What's new

Small tooth or claw? Solved---its a Crinoid Spine

Charmin

Bronze Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
2,284
Reaction score
282
Golden Thread
0
Location
Oklahoma
Detector(s) used
White's Prizm III and Ace 250
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Found this at the creek awhile back----I think its a tooth :dontknow: but from what? Or is it a claw? :icon_scratch: It is fossilized and approx. 3/4" in length. Thanks for looking and any help!
sandcreek
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1048 (650x596).webp
    IMG_1048 (650x596).webp
    66.3 KB · Views: 657
  • IMG_1049 (506x625).webp
    IMG_1049 (506x625).webp
    72.1 KB · Views: 634
  • IMG_1050 (646x650).webp
    IMG_1050 (646x650).webp
    101.1 KB · Views: 627
  • IMG_1052 (484x650).webp
    IMG_1052 (484x650).webp
    27.2 KB · Views: 638
  • IMG_1055 (650x426).webp
    IMG_1055 (650x426).webp
    76.5 KB · Views: 633
  • IMG_1057 (650x436).webp
    IMG_1057 (650x436).webp
    85.4 KB · Views: 648
Re: Small tooth or claw?

sandcreek4 said:
Found this at the creek awhile back----I think its a tooth :dontknow: but from what? Or is it a claw? :icon_scratch: It is fossilized and approx. 3/4" in length. Thanks for looking and any help!
sandcreek

Crinoid spine Calyxes

Edited by me. 7/27/2010
 
Re: Small tooth or claw?

reef12 said:
sandcreek4 said:
Found this at the creek awhile back----I think its a tooth :dontknow: but from what? Or is it a claw? :icon_scratch: It is fossilized and approx. 3/4" in length. Thanks for looking and any help!
sandcreek

Crinoid spine
It is?! I thought I'd found something really neat and its just a crinoid spine :tongue3: :D .
Oh well, I'll keep looking.......Someday maybe I'll find a tooth :-[ .
Thanks reef12!!! Appreciate the help!!!
sandcreek~~
 
Re: Small tooth or claw?

I was watching this one, just a crinoid spine? ;D 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)
 
Re: Small tooth or claw?

naturegirl said:
I was watching this one, just a crinoid spine? ;D 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)
;D Me either, naturegirl! I used to pick up every crinoid I would find---I've got a big jar full of them :dontknow: :help: :D . Now I just leave them where they lay unless they are really big.
With all this rain we've been getting maybe it'll wash something good out eventually. (We had a downpour last night.)
sandcreek~~
 
Re: Small tooth or claw?

I, too, am skeptical about that object being a crinoid spine. I'm not certain what the object is, but "crinoid spine" would be low on my guess list. A projection of a crinoid hold-fast would be more likely, I think.
 

Attachments

  • Turbotsville-crinoid-holdfast-001.webp
    Turbotsville-crinoid-holdfast-001.webp
    23.5 KB · Views: 577
Re: Small tooth or claw?

Wow, so there's a chance of finding something like those? It sure looks like yours is a piece of one. ??
 
Re: Small tooth or claw?

naturegirl said:
Wow, so there's a chance of finding something like those? It sure looks like yours is a piece of one. ??
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).
With as many crinoids as we find, why don't we find more of the "hold fast"? :dontknow:
There were also some little stem looking things, too....not sure what they are :icon_scratch: . Here's some pics of the stems.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1091 (650x547).webp
    IMG_1091 (650x547).webp
    103.5 KB · Views: 578
  • IMG_1097 (650x613).webp
    IMG_1097 (650x613).webp
    72.2 KB · Views: 541
Re: Small tooth or claw?

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. :wink:
 
Re: Small tooth or claw?

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. :wink:
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.....

Thanks so much Harry for all the information---But I don't think I want to take a quiz from you :tongue3: :hello: .
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1110 (650x605).webp
    IMG_1110 (650x605).webp
    56.7 KB · Views: 547
  • IMG_1109 (650x440).webp
    IMG_1109 (650x440).webp
    75.2 KB · Views: 514
  • IMG_1111 (650x593).webp
    IMG_1111 (650x593).webp
    62.5 KB · Views: 518
  • IMG_1114 (650x433).webp
    IMG_1114 (650x433).webp
    57.5 KB · Views: 512
  • IMG_1112 (650x405).webp
    IMG_1112 (650x405).webp
    56.7 KB · Views: 530
  • IMG_1113 (650x433).webp
    IMG_1113 (650x433).webp
    61.1 KB · Views: 533
  • IMG_1115 (650x484).webp
    IMG_1115 (650x484).webp
    46.5 KB · Views: 508
  • IMG_1118 (650x386).webp
    IMG_1118 (650x386).webp
    55.9 KB · Views: 514
Re: Small tooth or claw?

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. :wink:
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.....

Thanks so much Harry for all the information---But I don't think I want to take a quiz from you :tongue3: :hello: .
[/quote]
"Brachiopod"? They look like sea shells to me. I collect vertebrate fossils, so I don't know much about these inverts.

Seriously, they could have been brachiopods or pelecepods which were used as a substrate for the bryozoan zooarium. I can't discern enough details to guess which it is. It is common to this day for bryozoans to colonize abandoned valves of pelecepods.

What is the age of these fossils?
 
Re: Small tooth or claw?

Harry Pristis said:
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. :wink:
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.....

Thanks so much Harry for all the information---But I don't think I want to take a quiz from you :tongue3: :hello: .
"Brachiopod"? They look like sea shells to me. I collect vertebrate fossils, so I don't know much about these inverts.

Seriously, they could have been brachiopods or pelecepods which were used as a substrate for the bryozoan zooarium. I can't discern enough details to guess which it is. It is common to this day for bryozoans to colonize abandoned valves of pelecepods.

What is the age of these fossils?

[/quote]You're asking the wrong person :dontknow: ....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.
Thanks again!!
sandcreek~~
 
Re: Small tooth or claw?

The Flint Hills are a small wedge of limestone uplands extending south from Kansas into Osage County, Oklahoma. Their age is Permian (290 - 248 mybp). This relatively-small area of OK is surrounded by exposures of Pennsylvanian and Mississippian age.
 
Re: Small tooth or claw?

Harry Pristis said:
The Flint Hills are a small wedge of limestone uplands extending south from Kansas into Osage County, Oklahoma. Their age is Permian (290 - 248 mybp). This relatively-small area of OK is surrounded by exposures of Pennsylvanian and Mississippian age.
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.

Those last fossils I've posted pictures of are really neat and I've only found them on one small area of the creek. I guess colonies of tiny sea creatures just formed on whatever was laying on the sea floor and these fossils were the result?
Naturegirl--Do you and Buckshot ever find anything like those last fossils I posted?
 
Re: Small tooth or claw?

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? :dontknow:
 
Re: Small tooth or claw?

naturegirl 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? :dontknow:
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 state :dontknow: .

http://www.freewebz.com/oklahomarocks/permian.htm Quote from this website:

"During the Permian, insects flourished and in Elmo, Kansas and further south into Oklahoma, evidence of as many as 20 orders have been catalogued from the era. Amphibians also left a fossil record from the Permian and generally clustered around water holes and streams. Amphibian fossils of the Permian were generally quite large. Similarly, the reptiles also left an abundant fossil record from the Permian."

Wouldn't it be cool to find an amphibian or reptile fossil, naturegirl? Maybe we need to look harder :wink: ::) .
 
Re: Small tooth or claw?

Oh wow, that is good to know. Yes, I do think we need to try harder. Would the most fossils be in the lowest of elevations? I mean the deepest valleys. I know the landscape changed dramatically, but in my mind, i picture the receeding waters staying in the valleys longer, and more life being in those places. Maybe there is no similarities to the landscape today as then. I have a small fossil that I always thought might be a claw, if I can find it I'll post a picture, maybe it's a big ol' lizard claw!
 
Re: Small tooth or claw?

naturegirl said:
Oh wow, that is good to know. Yes, I do think we need to try harder. Would the most fossils be in the lowest of elevations? I mean the deepest valleys. I know the landscape changed dramatically, but in my mind, i picture the receeding waters staying in the valleys longer, and more life being in those places. Maybe there is no similarities to the landscape today as then. I have a small fossil that I always thought might be a claw, if I can find it I'll post a picture, maybe it's a big ol' lizard claw!
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.

Please do post that "lizard claw" you have, naturegirl......I bet Harry Pristis could tell you what(and if) it really is one :icon_thumleft: .
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom