Belemite Hooklet?

Roz

Pygmy Octopus
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
8

I was wondering if this is a belemite hooklet for sure? I broke it by mistake right after I found it. It was found in a cretaceous site.
 

Attachments

  • conv_302632.jpg
    conv_302632.jpg
    361.3 KB · Views: 211

Phil

TONMO Supporter
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
3,034
Hi Roz, and welcome.

This looks familiar somehow, but I can't place it. Have you posted it elsewhere on the internet?

My gut instinct is to say no, I'm afraid. From what I've seen, the shape is too curved for one thing, hooks had sharp points. Obviously it could have been worn down, but one can try to extrapolate the original shape from its pre-eroded state. I think the biggest stumbling block is the size, belemnite hooks were very small, maybe only a few millimetres long and this looks much larger. Don't forget that belemnites had two rows of these things on each arm and ten arms in total, scaling that up from the size of your fossil implies the belemnite would have been massive.

I assume you found this in the US? The largest belemnite was Megateuthis which is, as far as I know, unknown from the US and is mainly found in Europe and Indonesia. Also, hooks are very rarely preserved which makes the chances of you finding one very remote indeed I'm afraid.

Apologies for an unwelcome answer. Now we have to work out what it actually is of course!
 
Upvote 0

Roz

Pygmy Octopus
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
8
Yes, it was found in Arkansas, south western part of the state. I did post it on the fossil forum right after I found it. I'm a bit disappointed but I may live. Anything you can tell me would be appreciated and thanks!
 
Upvote 0

Architeuthoceras

Architeuthis
Staff member
Moderator (Staff)
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
2,460
:welcome: Roz

I am quite sure it is a small Rudist bivalve. This from someone who spent the weekend picking up Pinyon pine nut shells and Juniper berries thinking they were small goniatites (I have learned to avoid the deer droppings). :oops:
 
Upvote 0

Roz

Pygmy Octopus
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
8
Thanks for the information. Yes, I can identify with picking up many heavy things that I am sure are fossils only to find out later that a lot of it is rock.

I'll have to do my homework on the rudist then. I know a bit about bivalves but not much about the rudist.

Thanks:smile:
 
Upvote 0

Phil

TONMO Supporter
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
3,034
Roz said:
Yes, I can identify with picking up many heavy things that I am sure are fossils only to find out later that a lot of it is rock.

Don't worry about it Roz, I'm sure we've all done it at some point. Three years ago or so I posted images of a tooth I found on a beach to a couple of fossil forums to identify as I thought it was a Cretaceous marine reptile, but it turned out it was a fox. What an idiot.
 
Upvote 0

Roz

Pygmy Octopus
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
8
Thank you all for the great inforamtion and Kevin with the link...I believe that I found it... Titanosarcolites!~

I have since found more and they have to be rudist then.

Here are some more, ignore those 2 other things unless you know what they are!:lol:

I think the second picture may be pyrite belemnites. Found in an old quarry, maybe cretaceous as I found a small mosasur vert there also.
What do you think?
 

Attachments

  • conv_289308.jpg
    conv_289308.jpg
    436.1 KB · Views: 165
  • conv_289309.jpg
    conv_289309.jpg
    390.4 KB · Views: 139
Upvote 0

Architeuthoceras

Architeuthis
Staff member
Moderator (Staff)
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
2,460
Roz said:
I think the second picture may be pyrite belemnites.
...
What do you think?

They have the right internal structure, but the external shape leaves something to be desired, still they look very close to those cretaceous belemnites found on the east coast. Would need to see more and better preserved fossils for a better ID. :cool2:
 
Upvote 0

Phil

TONMO Supporter
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
3,034
Roz said:
Thank you all for the great inforamtion and Kevin with the link...I believe that I found it... Titanosarcolites!~

I've just found an interesting photo of Titanosarcolites, comparing one to a geological hammer. Fascinating, I had no idea that these things grew so large; I thought they grew up to finger length size at most. Obviously not!

http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/sediment/rudinet/images/titashaw.jpg

Would there be any chance of a close up photo on the 'belemnite' fragments please?
 
Upvote 0

Architeuthoceras

Architeuthis
Staff member
Moderator (Staff)
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
2,460
Rudists were the primary component of reefs in the late cretaceous, if you were going to have a reef tank back then it would probably be full of rudists instead of coral. The author of This Page, thinks the rudists in the late cretaceous took all the reef space away from the corals, maybe they grew so large just to block any coral that tried to get established. :cool2:


Roz, if you could find one of those fossils showing a portion of the phragmocone that would verify they are belemnites. They are starting to look like pyrite replaced coprolites to me.
 
Upvote 0
Top