colored scratches can appear on dark bone. I invite you to share that information with us.

You've already acknowledged that your bone scrap is reworked. That means transport from the original deposition. The scrap is from a mine with may mean abrasions from excavating machines.

You've acknowledged that you cannot know for certain what made the scratches. Why then have you reacted so vehemently when I suggested the marks were not made by a shark? Let's just stick to the evidence, can we.

Not going to try to compete with a forum Einstein.
As I posted earlier, I had no doubt that any input from me would be a waste of typing.... fooey on me for trying.

Non the nonce, your 'opinion' has no value to me, and little value to anyone who possesses any semblance of knowledge or field experience.

I know what I have learned over many years, and-----based upon your posts----- I realize what you have yet to learn..... or, as I posited earlier, perhaps you are simply trolling.

Makes little difference which, at this point: ignorance or singular offensiveness, you aren't worth any more of my time or attention.

Best regards,
Flex

PS: My wife and I just enjoyed a good laugh as I scrolled back through your comments about the photo I posted..... thanks for that.

Ninjafossils · Jan 26, 2014

Well from all of us at treasure net.com we wish a good evening and a your welcome for the "entertainment". All I'm saying is I've known Harry for two years now from 3 forums, and one thing he doesn't do is "troll". His opinion is just that: an opinion. Notice he really didn't insult you because he knows it's not a big deal. Now you seem to think otherwise. Please. Just let it go. And mentioning your "wife", that has zero relevance and is possibly the most common argument lose rebound technique.

Peyton Manning · Jan 26, 2014

wow such emotion and it's the freakin internet! serenity now serenity now!

Flex68 · Jan 26, 2014

Ninjafossils said:
Well from all of us at treasure net.com we wish a good evening and a your welcome for the "entertainment". All I'm saying is I've known Harry for two years now from 3 forums, and one thing he doesn't do is "troll". His opinion is just that: an opinion. Notice he really didn't insult you because he knows it's not a big deal. Now you seem to think otherwise. Please. Just let it go. And mentioning your "wife", that has zero relevance and is possibly the most common argument lose rebound technique.

lol, fair enough, Ninja. And thanks for responding on behalf of all of TNet.
For whatever it might be worth to a "yes man" such as yourself, my wife has found more fossils than I have, and I don't expect either of you to recognize the entertainment value we find in such inane comments.

I am the 'newb' on this forum, without a doubt....catch me on a foolish comment regarding MDing, and I will agree it is fair enough....but your trust in the 'knowledge' offered by someone who is "on 3 forums" is laughable, in context.

The reworked fossil did not get the bite marks from mining. It was marked in respective geologic time, and was weathered-out over a period of about 2-5 years in the matrix we hunted and located it in.

As I indicated, my intent to engage in a 'who knows the most' with someone who is clearly without adequate experience garners me nothing. But I have to say that your comments are even more laughable than those you support, and who propose to "know."

The photo was posted as an example of what was found..... "self respecting sharks chewing on fossilize bone" not withstanding.

Have you ever been into the PCS mine? Have you ever searched tailings from that, or any other phosphate mine?

You are welcome to carry his flag as far as is feasible.... no skin off my nose.

But you'll earn the same recognition he earns..... or as the old Forrest Gump quotation goes...... well, you can Google that as easily as you can Google what I offered as explanation for the appearance of the predation marks.

I could offer photos of all the bone my wife and I have found over the past 15 years containing predation marks..... the conical predation of mosasaur, the frontal bite of Auriculatus, the bite marks of Charcharodon with a missing front tooth........ just curious when the lip-service from you and your guy ends, and your photos begin?

But I am sure the contention will never end, just as the photos will never begin.

Happy Hunting!