5
   

Fossil find stumps experts

 
 
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2012 11:16 am
Quote:

DAYTON, Ohio—Experts are trying to figure out what a fossil dubbed "Godzillus" used to be.

The 150-pound fossil recovered last year in northern Kentucky is more than 6 feet long and 3 feet wide. To the untrained eye, it looks like a bunch of rocks or a concrete blob. Experts are trying to determine whether it was an animal, mineral or a form of plant life from a time when the Cincinnati region was underwater.

Scientists at a Geological Society of America meeting viewed it Tuesday at the Dayton Convention Center in Ohio.

"We are looking for people who might have an idea of what it is," said Ben Dattilo, an assistant professor of geology at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.

Scientists say the fossil is 450 million years old. University of Cincinnati geologist Carl Brett said it's the largest fossil ever extracted from that era in the Cincinnati region.

"This is the ultimate cold case," said Ron Fine, the Dayton, Ohio, amateur paleontologist who spotted the fossil on a hillside last year and gave it its name.

"Like Godzilla, it's a primordial beast that found its way to the modern era," Fine said. Now 43, he's been collecting fossils since age 4, and said he saw part of this one on a hillside off Kentucky 17 nearly a year ago.

"Most fossils around here are small, the size of your thumbnail or your thumb," he said. "This thing's huge."

He said it could be an early form of seaweed or kelp.

"This one has us stumped," said David Meyer, another UC geology professor. Fine shared his find last September at a meeting of the Dry Dredgers, a group of amateur geologists.

Meyer, who wrote a book called "A Sea Without Fish" about the era, said the fossil has intricate patterns that remind him of "goose flesh. Some of its surface also looks like scales. But this thing is not boney. It is not a fish."

He guesses it could have been something like a sponge.

"Cincinnati was covered by a sea, 100 to 200 feet deep," Meyer said. "Primitive shellfish lived in it. But no fish."


http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2012/04/25/ohio_mans_fossil_find_in_kentucky_stumps_experts/?camp=obinsite

Any thoughts, paleontology experts? All views welcome.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 1,622 • Replies: 14
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2012 11:28 am
Patayta . . . it's gotta be a giant, pre-historic patayta . . .
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2012 11:59 am
@Setanta,
You sure you got the right spelling, Set? I tried to Google 'patayta' and came up with zip.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2012 12:29 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Maybe patayta is a Greek word meaning 'zip'.
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2012 12:44 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

You sure you got the right spelling, Set? I tried to Google 'patayta' and came up with zip.


What kinda irishman are ya anyway?

Patayta!

The things you used to make freedom fries and mashed patayta's!
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2012 12:47 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
450Mya puts it in the late Ordovician period. There was a mass extinction around then. There were lots of jawless fished. Maybe some sharks. Ammonites.

A pebbly skin texture could have been quite common, and some of these things were probably very large. They're going to have to give/get more detail on the fossil to identify it. "Large and Pebbly" doesn't narrow it down much.

Meyers says it's not a fish, but that still leaves a lot of possibilities. I'm not sure why Meyer's says there were no fish around. Unless this is older than 450Mya.

http://members.wolfram.com/jeffb/Fossils/ordovicsea.gif

http://www.rareresource.com/images/dinosaurs/JawlessFishes/Tremataspis.png
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2012 12:48 pm
@chai2,
btw I used to know a nurse, Christine who was from Ireland. REALLY heavy accent. When she moved to the U.S. she ended up marrying a man whose last name was Schwartz

It was so incredibly cute when she said her name.

I'm Christine Schwartz, and I'm making me husband Joel some patayta's for dinner.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2012 12:52 pm
You people are slow this morning (it's still morning here). My post was supposed to be just as facetious as Set's. I'm fum Boston, fachrissake, where there is no other way to pronounce the word. Well, maybe 'batayta' once in a while.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2012 12:54 pm
@rosborne979,
How about large mounds of plants like stromatolites? without seein the dam thing, wed be shootin skeeters with a bee bee gun here.

Im sure it aont a spud cause spuds are angiosperms. No angiosperms in the Ordovician.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2012 01:02 pm
@farmerman,
I heard recently that, along the Cretaceous outcrops along the Western SHore of the Chesapeake, an archeological expedition turned up a Mid Cretaceous fossil from depths deeper than the archeo dig was concerned with.

Seems that Paleo Indians , dining along the PAtuxent, had dug up and used a Cretaceous dinos vertebra as a cooking pot. The vertebra had a spherical concavity where the interossicle "Pillows" lie and hook the vertebrae togetther . The notochord in above this segment so the concave segement was like a small pot. There we have a fossil dug up by Indians who then used ot for a pot (It was all covered with charring and had some stuff still stuck to its insides).
Then the Indians abandoned their camp and left it for about 9000 years when a bunch of archeologists, digging as part of a runway extension project near Dulles AP (Or whatever the hell they call it b=now) Kewl.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2012 02:26 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
How about large mounds of plants like stromatolites? without seein the dam thing, wed be shootin skeeters with a bee bee gun here.
I agree. Without more information it could be almost anything.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2012 02:41 pm
@rosborne979,
Don't know if you checked the picture under my link. Frankly, that doesn't show much either.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2012 03:09 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
I looked at the photo on the original article but the resolution isn't all that good and all it looks like is a pile of flat rocks. Can't tell much from that.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2012 05:31 pm
@rosborne979,
ditto. It looks a lot like "patterned ground" or "sole marks" that are actually suboceanic ripple and tidal marks. Apparently they dont really want any opinions or else they would post detailed pix and better pix without all the "guests"
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2012 06:08 pm
@chai2,
Them boys is dense . . .

I won't be havin' no dinner wit'out no pataytas!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The fossil I found - Question by Gampawil1
Is this some kind of fossil - Question by vince8388
Are these fossils ? - Question by vince8388
Fossil database - Question by mdpepper1
rock with fossil? - Question by tlatoanitzin
What are these stone's circles? - Question by tlatoanitzin
Turtle Was the Size of a Small Car - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fossil find stumps experts
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/26/2019 at 12:06:47