From 93a5d40d71652fcd9fb6caded44254c49dc140e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mik3cap Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:27:34 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Second backyard data file --- .../data/Public_Inquiries_2015_Sep-Oct.csv | 1593 +++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 1593 insertions(+) create mode 100644 challenges/Backyard-Expedition-App/data/Public_Inquiries_2015_Sep-Oct.csv diff --git a/challenges/Backyard-Expedition-App/data/Public_Inquiries_2015_Sep-Oct.csv b/challenges/Backyard-Expedition-App/data/Public_Inquiries_2015_Sep-Oct.csv new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0991580 --- /dev/null +++ b/challenges/Backyard-Expedition-App/data/Public_Inquiries_2015_Sep-Oct.csv @@ -0,0 +1,1593 @@ +FOSSIL ID,Date,INQUIRY ID,AMNH ID,FOSSIL?,INQUIRY EMAIL,AMNH RESPONSE EMAIL +70,1 Sep 2015,Rather large bone (presumably not fossil),Tuna bone,N,"From: Robert
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 8:43 PM 
Subject: Identification +Hello again Mr. Mehling! +I usually contact you with my fossil finds, but I came across a rather large bone that is hard to identify, is there a person at the museum I could contact about identifying that?  +Unfortunately the last identification day was during my finals and I could not make it, is there any coming up? +As always, thank you for your time, +RJ + +From: Robert 
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 5:20 PM 
Subject: Re: Identification +I finally got home to take some pictures! +This is that weird bone that was found on the beach in NJ that I have been unable to identify. If you have any insight I would greatly appreciate it! Sorry if the ruler is hard to see, it is a 16 inch ruler and the bone is about 14 inches long. +Thanks as always! +RJ","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 1:35 PM
To: 'Robert'
Subject: RE: Identification +Hi RJ, +Feel free to send me shots of the bone. Please email me very sharp photos (no more than 5 and no larger than 500k) that include scale. If I can’t help I can ask around. The next ID Day won’t be until probably next spring. +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:35 PM
To: 'Robert'
Cc: Radford
Subject: RE: Identification +Hi RJ, +Thanks for the photos. This is definitely from a fish but I can’t do any better than that, sadly. However, I have cc’d here my good friend Radford Arrindell who is a Senior Scientific Assistant in our Department of Ichthyology. He should be able to tell you something more useful! +Best,
Carl + +From: Radford
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 4:15 PM
To: Carl Mehling; Robert
Subject: RE: Identification +Hi Carl/Robert, +I have checked the skeletal collection here and we are sure that what you have is part of the left pectoral girdle from a tuna. Exactly which species is difficult to say but definitely Thunnus sp. +Cheers +Rad + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 4:02 PM
To: Radford; Robert
Subject: RE: Identification +Thanks, Rad! + +[See also 14 Dec 2014, 10 Jan 2015]" +71,3 Sep 2015,Fossils,"Productid brachiopod, unknown impression, Syringopora-like coral, horn coral ",Y,"From: Courtney
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 10:57 AM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: I found some fossils in upstate NY, but I can't identify them...Can you help? Thanks!! + +From: Courtney
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 12:54 PM +Subject: Re: I found some fossils in upstate NY, but I can't identify them...Can you help? Thanks!! +Hi Carl, +Thank you for responding to my email and so quickly! I have been very interested in finding out what they are since I found them a week ago, so I really appreciate the answers! Thanks again! +-Courtney","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 12:41 PM
To: 'Courtney'
Subject: RE: I found some fossils in upstate NY, but I can't identify them...Can you help? Thanks!! +Hi Courtney, +Thanks for your email. You found some fun things there. +The first one (the two impressions in rock) is a bit hard to read but at least one impression is a brachiopod. It seems to be a spiny productid brachiopod: those tiny pits represent the molds of the spines which will extend into the rock. Compare it to this: https://woostergeologists.scotblogs.wooster.edu/2014/07/18/woosters-fossils-of-the-week-silicified-productid-brachiopods-from-the-permian-of-west-texas/. The other impression seems to be a mold of a shell or a coral - hard to say.   +The second (the ribbed cylinders) appear to be some kind of coral, maybe something like Syringopora. +The last one (like a flower) is probably a horn coral. +All of these animals were common in the Devonian Period (~354-409 million years ago) and there is certainly a lot of Devonian rock upstate, so that is my best guess. Nice finds! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 1:52 PM
To: 'Courtney'
Subject: RE: I found some fossils in upstate NY, but I can't identify them...Can you help? Thanks!! +My pleasure!" +72,3 Sep 2015,Possible fossil,Fossil nautiloid,Y,"From: Brian
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 5:21 PM 
Subject: Possible fossil +Hi  my name is Brian.   I found what might be a fossil in some landscape rock in Rochester Minnesota.  Can someone look at the pictures and let me know.  Thank you","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 2:01 PM
To: 'Brian'
Subject: RE: Possible fossil +Hi Brian, +Thanks for your email. I feel pretty sure that you have a fossil nautiloid there, maybe a straight-shelled one. Nautiloids have chambered shells and what you have is several chambers that filled with sediment (which later turned to stone) and outlasted the shell. You can see a few great examples for comparison here: http://www.nautiloid.net/fossils/cephalopod/naut1/naut1.html. If yours is straight-shelled it is between ~210 & 520 million years old. Because it came from landscape rock it could be difficult to find its original source rock for more accurate aging. Nice find! +Best,
Carl + +http://www.nautiloid.net/fossils/cephalopod/naut1/naut1.html +Nautiloids of the Cincinnati Arch 
Ordovician +
Orthoceras or Orthonybyoceras
Cincinnati Arch, Ordovician
Cincinnati, Ohio

These are typical of the condition of nautiloid fossils found in the Cincinnati Arch.
The nautiloid usually decomposes before fossilization of the details occurs.
It is difficult to identify them to the species level when the preservation is poor.
As a result the common conical shaped nautiloids are often generically referred to as ""Orthoceras"".

Treptoceras
Cincinnati Arch, Ordovician
Blue Banks, Georgetown, Ohio

Occasionally, better condition specimens can be found. I found this specimen in approximately 1970 on the banks of White Oak Creek.

Inspection of the loose pieces shows details of the septa at the narrow end. 
The siphuncle can bee seen passing through the segments
and there is detail of the surface of the exterior preserved on the largest piece.
It is partially covered by an encrusting bryozoan.

Cameroceras ?
Cincinnati Arch, Ordovician
Fort Mitchell, Kentucky

A decomposed remnant, covered with encrusting byrozoan. (15 cm)

Cameroceras ?
Cincinnati Arch, Ordovician
Hwy AA, Northern Kentucky

Remains of a larger Orthoceras. (12cm long)" +73,3 Sep 2015,Dinosaur tooth,Probable fossil,M,"From: Matt
Date: September 3, 2015 at 4:33:39 PM EDT
To: Josh
Subject: dinosaur tooth... +Hey man - hope things are good by you and that you guys have had a good summer. Looking forward to collaborating on football picks in short order. +On a completely different note, I was recently given what I am told is a dinosaur tooth found in the Niger desert (see the attached picture). It was found by my globetrotting photographer of a stepbrother-in-law who says these are plentiful there. Needless to say I'm interested to see if I can find out more and you're clearly the man to check in with on the subject.  +Obviously no need to prioritize this in any way but if you know a guy who might be able to shed some light on the subject (as I'm certain you do) and your curiosity is piqued at all, let me know. +Thanks! +- Matt + +From: Matt
Date: September 9, 2015 at 12:35:41 PM EDT
To: Josh
Subject: Re: dinosaur tooth... +Following up on the tooth - please find some pictures from different angles attached along with some scale attached. +Here's what I got concerning the location: ""It was found in the Sahara north of Agadez, Niger. From what I understand the area had a number of skeletons, some of which are largely intact. It's so far removed, such a broad expanse (and dangerous now) that little excavation has gone on."" +Thanks again for looking into this!","From: Joshua 
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 7:38 PM 
Subject: Fwd: dinosaur tooth... +Thoughts? Certainly looks like a tooth. Any idea what it could be from?  + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 2:05 PM
To: Joshua
Subject: RE: dinosaur tooth... +Hey Doc, +It certainly looks like a fossil tooth but I can’t confirm dinosaur from that photo – could also be a croc or something else. Can he shoot it some more from a few other angles and include scale? And can he be more specific about the locality?
Thanks! +-Carlito + +On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Josh wrote: +See request for additional details... + +On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matt wrote: +Thanks man! I will see what else I can find out about the location and definitely send along some more pictures. + +From: Josh
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 5:52 PM 
Subject: Fwd: dinosaur tooth... +These details help? Thanks again for your thoughts on this. The dude's kid is super excited.  + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:21 AM
To: 'Josh'
Subject: RE: dinosaur tooth... +Thanks for the details, Doc. But the photos either didn’t come through or were smeared. Can we try that again? + +From: Josh
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 7:57 PM 
Subject: Fwd: dinosaur tooth... +How's this? + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 3:41 PM
To: 'Josh'
Subject: RE: dinosaur tooth... +Well, the pix came through fine this time but they are pretty fuzzy. But also, the tooth is pretty beat up. I don’t see serrations, which would pretty much clinch it as a meat-eating dinosaur tooth. But there is one group found in Africa, the spinosaurids, that lack serrations. It could be one of those but it just as easily could be a crocodilian tooth. I’m not sure there’s enough to go on here. +Sorry! +-Carlito" +74,4 Sep 2015,Fossil plant or animal,Probable rudist and unknown,M,"From: Lauren 
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 7:43 AM 
Subject: Fossil ID Help +Hi Carl! I'm a science teacher in NYC (on 92nd street so I'm close if you want to see the fossil in person) and would love your assistance with an ID. I found this in west Texas at the Independence Creek Preserve (http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/texas/placesweprotect/independence-creek-preserve.xml) while hiking around. I'm seeking out your help on behalf of the property owner who deeded the land to the Nature Conservancy. It was on a cliff amidst a lot of other limestone (I think). Part of me thinks it's a plant and part of me thinks it's an animal, what do you think? Looking forward to hearing back from you +Lauren Prentiss + +Plant? Animal? Please Help! +  +Guguita Posted Today, 09:22 AM +Welcome to the Forum! + +Fossildude19 Posted Today, 09:30 AM +Welcome to the Forum from Connecticut.   +I took the liberty of cropping, enlarging, and enhancing your images. +  +Unfortunately, I have no idea.   +  +Maybe some locals will chime in.  +Regards, +Tim
 + Posted Today, 10:05 AM +Thanks so much for your help with the pics Tim/Fossildude19!   + +old bones Posted Today, 10:32 AM +Your image reminds me of pictures of Ediacaran organisms that I have seen online. I don't know if your location was old enough tho. I sure don't know enough to say, just going on a visual here.... + +Guguita Posted Today, 10:38 AM +Can you indicate the period of the layers where do you find it? I thought the same of you, old bones, but as I don't know the age of that rock I didn't say nothing. +Regards, + +Mike Posted Today, 10:46 AM +Hi Welcome to the forum from the UK, cant help you with the ID but I'm sure someone on the forum will be able to
Regards
Mike  + +Fossildude19 Posted Today, 11:29 AM +Well, it appears that, (according to this geologic map, anyways) that Terrell County where the site the item was found is located, is firmly planted in the Cretaceous period.  +From my 5 years here on the forum, it seems that most unknowns from Texas are usually either Bison, or Rudists.       +I think we can rule out Bison on this one!    +Hopefully we can get a better ID once some of our Texas members weigh in.  +Regards, +Tim
 +Guguita Posted Today, 11:35 AM +So, if the layers are Cretaceous I'll say just geologic...However, let the experts in Texas's fossils tell their opinion. + +FossilDAWG Posted Today, 11:55 AM +I'd suggest it may be a weathered section through an oyster or rudist bivalve. +Do + +From: Lauren
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 5:24 PM 
Subject: Re: Fossil ID Help +Hey Carl! Thanks so much for getting back to me so promptly. I had no idea how quickly I'd get a response or how the forum worked so I figured I'd try them both.  +The second picture is actually the other side of the same rock and though I can now see the pic doesn't show a ton of detail it has the same general shape/markings as the other more easily visible side. It's definitely from the Cretaceous period.  +Your response and help is greatly appreciated! And you're right - the Fossil Forum is awesome! +Cheers, +Lauren","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 12:50 PM
To: 'Lauren'
Subject: RE: Fossil ID Help +Hi Lauren, +Thanks for your email. I see you also posted this to the Fossil Forum: they are a superb group. And I will have to agree with the ones that IDed at least your first photos as a rudist. Rudists are relatives of clams that formed huge reefs and went extinct in the Cretaceous. As mentioned, TX has a good amount of Cretaceous exposures so yours is likely one of the last rudists. Nice find! As for the other rock, I am not sure if that is a fossil (maybe another rudist) or just a geological oddity. Sorry. +Best, +Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:24 PM
To: 'Lauren'
Subject: RE: Fossil ID Help +So glad to be of help, Lauren!" +76,4 Sep 2015,Fossil,Clam steinkern,Y,"From: Brody
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 4:42 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: fossil identification +Hi Carl, +Can you help identify this?  Had it for many years.  The length is around 3 inches end to end.  It was found in South Florida on the Gulf side.  It's always been a mystery to me. +Thanks, +Brody + +From: Brody 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:29 PM 
Subject: RE: fossil identification +That's awesome! Thanks for the info! I've been carrying that with me for 30 years or so since I found it as a kid. Mystery solved. Thanks again and take care! +Brody","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:22 PM
To: 'Brody'
Subject: RE: fossil identification +Hi Brody, +Thanks for your email. What you have is a clam steinkern. Steinkerns are the sediment that fills a void (in this case the inside of a dead clam shell) and later turns to stone. This often outlasts the shell, which seems to be the case with yours. The FL Gulf fossils are all fairly young so yours is probably a few million years old. Nice find! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 1:10 PM
To: 'Brody'
Subject: RE: fossil identification +My pleasure!" +77,4 Sep 2015,Possible fossil,Horn coral,Y,"From: Jason 
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 7:16 PM 
Subject: Beach Find +Sir-
My 7-year-old son found this unusual rock/fossil(?) at the water's edge of a Stone Harbor, NJ beach a few weeks ago.  I am trying to use this as a teachable moment to get him interested in science and fossils.  We have been searching the internet looking for things that look like this without much luck.  We came across your website and hope that you might be able to help us identify what this might be or point us in a useful direction.
Any assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Jason + +From: Jason
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 7:44 AM 
Subject: Re: Beach Find +Thank you for your quick and detailed reply. We were astonished that it was able to be identified and that it is so old!  It just looks like any other rock which, I suppose, is the teachable moment here.  It really gives you pause when looking at a rock to consider just how old it may be. +Ryan is ""over the moon"" excited and now has quite a story for 2nd grade show & tell this year!  Incidentally, the local weekly south Jersey newspaper has offered to run a story on his find and would like you use some of the content from your email. +Please let me know if you would rather not have that included. +Thanks again! +Jason + +From: Jason
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:47 AM
To: Communications
Cc: Carl Mehling
Subject: RE: Beach Find +To whom it may concern- +Please see the attached email string below. The Cape May County Herald would like to do a short story on my son's find and use some of the information Mr. Mehling provided to assist with the fossil's identification. +Please let me know if there's a problem with using the information provided below. I will stress that the editor not get ""creative"" in the story and stick to the facts. +Best regards, +Jason + +From: Jason +Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:44 AM +Subject: RE: Beach Find +Thank you very much sir. I understand completely. I will run this through your channels. +Best, +Jason","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:55 PM
To: 'Jason'
Subject: RE: Beach Find +Hi Jason, +Thanks for your email. You can tell your son that he is the lucky finder of a fossil horn coral. Horn corals were solitary corals that lived on Earth from the Ordovician to the Permian (as old as ~500 million years and as young as 250). By comparison the oldest known dinosaurs are about 245 million years old. Stone Harbor is very far from any likely sources of a fossil like this so this was probably brought there by ocean currents or rivers, and, maybe if it came from northern NJ or even southern NY, glaciers might have also contributed to its movements. It holds a long and complex story so it should be looked at with wonder! Nice find! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:25 AM
To: 'Jason'
Subject: RE: Beach Find +My pleasure, Jason! And I’m so glad your son was psyched. I, of course, hope it is the moment that turns him into a paleontologist! +I would be happy to have you include my words in the newspaper but it just has to be run by our Communications Dept. first. The press tends to get frustratingly creative with things like this and we are accuracy addicts! Thanks! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:53 AM
To: 'Jason'
Subject: RE: Beach Find +Thanks so much! + +From: Aubrey +Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 12:18 PM +To: Jason; Communications +Cc: Carl Mehling +Subject: Re: Beach Find +That is fine. Thank you for checking. +Aubrey + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 3:28 PM
To: Aubrey; Jason; Communications
Subject: RE: Beach Find +Thanks, Aubrey! + +From: Aubrey
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 3:32 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: Re: Beach Find +No problem." +78,5 Sep 2015,Fossil,"Oyster shell, possibly fossil",M,"From: Christopher
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2015 11:26 AM 
Subject: Fossil find +Hello Carl Mehling, +My daughter found something at Jones Beach, Long Island, NY on Thursday. I’m attaching photos and I’d be very grateful if you could tell me what we’ve got. +Thank you so much! +Best, +Chris + +From: Christopher 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 10:10 PM 
Subject: Re: Fossil find +Hi Carl, +I’m very grateful for your response. I’m sure you’re right that it probably isn’t a fossil, but it feels so “stone-like” that it just didn’t seem like a simple shell. Regardless, it’s all very interesting. My daughter—and the rest of us—learned something! Thanks so much! +Best regards, +Chris","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 1:01 PM
To: 'Christopher'
Subject: RE: Fossil find +Hi Chris, +Thanks for your email. What you have here is an oyster shell, probably from the species Crassostrea. The neatly partitioned groove in the last three photos is the hinge of the oyster. The holes riddling the shell are from a sponge called Cliona that excavated galleries in the shell of the dead oyster and then used the oyster shell as its home for a while. It’s probably modern but I can’t rule out fossil. Fossils merely need to be 10,000 or more years old to be fossils and one that old could certainly look like this. There’s no easy way to tell. +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:10 AM
To: 'Christopher'
Subject: RE: Fossil find +My pleasure!" +79,5 Sep 2015,"Fossils, possible bone","2 horn corals, a porous rock, and possible obsidian, cow tooth",Y,"From: Kevin
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2015 9:40 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: Fossils found at North Chicago il lake Michigan +My son sent them as well + +From: Kevin 
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2015 9:41 PM 
Subject: Lake michigan + +From: Kevin
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2015 9:41 PM 
Subject: Lake michigan + +From: Kevin
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2015 9:45 PM 
Subject: Black Rock like shiny brown glass inside +What could it be. Obsidian isn't out here? + +From: Kevin
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2015 9:47 PM 
Subject: + +From: Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 8:00 PM 
Subject: Fossils +Thanks for getting back to me Carl. Hope you had a good holiday. I was only aware of crinoids in this area and never heard of the horn coral. So I'm guessing this is probably a piece of horn coral as well. I've been stuck on light duty at our water plant which is right on lake Michigan so I've had nothing better to do than scour the shore. I'm a cop so I have a good eye for things that are out of place or ""not like the others"". Lol + +From: Kevin 
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 9:27 PM 
Subject: RE: Fossils +Found what looks and feels like a bone but I've never seen a bone like this. + +[Responding to my email saying to get back out there and find more] +From: Kevin
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 9:29 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: RE: Fossils +Sorry to bother you again Carl. I'll be back to work soon, I promise! + +From: Kevin
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 2:21 PM 
Subject: RE: Fossils +Well holy cow, never would have guessed that. Thanks Carl","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 1:08 PM
To: 'Kevin'
Subject: RE: Fossils found at North Chicago il lake Michigan +Hi Kevin, +Thanks for your email. Well, I can say with fair confidence that the two conical things are fossil horn corals. Horn corals were solitary corals that lived on Earth from the Ordovician to the Permian (as old as ~500 million years and as young as 250). By comparison the oldest known dinosaurs are about 245 million years old. The porous tan rock is probably not a fossil and the possible obsidian may be just that. Unfortunately, I know fossils way better than rocks! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:13 AM
To: 'Kevin'
Subject: RE: Fossils +My pleasure, Kevin. And I forgot to mention that in the picture with your thumb there is also a crinoid columnal: the tiny circular thing next to the horn coral. +Nothing better to do than scour the shore?!?! I’d do it every day if I could! And nice cop/fossil collector analogy – hit the nail on the head. Now get back out there and find more! +Best, +Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:15 AM
To: 'Kevin'
Subject: RE: Fossils +Somehow I missed the attached photo. That, too, looks like the inside of a horn coral. Looks like you have a fun spot to pick over! + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 11:40 AM
To: 'Kevin'
Subject: RE: Fossils +Hi Kevin, +That is most likely a cow tooth. I was trying to see if it might be a bison tooth, which would be very similar, but I think cow is a better match. Crazy looking thing, huh?
Best,
Carl + +[Responding to his email about promising to fossil hunt more] +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 11:42 AM
To: 'Kevin'
Subject: RE: Fossils +Well done! + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 2:31 PM
To: 'Kevin'
Subject: RE: Fossils +Nice!" +80,6 Sep 2015,Possible fossil,Probable layered flint,N,"From: patrick
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2015 5:00 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: Fossil identification. +Carl Mehling +HI Carl, +I found this presumed fossil at Refugio State Beach on 8/28/15 amongst the rocks right at the tide line. I would greatly appreciate your help with this identification. +Thank you so much, 
Patrick","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 1:23 PM
To: 'Patrick'
Subject: RE: Fossil identification. +Hi Patrick, +Thanks for your email. I can’t exactly make out what that is but I doubt it’s a fossil. The closest thing that comes to mind is a kinds of layered flint I used to see in, Santa Cruz, California. And I only just now looked up where Refugio State Beach was so I feel like I’m on the right track! You might want to run this by the folks at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and see what they say – seeing these things in hand is often much better than photos. +Best,
Carl" +82,8 Sep 2015,Fossils,A rock and fossil corals,M,"From: Luke Mull [mailto:lukewilliammull@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 2:44 PM 
Subject: Fossils +If you could identify these for me, i would appreciate it. Thanks","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 1:34 PM
To: 'Luke Mull'
Subject: RE: Fossils +Hi Luke, +Thanks for your email. The first rock is very hard to read (the photos are blurry) but I doubt it’s a fossil. It lacks a lot of the details I would like to see in order to confidently ID it as a fossil. However, all of the other specimens appear to be fossil corals. If you can tell me where they were found I may be able to give you’re their approximate age. +Best,
Carl" +83,8 Sep 2015,Presumably fossil bone,Likely modern ?cow phalanx,N,"From: Mike
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 5:06 PM 
Subject: Bone +My son found this and wanted to know what it came from. + +From: Mike
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 5:07 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: Bone ""more photos"" + +From: Mike +Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 2:31 PM +Subject: Re: Bone +I was thinking part of a finger or toe also. He found it on a small island that's in the opening of where the Detroit river enters Lake Erie. Does that help narrow it down? Also, maybe you could share the pics and get back with me? Thanks.","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 1:43 PM
To: 'Mike'
Subject: RE: Bone +Hi Mike, +Thanks for your email. My best guess here is that it is from a cow or other medium-sized mammal but it is definitely a finger/toe bone. Depending on the context of its burial it could be a fossil, like an Ice Age bison, or modern, like a fairly recent cow. But this could be very hard to tell. +Best, +Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 2:52 PM
To: 'Mike'
Subject: RE: Bone +Hi Mike, +If it was found on the surface rather than buried in undisturbed sediments it may be impossible to tell its age without an expensive analysis. But you might also want to post this to the Fossil Forum for ID. They are an incredible group of amateurs and professionals who really know fossils as well as their modern counterparts. +Best, +Carl" +84,8 Sep 2015,Possible fossil worm,"Probable straight-shelled nautiloid, possible brachiopod, probable horn coral, indet. fossil",Y,"From: Ray Dell 
Date: 8 September 2015 at 17:29
Subject: Fossil Worm?
To: J MacDougall +Hi James, + OK, I had to retake the photos of the fossil since the first ones were a little blurry and I added +a tape measure for scale. + Have fun with this. and if you find out what it is let me know. + Ray + +From: Ray Dell [mailto:ray472011@hotmail.ca] 
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 12:29 PM 
Subject: RE: Fossil Worm? +Hi Carl, +Thankyou for IDing the straight shelled nautiloid. I had no idea what it was. I do have another fossil that I was wondering if it is the tip of a straight shelled nautiloid shell. At first I thought it was a tooth but then it looked more like a snail shell, so not sure but if it is a nautiloid or just the way some rock formed. I'll be thrilled to find out. +On the left side of the 2nd photo is what I think is a shell but not sure. I know it doesn't show very well in the photo, but I was curious if you know what it is, and the fossil on the right too I am not sure if it is a shell or a water bug of some kind. +I'm thinking that the fossils on the right side and left side are the same type of creature. If you can't tell what it is that's fine, +I'm really mainly curious about what the rock in the middle is. +That's it for me. I'm out of fossils. +Thanks for inspiring me. +Ray + + +","From: J MacDougall [mailto:jmacdougall@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 8:31 AM 
Subject: Fwd: Fossil Worm? +This was found somewhere along Lake Huron in the Georgian Bay region near Owen Sound. We are hoping someone can identify it. Thank You +James MacDougall + +From: J MacDougall [mailto:jmacdougall@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 8:33 AM 
Subject: Re: Fossil Worm? +Hey Ray +I started posting photos on my flickr account.I sent the fossil photos to the American Museum of Natural History http://www.amnh.org/our-research/paleontology/about-the-division/more/fossil-identification +Hopefully they will be able to help identify it. +James MacDougall + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 1:54 PM
To: 'J MacDougall'; 'ray472011@hotmail.ca'
Subject: RE: Fossil Worm? +Hi James and Ray, +Thanks for your email. I do agree that this is a fossil but it is very beat up and a bit hard to confidently ID. That said, I still feel reasonably sure it is a straight-shelled nautiloid. Nautiloids are still with us today but were incredible common and diverse in the Paleozoic (~530-250 million years ago). The straight-shelled ones persisted a bit into the Mesozoic (until around 210 million years ago). I don’t know enough about the rocks near Georgian Bay to give a better idea of this thing’s age but suffice it to say that if I’ve IDed it correctly it’s 100s of millions of years old and at least as old as the oldest known dinosaur. Nice find! +Best,
Carl  + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 4:42 PM
To: 'Ray Dell'
Subject: RE: Fossil Worm? +Hi Ray, +In the photo of the trio, I think the one on the left is a brachiopod, but it’s quite weathered, making the ID difficult. The conical one in the center is most likely a horn coral. Horn corals were solitary corals that lived on Earth from the Ordovician to the Permian (as old as ~500 million years and as young as 250). By comparison the oldest known dinosaurs are about 245 million years old. And I agree that the last one is also a fossil but that one is giving me the most trouble. It could be a brachiopod, like you suggest, but it could be a bunch of other things, too. Sorry about that one! +Best,
Carl" +86,10 Sep 2015,Tooth,Upper left horse molar or premolar,Y,"From: Mark 
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 11:26 PM 
Cc: cindy
Subject: Tooth identification +Carl Mehling and Cindy. Attached are some photos of a large tooth I found on a beach on Cape Cod. I'm hoping that you might be able to identify what sort of animal it came from.  +The tooth has four ""root spurs"", (my name) and lots of enamel on the exterior.  This may be tooth enamel, or a wierd ivory. It is 1 1/2 inches long, and 1 inch side to side, 1 1/8 from front to back. There is significant wear from the front to the back on the exterior front surface.  +Thanks in advance for any information you may be able to provide. +Mark + +From: Mark
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 8:26 PM 
Subject: RE: Tooth identification +Thank you Carl, a local person who raises horses also said the same thing. How this tooth ended up on the beach is a good question. But now I know that it's not from a marine mammal. I appreciate your taking the time to look at it.  +Good day, Mark","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 3:58 PM
To: 'Mark'
Cc: cindy
Subject: RE: Tooth identification +Hi Mark, +Thanks for your email. The photos are pretty blurry but I feel reasonably confident that you have a horse tooth there. And I’m pretty sure it is an upper left molar or premolar. The color is pretty light so the best bet is that it is fairly young, but I doubt there would be an easy way to tell. +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 1:54 PM
To: 'Mark'
Subject: RE: Tooth identification +I’ve found horse teeth on beaches before. Basically anywhere people have been with their horses or anywhere human trash can travel to can be a place to find a horse tooth!" +87,11 Sep 2015,Fossils,Unknown,N,"From: Linda
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 7:00 PM 
Subject: fossil pics +Mr.Carl Mehling, +Hello, we have found a rock with a variety of fossils in the rock, and we are curious to find of what type of fossils they are. Also, we would like to know if possible how old the rock and fossils are. +Thank you so much for your time and in advance for any findings.","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 4:03 PM
To: 'Linda'
Subject: RE: fossil pics +Hi Linda, +Thanks for your email. I’m sorry but you photo is too blurry for me to properly ID. I think you probably do have fossils there but I can’t make them out very well. Could you send me some sharp photos? And if you could tell me where they were found I could probably figure out roughly how old they are. +Best,
Carl" +88,12 Sep 2015,Possible fossil,Likely modern encrusting bryozoan,N,"From: Rosa
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 5:27 PM 
Subject: Impression on river rock +Hello....my husband found this while fishing by a creek in Bridgeport, CA.  Could it possibly be some kind of fossil?","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 4:08 PM
To: 'Rosa'
Subject: RE: Impression on river rock +Hi Rosa, +Thanks for your email. The photos are a bit fuzzy so I’m having a little trouble making out the detail. I think I’m supposed to be looking at the fine, mesh-like pattern, yes? If so it looks like a bryozoan, which is a colonial aquatic animal. But it appears to be flaking off the rock. If this is the case it is more likely to be a modern bryozoan attached to the rock rather than a fossil bryozoan embedded in the rock. +Best,
Carl" +89,13 Sep 2015,Possible fossil,Possibly fossil puffer fish jaw,M,"From: Todd 
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 5:24 PM 
Subject: Strange Rock +Hi Carl,  just wondering if you can help us id this rock.  We found it in shallow waters at the beach in Grand Cayman.  It feels like a smooth rock but likes like nothing I've never seen before.  Is it some sort of fossil?  Thanks for your help. +Regards,
Todd + +From: Todd 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 1:59 PM 
Subject: RE: Strange Rock +Thanks for taking time to solve the mystery.  Puffer Fish jaw,  I would never have guessed. ","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 1:39 PM
To: 'Todd'
Subject: RE: Strange Rock +Hi Todd, +Thanks for your email. Looks to me like you have a puffer fish jaw. I can’t tell if it is fossil or not however: puffer fish seem to still live in Grand Cayman and a modern one could easily have this color. But if you Google “fossil puffer fish jaw” and look at the images you will find many examples that are quite similar to yours. Nice find! +Best, +Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 2:29 PM
To: 'Todd'
Subject: RE: Strange Rock +That’s what I’m here for! Be well." +90,14 Sep 2015,Possible fossil tooth,Non-fossil unknown,N,"From: Jeff
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 9:51 PM 
Subject: Fossil ID question +Hi Carl +Found your website while researching info on a piece I have. I think it is a fossil of some type. I did not find it - it was with a box of misc rock specimens I purchased at an estate sale.  +It looks like a tooth of some type - around the base area are what look like ""shells"". It is very heavy for it's size - I checked and a magnet is not attracted to it.  +Any info would be greatly appreciated. +Thanks +Jeff + +From: Jeff 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 7:35 PM 
Subject: Re: Fossil ID question +Hi Carl +Thanks for the response - it is a strange piece.  It weighs just under 1 lb - much heavier than rocks of it's size.  Maybe some sort of lead??? +If I ever find out what it is I'll email you. +Thanks again +Jeff","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 2:18 PM
To: 'Jeff'
Subject: RE: Fossil ID question +Hi Jeff, +Thanks for your email. I don’t really know what you have there but I do not get a fossil vibe from it. It’s lacking the finer details I’d like to see to feel confident identifying it as a fossil.  It certainly does have an iron look to it but if it were iron your magnet should have been attracted to it. Sorry, I’m at a loss! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 11:36 AM
To: 'Jeff'
Subject: RE: Fossil ID question +Sounds good. I’m now thinking it t might be hematite, which is an iron mineral but is not magnetic. Something to look into." +91,14 Sep 2015,fossil,brachiopod,Y,"From: Chanalle
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:10 PM 
Subject: Fossil Identification +Hi Carl, +My son found this fossil in our creek in central New York and we would love to have more information about it.  It appears that whatever it is, is still embedded in the rock. A very cool find for a 7 year old!  Thanks in advance! +Chanalle + +From: Chanalle
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 4:00 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: Re: Fossil Identification +Awesome!  Thank you so much for your reply.  You have made my son's (and let's face it, my) day!  His dream is to become a paleontologist so to get an email from one made his little head explode :) +Thanks again!","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 2:25 PM
To: 'Chanalle'
Subject: RE: Fossil Identification +Hi Chanalle, +Thanks for your email. Your son seems to have found a brachiopod, likely of a kind called a spiriferid. Brachiopods are marine invertebrates that are around today but go back at least 500 million years. They are not common today but at certain points in the past they were incredibly abundant, especially the Devonian Period (~409-354 million years ago). The Devonian rocks of New York are widespread and famous for their brachiopods. So my best guess is that this is a Devonian spiriferid and is at least 354 million years old. By comparison, the oldest known dinosaur is about 245 million years old. Nice find! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 4:08 PM
To: 'Chanalle'
Subject: RE: Fossil Identification +My pleasure! It’s the best part of my job." +92,16 Sep 2015,Possible fossil jawbone,Pleistocene bison or musk ox jaw fragment,Y,"From: Cathy 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 10:04 AM 
Subject: Fossil(?) Inquiry +Dear Mr. Mehling, +I am enclosing several pictures of a jawbone fragment I found in the surf on a beach in Holgate, New Jersey. +I think this may be a fossil because the bone is now a hard substance. The teeth remind me of an herbivore. Are either of these assumptions correct? +I can't imagine how this piece ended up on a barrier island, but there have been recent beach replenishments involving dredging sand from the ocean floor into the area. +Any information you could give me would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. +Sincerely, +Cathy + +From: Cathy 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 2:11 PM 
Subject: Re: Fossil(?) Inquiry +Thank you, it's a hobby. :)
 +From: Cathy 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 5:11 PM 
Subject: Re: Fossil(?) Inquiry +Perfect! What is that saying? If you love what you do, you will never work a day in your life. +I have to confess, I'm so thrilled by your information that I wish we had ""Show and Tell"" at my job. + +From: Cathy 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:30 PM 
Subject: Re: Fossil(?) Inquiry +Dear Carl,  +Thank you so much for your information, very exciting news! I will post the pictures  to the Fossil Forum and let you if I receive any further information. +Regards, +Cathy + +Fossil Herbivore Jaw Found In The Ocean +Started by cathy, Yesterday, 02:39 PM +Hello, my name is Cathy and I was recommended to your site by Carl Mehling of the American Museum of Natural History. I found a jaw fragment in the surf on Holgate Beach in New Jersey. He feels that it may be from a bison or musk ox dating to the Ice Age. Does anyone have any further information? Thank you!     + +edd Posted Yesterday, 02:58 PM +I think possible Bison too... + +glu Posted Yesterday, 03:04 PM +it looks like a bos primigenius jaw fragment, the ancestral progenitor of the modern ox + +Harry Pristis Posted Yesterday, 03:26 PM +Hi, Cathy . . . +Welcome to the forum.  +Your find is certainly not musk ox, though I do think it is bovid -- either bison or cow (modern) -- as evidenced by the isolated stylids of the teeth. The fact there is cementum remaining on the teeth suggests to me that this is from a modern cow (cementum is preserved sometimes, but this looks quite fresh).  +Good hunting! + +RichW9090 Posted Today, 12:35 AM +There is a specimen of Bos primigenius known from a find along the shore at Brigantine, unpublished.  I think the guy who found it is a member here, can't remember if it was here or another Forum I ran across him on some years ago.  The Brigantine site is a peat bed just off shore maybe 100 yards or less, and storms wash fossils up onto the beach from time to time, although I haven't collected there in 30 years. + +bone2stone Posted Today, 04:45 AM +I agree with Harry, and it may be older than that ruler!!! +Take note that the phone# on the ruler only has 4 digits!! +Been a long time since I've seen that !!! +BTW: Nice when you find teeth still in boney jaw material. +Jess B. + +cathy Posted Today, 06:15 AM +Thank you so much for your help. Modern or primigenius, it was a fun find!  + +Harry Pristis Posted Today, 12:22 PM +It's not Bos primigenius, the auroch, Cathy.  The range of the auroch never included New Jersey. +Here's an account of the range of B. primigenius from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: +Bos primigenius is Extinct. The aurochs had three subspecies: Bos primigenius primigenius from Europe and the Middle East; B. p. namadicus from India; and B. p. mauretanicus from North Africa. Only the nominate subspecies has survived until recent times. +Originally the aurochs occurred from the British Isles and southern Scandinavia, through most of Europe to northern Africa, the Middle East, central Asia and India. By the 13th century A.D., the aurochs' range was restricted to Poland, Lithuania, Moldova, Transylvania and East Prussia (The Extinction Website, 2007). The last recorded live aurochs, a female, died in 1627 in the Jaktorów (Jaktorowka) Forest, Masovia, Poland (Grubb, 2005). +It is distributed worldwide under domestication (as Bos taurus), and feral populations have become established in Australia, New Guinea, the United States, Colombia, Argentina and many islands, including Hawaii, Galápagos, Hispaniola, Tristan da Cunha, New Amsterdam, Juan Fernandez Islands, and the United Kingdom (Chillingham cattle). + +RichW9090 Posted Today, 12:41 PM +As I said, there is a specimen of the auroch from the Brigantine site.  It was identified by Roger Wood from Stockton College.  It is unknown if this is the only record of B. primigenius from North America, or might have been something tossed into the sea - fossils do get lost.  That's one of the reasons why Roger never published it, I suspect. + +From: Cathy 
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 7:53 AM 
Subject: Re: Fossil(?) Inquiry +Hi, Carl,  +I think my best options would be DC or Philadelphia since those are the cities I visit most frequently. I'll keep you updated. If I am in NYC I will certainly go to AMNH. It would be a privilege to meet someone with such an infectious enthusiasm for fossils! +Thank you,  +Cathy","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 11:50 AM
To: 'Cathy'
Subject: RE: Fossil(?) Inquiry +Hi Cathy, +Thanks for your email. I think you may have something pretty cooler there! And you are right that it’s an herbivore and it certainly has the appearance I would expect of a fossil from that context. My best guess is that it is a bison or possible a musk ox. And if we are on the right track here, it would be from the Ice Age. Fossils from that time period do occasionally show up on NJ beaches and dredged up off the shore. The shoreline back then was much farther out to sea so land animal fossils can turn up here in seemingly odd places. We currently don’t have anyone here who specializes in bovids who could confirm this ID but you should try posting it to the Fossil Forum to see what they say. The Forum is a diverse and adept group of amateurs and professionals. And if I have all of this correct, this would actually be a quite rare find! Let’s see what happens. +Bes,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 11:57 AM
To: 'Cathy'
Subject: RE: Fossil(?) Inquiry +Fantastic photography, by the way! + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 2:36 PM
To: 'Cathy'
Subject: RE: Fossil(?) Inquiry +And my hobby is fossils! + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:40 PM
To: 'Cathy'
Subject: RE: Fossil(?) Inquiry +Great! + +[Responding to her September 16, 2015 5:11 email] +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 9:38 AM
To: 'Cathy'
Subject: RE: Fossil(?) Inquiry +That’s all so nice to hear, Cathy! And I’ve been following the conversation on the Forum and I still feel the look is of a very old specimen. However, some of those folks who responded are very skilled at these kinds of IDs. That said, nothing beats an in-hand observation. I see via the Forum that you are in Delaware - Is there any way you could bring it to the NJ State Museum, here, or some other nearby natural history museum for up close observation? +Best, +Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 10:21 AM
To: 'Cathy'
Subject: RE: Fossil(?) Inquiry +That all sounds great, Cathy!" +93,16 Sep 2015,Fossil bone,Weathered chunk of sandstone matrix,N,"From: Lindsey
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 11:45 AM 
Subject: Fossil found on beach in South Carolina +Hello Mr. Mehling! +While on vacation at Edisto Beach, South Carolina my husband picked this up off Shell Island. We were wondering what kind of bone it is and what it came from! I have attached pictures. Thank you for any information! +Sincerely, +Lindsey + +From: Lindsey +Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:32 PM +Subject: Re: Fossil found on beach in South Carolina +Haha! Oh well, it's still cool 😊 thank you for the speedy reply! + +From: Lindsey +Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 2:43 PM +Subject: Re: Fossil found on beach in South Carolina +We will! If anything finding our ""cool rock"" has inspired us to keep looking! I'll definitely be contacting you if we find anything else of interest 😊 thanks again! ","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:07 PM
To: 'Lindsey'
Subject: RE: Fossil found on beach in South Carolina +Hi Family, +Thanks for your email. Unfortunately, I don't think what you found is a fossil bone. It has the wrong texture and grain to be a convincing piece of fossil bone. It's much more likely to be an oddly weathered chunk of sandstone matrix. Sorry for the boring news! +Best, +Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:39 PM
To: 'Lindsey'
Subject: RE: Fossil found on beach in South Carolina +No sweat! Get back out there and keep looking! + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 2:44 PM
To: 'Lindsey'
Subject: RE: Fossil found on beach in South Carolina +Good luck!" +94,17 Sep 2015,Top of spine and ribs of Anchisaurus,Weathered chunk of layered sedimentary rock and other rocks,N,"From: Ron 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 9:49 AM 
Subject: possible fossil +Hello thank you for your time. Ron + +From: Ron 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 10:43 AM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: RE: possible fossil +Hi Carl no need to apologize you where the only one that to the time to help me. I sent a few more pictures are these bone? Have a great day and thank you for your time. Ron + +From: Ron 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 4:23 PM 
Subject: RE: possible fossil +Hi Carl i found this little one this morning. I want to say thank you for your time and inport. I'm a disabled veteran i just started doing this it's great. Could you please give me ideas on what to look for? thank you + +From: Ron 
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 1:36 PM 
Subject: RE: possible fossil +Hi Carl I'm in ware ma. 01082. Ron + +From: Ron 
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 3:37 PM 
Subject: RE: possible fossil +Okay thank you for your help","[Ron phoned the dept. and was passed on to me. Said he was a vet and was using a metal detector “in the river here.” Thinks he found the top of the spine and ribs of an Anchisaurus – he then said he was in MA when I asked. I gave him my email to send photos to.] + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 10:03 AM
To: 'Ron'
Subject: RE: possible fossil +Hi Ron, +Thanks for the email. Unfortunately, I don't see any indication of bone there. What you more likely have is a weathered chunk of layered sedimentary rock. What appear to be ribs are the more durable layers that were more resistant to weathering. Sorry for the boring news! +Best, +Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 3:32 PM
To: 'Ron'
Subject: RE: possible fossil +Hmmm... These picture are too blurry to make the details out. Can you reshoot them very sharply? Right now they definitely don't look like bone. +Best, +Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 1:01 PM
To: 'Ron'
Subject: RE: possible fossil +Again, the photos are very blurry but I'm not seeing anything obvious that would ID these as fossils. If you tell me where you are I might be able to suggest so nearby fossil sites. +Best, +Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 2:53 PM
To: 'Ron'
Subject: RE: possible fossil +Oh that's right - I forgot you said MA. That's a pretty difficult state to find fossils in. You probably know about the dinosaur tracks of the CT River Valley and I think there are some sites in the Valley where you can find fish but other than that I know surprisingly little. Sorry!" +95,18 Sep 2015,Fossil,"Fossil turtle shell fragments, croc osteoderms, and other fragments",Y,"From: Sterling 
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 10:52 PM 
Subject: Fossile identification help +Hello im sterling and i have had these fossiles for a long time i got them from my art teacher 7 years ago as a gift could you help me identify these? The ruler is on the inches side + +From: Sterling 
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 6:54 PM +Subject: Re: Fossile identification help +Thank you very much!","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 4:02 PM
To: 'Sterling'
Subject: RE: Fossile identification help +Hi Sterling, +Thanks for your email. The majority of your fossils appear to be fragments of turtle shell and crocodilian osteoderms. Osteoderms are pieces of bone under the skin that can serve as armor or muscle attachments. Most of the flat or partly flat pieces would be the turtle bones and the ones with the circular dimples are the osteoderms. The one bone you show as two pieces might be a limb bones from a turtle – I’m not entirely sure. If you know where they came from I might be able to give you an approximate age but since turtles and crocs have been around for a very long time an age would be a wild guess without locality info. +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:36 AM
To: 'Sterling'
Subject: RE: Fossile identification help +My pleasure!" +96,19 Sep 2015,Presumably fossil,Probably modern mammal (maybe dolphin) vertebral epiphysis,N,"From: Marion 
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 11:50 AM 
Subject: Please help +Hello.  I have been trying to find out about this piece I found amongst the rocks at the edge of the ocean at Ft. Stark in Hew Hampshire.  If you can shed any light on this, I would be grateful.  It is very light in weight.  Thank you for your time.   + +From: Marion 
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7:58 AM 
Subject: Re: Please help +Thank you so much.  I will need to read this several times to fully understand.  First I need to learn to pronounce the words!  It is a treasure for me.  Isn't nature fantastic?  Thank you for your time.  Marion McDougall a.k.a mystery person","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 4:28 PM
To: 'Marion'
Subject: RE: Please help +Hello Mystery Person, +Thanks for your email. What you have is a vertebral epiphysis of a mammal. Bones often begin as several parts that fuse together as they mature. Vertebra have a large spool-shaped part capped on both ends (where they articulate to the next vertebrae) by epiphyses that fuse on to it as the vertebra matures. Your find is an epiphysis that did not fully fuse to the vertebral body. Based on the fact that you found it on the shore, and that fact that it is so round, it could easily be from a dolphin. Even when the animal is fully mature, dolphins and other whales can have vertebrae with unfused epiphyses. And based on how white it is I would guess that it is fully modern, i.e., not a fossil. Nice find! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:38 AM
To: 'Marion'
Subject: RE: Please help +My pleasure, Marion! And absolutely: Nature is FANTASTIC!" +97,19 Sep 2015,Unusual fossil,"Unknown, but doubtful that it is a fossil",N,"From: Aaminah 
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 6:58 PM 
Subject: Unusual fossil found +Could some one please help me I have found a very unusual fossil.. And am just trying to figure out what it is. +Thank you","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 4:36 PM
To: 'Aaminah'
Subject: RE: Unusual fossil found +Hi Mystery Person, +Thanks for your email. I'm not sure what you have but I'm not seeing the kind of things I would want to see in order to confidently ID it as a fossil. It could be a fragment of a fossil shell, or a layered mudstone (i.e., not fossil), or some other non-fossil mineral or rock formation. There just isn't enough detail available to make a proper guess. Sorry! +Best, +Carl " +98,19 Sep 2015,Fossil,Possible turtle and vertebrae,Y,"From: Kellie 
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 11:17 PM 
Subject: Fossil id +I found this while creek sifting in east-central Alabama. It is about 2"" and  is light weight with narrow ridge running down one side. +Have a blessed day, +Kellie + +I enhanced two of the shots: + +From: Kellie 
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 11:20 PM 
Subject: Fossil id +Found this while creek sifting in east-central Alabama. Its is small with design on the one side,just curious as to what it is. +Thanks, +Kellie","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:43 AM
To: 'Kellie'
Subject: RE: Fossil id +Hi Kellie, +Thanks for your email. It looks like you have 2 fossil bones there. Might you be digging in the local Late Cretaceous sediments? If so, the first one (the long one) could be a turtle bone but that’s a pretty loose guess. It doesn’t have features that exactly recall anything to mind. The second one is a vertebra of some sort. I feel like I’ve seen sawfish vertebrae that were very much like yours but that, too, is not a very confident ID. Sorry for the vagueness, but nice finds! Keep digging. +Best,
Carl" +99,20 Sep 2015,Possible fossilized tooth,Probable horn coral,Y,"From: Brenna
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 6:05 PM 
Subject: Possible fossilized tooth? +Hi, +On a recent trip home (upstate ny) I refound something that I had picked up as a child on the shore of Seneca lake. I've always thought it looked like a fossilized tooth, although one with odd layering in the rock. I didn't have a ruler to hand when I took the pictures but it's about an inch long. I know it may well not be a fossil at all but any information about it would be greatly appreciated! +Thanks, +Brenna + +From: Brenna
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 11:56 AM 
Subject: Re: Possible fossilized tooth? +Hi Carl, +Thank you so much for this information! This is absolutely fascinating stuff! +Thanks again, +Brenna","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:54 AM
To: 'Brenna'
Subject: RE: Possible fossilized tooth? +Hi Brenna, +Thanks for your message. I agree that you have a fossil but it's not a fossil tooth. It's very likely a horn coral. Horn corals were solitary corals that lived on Earth from the Ordovician to the Permian (as old as ~500 million years and as young as 250). And unless this was brought into the Seneca Lake area from farther north by glaciers, it would probably be Devonian in age (~354-409 million years ago) since all the local rocks Devonian. By comparison the oldest known dinosaurs are about 245 million years old. Nice find! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 12:08 PM
To: 'Brenna'
Subject: RE: Possible fossilized tooth? +My pleasure!" +100,23 Sep 2015,Fossils,"Possible turtle bone (?fossil), Enchodus fang",M,"From: amy 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 11:14 AM 
Subject: fossil identification +Dear Mr. Mehling, +I would appreciate your help in identifying these 2 pieces for my son. He collected them at Big Brook NJ recently. +Here is the first bone: +. +He is not sure whether this is a tooth or a claw: + +Thank you for your time, +Amy + +From: amy 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:53 PM 
Subject: Re: fossil identification +Thank you Mr. Mehling. We just tapped it on a cup and it appears to be mineralized as it made the ‘tink tink’ sound. So does that mean it’s a turtle bone fossil? +~Amy + +From: amy 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 1:13 PM 
Subject: Re: fossil identification +Ok, thank you again for your time,much appreciated! +~Amy","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:47 PM
To: 'amy'
Subject: RE: fossil identification +Hi Amy, +Thanks for your email. The first bone may be a turtle limb bone. It’s a bit hard to read. It may be fossil or it may be modern. If you tap it on a ceramic cup and it makes a very sharp “tink tink” sound it might be heavily mineralized, which would make it more likely to be a fossil. If the tapping sound is more like a “tock tock,” chances are it is modern. The other piece is a fang of a fish called Enchodus. Enchodus is the most common bony fish found in Big Brook. Nice finds! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:55 PM
To: 'amy'
Subject: RE: fossil identification +All I can say is that makes it more likely to be a fossil. The interpretation of that sound is a bit subjective. Plus mineralization doesn’t always mean it’s old enough to be a fossil. Sorry we can’t be more definitive. +-Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 1:35 PM
To: 'amy'
Subject: RE: fossil identification +My pleasure, Amy!" +101,24 Sep 2015,Fossil,"Possibly Devonian coral, brachiopod, and other marine invertebrates",Y,"From: Bill 
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 9:09 AM 
Subject: Fossil identification +Can you identify the fossil I found on Lake Erie at Headlands State Park in Ohio? +Thanks, +Bill + +From: Bill 
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 12:46 PM 
Subject: Re: Fossil identification +Thanks Carl, +I appreciate you taking the time to respond. +Bill + +From: Bill 
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 2:33 PM 
Subject: Are these fossils +Hello Carl, +What do you think?  Are these fossils?  Also found these at Headlands beach state park.   +Thanks, +Bill + +From: Bill
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 5:33 PM 
Subject: Re: Are these fossils +Thanks for your expert opinion Carl. +Bill + +From: Bill
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 12:40 PM 
Subject: Fossils from the beach? +Carl, +Found several of these at the beach at Pawleys Island South Carolina today.  Some were brown like the picture and some were white. +They could be fossils or maybe just coral. +What do you think? +Thanks, +Bill + +From: Bill
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 9:25 AM 
Subject: Re: Fossils from the beach? +Thanks Carl! + +From: Bill
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 1:28 PM 
Subject: Fossils??? +Hi Carl, +Found these at Headlands beach state park today.  First picture is really interesting. +What's your opinion.  Are they fossils? +Thanks, +Bill + +From: Bill 
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 1:44 PM 
Subject: Slug fossil +Carl, +What do you think about this one?  It has lateral lines running across the body.  It is hard like a rock.  Looks like a slug fossil. +What do you think? +Thanks, +Bill + +From: Bill 
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 7:53 PM 
Subject: Slug fossil +Carl, +I sent this from my phone yesterday, but not sure if it went.  Anyway, what are your thoughts? +Thanks, +Bill +[Same photo attached] + +From: Bill 
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 1:13 PM 
Subject: My wife's find +Carl,   +Here's one my wife found.  Looks like a sea she'll.  What's your opinion? + +From: Bill 
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 1:17 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: Slug +Carl I tried but can't get a clear shot of this.  The piece is rather fuzzy looking.  I need to moisten it to get the lines to show. +Bill + +From: Bill
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 1:19 PM 
Subject: L shaped fossil +Carl, +What's you opinion on this one?  +Thanks  +Bill","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 12:14 PM
To: 'Bill'
Subject: RE: Fossil identification +Hi Bill, +Thanks for your email. ). The photo is very blurry but I’m pretty sure I see a fossil coral there on the left-hand side of the rock. The other things might be marine shell fragments of some kind. Unless this was brought to the Lake Erie shore from farther north by glaciers, it would probably be Devonian in age (~354-409 million years ago) since all the local rocks there are Devonian. By comparison the oldest known dinosaurs are about 245 million years old. Nice find! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 12:49 PM
To: 'Bill'
Subject: RE: Fossil identification +My pleasure! + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 2:34 PM
To: 'Bill'
Subject: RE: Are these fossils +Hi Bill, +Those are a bit shy on detail but I’ll definitely go with fossil as an ID here. Most likely more marine invertebrates. +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 11:46 AM
To: 'Bill'
Subject: RE: Are these fossils +My pleasure! + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 1:46 PM
To: 'Bill'
Subject: RE: Fossils from the beach? +Hi Bill, +This is definitely coral but it would be very hard to determine if it were old enough to be fossil or not. But gorgeous, huh? +Best, +Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 1:37 PM
To: 'Bill'
Subject: RE: Fossils??? +I’d say yes, again, Bill! The first one is really hard to read. Maybe corals, maybe mollusks. But that second one sure looks like a mess of crinoid columnals. Nice finds! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 1:49 PM
To: 'Bill'
Subject: RE: Slug fossil +Hi Bill, +Sorry about the delay – I was away. The fossil is a bit blurry in the photo so I can’t be sure about it but my best guess at the moment is that it is a coral of some kind. Can you send a sharper image?
Best, +Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 1:43 PM
To: 'Bill'
Subject: RE: L shaped fossil +Hi Bill, +The one your wife found looks a lot like a brachiopod. And that makes sense against the other fossils you are finding. The most recent one you sent is too weak on details to say much. It might be something, might not. Can’t tell. +Best,
Carl" +102,25 Sep 2015,Fossil,"Probably coalified plant remains, +natural fracture patterns and mineral stains, rock ",N,"From: Allen 
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 6:33 AM 
Subject: Identification +Hi my name is Allen I have been collecting fossils for 20 years found a lot of them in mazon creek area need information on we're I can fiscally either take some of my finds or send them to have someone with extensive knowledge in petrified fossils look at them or even some kind of independent test lab sent these pictures to a paleontologist told me was a iron slug ,not a pro but know how to use magnet not iron thank you for your time + +From: Allen 
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 6:09 PM 
Subject: Thank you +Carl thank you for input will keep trying . One more set of photos Found in same area,Do you think this could be something,After cleaning this ,looks to be tooth? And left mark on bigger piece. Also another mark looks different, don't know but looks like tooth mark. + +From: Allen 
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 5:57 PM 
Subject: Last one +Don't know found in same area fits all criteria what do you think?","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 2:14 PM
To: 'Allen'
Subject: RE: Identification +Hi Allen, +Thanks for your email. Sometimes fossils be very hard to confidently ID from photos. However, if the one in you photos is from Mazon Creek the black marks in the rock could very well be coalified plant remains. They almost certainly could not be IDed any tighter than that. The best way to have things IDed is to put them in the hands of a local expert. You should try the folks at the Field Museum. I know they have had a long history of helping Mazon Creek fossil hunters. There are not really test labs for fossil identification - nothing can replace the eyes of an expert. +Best, +Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 12:40 PM
To: 'Allen'
Subject: RE: Thank you +Sorry, Allen. I see no fossils there. Just natural fracture patterns and mineral stains. + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 12:51 PM
To: 'Allen'
Subject: RE: Last one +Sorry, Allen. This one looks exactly like the kind of rock that would not preserve fossils. It looks metamorphic or igneous rather than sedimentary." +103,25 Sep 2015,Possible fossil,"Moroccan Orthoceras, doctored ammonite",Y,"From: Shane 
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 8:48 AM 
Subject: Not sure if its a fossil. +I found this in Arizona digging trenches and I don't know what to think of it. Could you help me understand what I have found? + +From: Shane 
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 9:02 AM 
Subject: To Carl Mehling +This was pasted down to me by my grandfather when he passed away but never told me what it was. Now that I'm older I'm curious to what it is. It where is probably over 10 pounds and is about 9 inches long x 7 inches wide as you can see in the pictures I sent you. If you could help me that would be great.","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 2:28 PM
To: 'Shane'
Subject: RE: To Carl Mehling +Hi Shane, +Thanks for your emails. The first photos you sent me are of a fossil but it did not come from Arizona. It came from Morocco. Those are straight-shelled nautiloids, sometimes called Orthoceras or orthocones. They are Devonian in age (~354-409 million years old) and have been dressed up for commercial sale. The rock surrounding each large nautiloid was polished along with areas of rock with no obvious nautiloid in order to enhance the look of the piece. These are extremely common on the fossil market. If you are anywhere near Tucscon this might have been tossed from the huge annual rock, mineral, and fossil show they have each year. Do a Google image search for “moroccan orthoceras” and you’ll find many images. The second set of photos you sent are of an ammonite. These are also shelled cephalopods and they went extinct around 65 million years ago. The center whorls of your specimen seem like they have been carved to enhance their detail – a very common alteration of commercial specimens. +Best,
Carl" +104,25 Sep 2015,Bog dinosaur with skin,Rock,N,"From: Chrissie Rosamond [mailto:crosamond85@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 8:55 PM 
Subject: Bog dinosaur ? +It looks like it still has skin + +From: Chrissie Rosamond [mailto:crosamond85@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 8:56 PM 
Subject: Bottom of it +What it eat maybe","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 2:53 PM
To: 'Chrissie Rosamond'
Subject: RE: Bottom of it +Hi Chrissie, +Thanks for your email. Unfortunately, I don’t see anything but a rock in the photos you sent. It lacks the details I would like to see in order to confidently ID it as a fossil. Sorry. +Best,
Carl" +105,27 Sep 2015,Fossil,Unknown,N,"From: Charley
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 2:36 PM 
Subject: FOSSILE? +Hi Carl:
Ran across this last summer while hiking in some canyons just outside the Navajo Reservation, didn't think much about it, figured it was just an interesting pile of rocks.
Wife said, ""Ya ought to send that to somebody, might be something important.""
Yeah, there are fossils in the area ... See #1151.  So anyway ... maybe it's a critter you've been looking for.  Photos attached.
Charley","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 2:46 PM
To: 'Charley'
Subject: RE: FOSSILE? +Hi Charley, +Thanks for your email. I can’t easily make out what is in the first two pictures. I guess they could be fossils but they are too far away for me to make out the relevant details. The last photo appears to be a shell so if those other things are fossils they could easily be some sort of marine invertebrates. Can you send me some close ups of the objects in question? And a tight locality might help me figure out how old the fossil might be. +Best,
Carl" +106,27 Sep 2015,Fossil,Possible coalified wood,Y,"From: Gerry 
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 11:20 PM 
Subject: Unknown fossil object +Carl Mehling- Sir, Please identify this fossil if possible. I have had local amateur and professionals inspect and none can say what this is. Some have ideas but are unwilling to say with certainty exactly what it is. I acquired this at a local garage sale and was told by the seller it came from an Indian campfire in Wyoming found by her now deceased father. She later recanted the story when I inquired further of it and now I have nothing to go on as to where it's from and when it came to her fathers hands.  On the ends it appears to be fossil wood, the sides are unlike wood and have a black coating on parts of them and appear to be smooth as bone. If you can view the broken middle it looks black as coal suggesting it has been lying in this stuff and that is the preserving agent. It has been suggested it is from an mammal not of the new world but of Europe-Asia. Please contact me with your expert opinion and if you need more information or photos I will send them. Sincerely yours- Gerry + +From: Gerry 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 2:19 PM 
Subject: Re: Unknown fossil object +Carl - I thank you for your quick response. I only wish that you would have been able to identify this item. If you would be willing to look further I would send more photos, however I understand that you are probably very busy. Thank you again. Gerry + +From: Gerry
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 7:00 PM 
Subject: Fossil
Carl- Will these help?  Gerry + +From: Gerry 
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:12 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: Re: Fossil +Carl-  Thanks again for your quick response- you are an exception in this world of requests for information. The woolley rhino theory has been suggested by two local paleo people. At the Hot Springs S.D. Mammoth site there is a woman who works there from Russia. She has experience with these animals in Russia and so I sought her out last week. Upon examination she at first would not comment, then we told her what some others had thought it is and then she said that's what she initially was thinking. After reexamining, she was undecided indicating that it is inconclusive in that the sides were smooth and that in her experience they should have individual hair like lines. A bone preparer, at the same facility- a young woman, thought it to be fossil wood. So as it stands I have 2 probable Woolley Rhinos, 1 undecided, 1 fossil wood, and now your maybe one or the other. This is sort of like a quest for me to find the actual answer and I will continue to seek answers until it will be positively identified if possible. To have a piece of wood in this shape suggests human shaping to me or it's very unusual to be naturally configured. The rhino theory seems plausible but maybe through fossilization  it has altered it unrecognizable in its usual form. At any rate I thank you for your input and if there is anything I can do to return the favor please let me know. Gerry","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:13 PM
To: 'Gerry'
Subject: RE: Unknown fossil object +Hi Gerry, +Thanks for your email. Sometimes fossils be very hard to confidently ID from photos. I am not seeing a lot of detail that I can use to confidently ID this as a fossil. It could be coalified plant remains, which would parallel your ID of it as fossil wood, but being more certain about that ID could prove difficult. I see very little to suggest it is part of a fossil mammal. The best way to have things IDed is to put them in the hands of a local expert, as you did. It may just not have enough detail to be properly identified. Sorry.
Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 2:41 PM
To: 'Gerry'
Subject: RE: Unknown fossil object +Hi Gerry, I'd be happy to look at more photos but I just think that they won't offer much more. Your photos already have been very good. +Best, Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 4:10 PM
To: 'Gerry'
Subject: RE: Fossil +Hi Gerry, +These are, indeed, better photos. I can definitely see this as a piece of fossil wood where the bark or outer layer of wood has carbonized. And the cross-section shows a pattern that could easily show compressed wood. To be more sure would require polishing that face and shooting extreme close-ups. +That said, I took a longer look at is and might slightly retract something I said earlier. It does have some similarities to the horn of a fossil rhino called Coelodonta. I don’t know what they look like in cross-section but the overall shape and the carbonized exterior are in favor of that interpretation. But there are also details that it lacks that I’d like to see in order to be more confident about that ID. +The important thing here is not to favor one idea over the other because one is more exciting. To me, rhino is more exciting than wood, and maybe to you, too. But as I stated before, the only real way to strengthen either of these views is to have an expert observe this thing in hand. +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 12:53 PM
To: 'Gerry'
Subject: RE: Fossil +Very interesting, Gerry! If you do wind up finding out what this is I’d love to know as well. +Best,
Carl" +107,29 Sep 2015,Fossil shell and possible coral,Fossil brachiopod and probable coral,Y,"From: April 
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 2:00 PM
Subject: Small marine fossils for identification +Dear Sir, +I recently found two small fossils in a pile of gravel that I had delivered from a local quarry. The stone on the left in the attached photo is an impression of a shell, while the stone on the right seems to be filled with a ""mesh"". Is it a type of coral? +The quarry the stones came from is located southeast of Brookings, South Dakota, on the eastern side of the state. +Thank you very much for any help that you can give me. +April","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:44 PM
To: 'April'
Subject: RE: Small marine fossils for identification +Hi April, +Thanks for your email. I think your IDs are pretty good. The shell is likely a brachiopod. They are marine invertebrates and have been on Earth for at least the last half billion years. They are still here in reduced diversity but in certain time periods they were incredibly diverse and abundant. The other one does indeed look like a coral. Many of the other round holes in that rock are likely the same. If these rocks truly did originate near Brookings they would be Late Cretaceous in age (~65-90 million years old). And at that time there was a seaway in that part of the country so everything fits together very nicely. Nice finds! +Best, +Carl" +109,30 Sep 2015,Dinosaur bone,Probably fossils,Y,"From: James 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:49 AM 
Subject: Dinosaur bone? +Hi Carl +This has been in the basement for years. The story is that my grandmother found this in the Alberta Badlands in the 1960s. I have always been told it was a dinosaur bone but have never had it identified. +Any information you might be able to provide about this would be greatly appreciated. +I forgot to add anything for scale but the size of the bone is about that of a closed fist +Thank You +James + +From: James 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:51 AM 
Subject: Fossils +These were found along the shores of Georgian Bay. Any idea what they might be. We are thinking of the round objects with the star/flower shape in the centre.They are about 2mm in diameter. +Thanks! +James","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 11:33 AM
To: 'J MacDougall'
Subject: RE: Fossils +Hi James, +Thanks for your emails. Your first piece is almost certainly fossil bone. And based on where it is supposed to have been found, the color, the preservation, and the size, I have no good reason to believe it is not a chunk of dinosaur bone. Sadly, I can’t take the ID any further. It is just a fragment and lacks the specific details to say what species it came from or even what bone in the animal it is. However, the majority of dinosaur fossils up there come from hadrosaurs (duck-billed dinosaurs) with ceratopsians (horned dinosaurs) coming in for a close second. Your piece is most likely from within the Late Cretaceous and should be about 75-78 million years old. +The other piece has crinoid columnals in it. Crinoids are stemmed relatives of starfish that have been on Earth for the last half billion years or so. Their stems are composed of stacked disks of calcium carbonate that tend to disarticulate after the death of the animal. What you have are these individual disks. And the five-pointed stars in each one reflect the same five-fold symmetry seen in starfish and many other echinoderms. I don’t know Georgian Bay fossils very well but it would be  good guess that these are probably 100s of millions of years old from a time when crinoids were extremely common in the sea. +Nice finds! +-Carl" +110,30 Sep 2015,Possible turtle,Snails,Y,"From: Clare 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 12:37 PM
To: Carl Mehling; Ross
Subject: request for fossil ID ... +Dear, dear Carolus,
My friend Brandon found this massive specimen at the Lower Falls, Rochester, NY (see below). Melanie H in Inver paleo said that site is Silurian. Do you think this baby here might be a turtle shell? Could it be? Or is it ""just a snail""? + +From: Clare 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 12:38 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: Fwd: Brandon for scale .... + +From: Clare
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 1:55 PM 
Subject: Re: request for fossil ID ... +SKI ... you are so prompt, my goodness ... thank you. So, both fossils are just snails, and we'll leave it at that hahahah. My friend will be so pleased with your analysis. +Clare","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 1:01 PM
To: 'Clare'
Subject: RE: request for fossil ID ... +Hey Ski! +Well, first off I can heartily shoot down turtle. The first turtles are way post-Silurian and the first piece has only the most superficial resemblance to a turtle. It’s hard to be sure because of what looks like a flaking mud or bacterial crust on the rock, but I’m not really getting a strong fossil signal form this one. I think it’s a purely geological design. But the one in the second email has more promise. That one looks like aquatic invertebrate bioturbation, probably marine. They look like they might be branching, which to me suggests  tunnels from burrowing crustaceans, but it’s hard to say if I’m seeing branching and it’s usually hard to say what creature made what trace fossil. This could be crustaceans, echinoderms… or just snails… +Best, +Carolus" +111,1 Oct 2015,"Some form of fossil reptile, maybe a pterosaur",Fake,N,"From: Tom 
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 4:33 AM 
Subject: Unknown Fossil +Hello Carl Mehling, +I have recently come back from a trip to China. I was looking everywhere for fossils as I am an amateur collector. I found this being sold in a rural village nearby and had to buy it, but I am not sure exactly what it is. I think it is some form of reptile, could it be a pterosaur? The specimen is 24cm long. +It would be great if I found out what it was. Many Thanks.
Tom + +From: Tom 
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 1:17 PM 
Subject: RE: Unknown Fossil +That is a shame, I was very excited when I saw it. I did think it might be but I am a collector so I had to take the risk. +Thanks for your help though, much appreciated
Tom + +From: Tom 
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 1:19 PM 
Subject: RE: Unknown Fossil +Do you know what species it is a fake cast of? Or is it just a general skeleton, not based on anything? +Thanks
Tom + +From: Tom 
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 1:28 PM 
Subject: RE: Unknown Fossil +Oh ok, I also sent the photos to the London Natural History museum at the same time as I did to you for extra identification and I mentioned that from the research I had done myself I thought it might be an archaeopteryx. +Thats great to know, thanks again +Have a nice day
Tom + +From: Tom 
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 9:42 AM 
Subject: RE: Unknown Fossil +Hello again Carl, +I was wondering if you know what species of Dactylioceras Ammonite this is? +Thanks
Tom + +From: Tom 
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 4:14 PM 
Subject: RE: Unknown Fossil +Ok, thanks Carl ","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 12:58 PM
To: 'Tom'
Subject: RE: Unknown Fossil +Hi Tom, +I hate to be the one to tell you this, but I feel very strongly that this is a fake. This kind of fake is extremely common in China. It is a very thin cast of a poorly sculpted skeleton adhered to a genuine piece of rock. Caveat emptor! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 1:21 PM
To: 'Tom'
Subject: RE: Unknown Fossil +No one is born knowing fossils. We all make similar errors. Think of it as a piece of folk art! + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 1:22 PM
To: 'Tom'
Subject: RE: Unknown Fossil +It’s trying to be an Archaeopteryx or something similar. It’s pretty generic, really. + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 1:45 PM
To: 'Tom'
Subject: RE: Unknown Fossil +My pleasure! + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 1:30 PM
To: 'Tom'
Subject: RE: Unknown Fossil +Sorry, Tom: I don’t. And our ammonite expert focuses on much younger ammonites. But I can say that it looks perfectly genuine! +Best,
Carl " +112,1 Oct 2015,"Fossil tooth, tusk, or plant",Castoroides upper incisor fragment,Y,"From: Barrett
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 10:25 AM 
Subject: Fossil ID +Good Morning Mr Mehling, +I found this while walking along the beach on Topsail Island, NC yesterday and have no idea what it could be. A tooth? A tusk? A plant?! Thanks for having a look, have a great day. +Best, +Barrett + +From: Barrett 
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 3:10 PM 
Subject: Re: Fossil ID +Wow! I never would have placed that. Thank you for your help, I'm gonna keep looking! +-Barrett","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 1:02 PM
To: 'Barrett'
Subject: RE: Fossil ID +Hi Barrett, +Ooooh, that makes me happy! Your guess of tooth is spot on. By my reckoning you have a part of the upper incisor of the giant Ice Age beaver, Castoroides. Well done! These are not at all that common. And you earn extra points for having an actual fossil (most of these kinds of emails are figments), correctly guessing what it was (at least to tooth), and having the sense to use caution with your identification. You deserve such a nice fossil! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:57 AM
To: 'Barrett'
Subject: RE: Fossil ID +My pleasure! More fossils await you!" +113,1 Oct 2015,Bone,Probable fragment of cow or horse scapula,Y,"On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Shadi wrote: +Thank you, good sir. ","[Shadi came by with the attached video of a bone his nephew found on a beach. I ruled out vertebra, rib, most skull bones, limb bones, most whale bones, etc.] + +[He came by with the bone on 6 Oct and had shown it to folks in Mammalogy, the Prep Lab, and some other paleo folks. Will thought whale rib or jaw was a possibility but I ruled those out. Threw out turtle, too. Would up thinking maybe cow or horse scapula fragment. Shadi, Lindsay, Alana, Ana, Will, Nicole and I all went down to the fossil bovid floor to compare the piece to the scapula of a mounted bison skeleton. Matched fairly favorably.] + +From: Carl Mehling [mailto:cosm69@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 9:04 PM
To: Shadi Eliya 
Subject: For Finneas!" +114,1 Oct 2015,"Dinosaur egg, fossil animal head","Concretion, rock",N,,"[This is the same guy who phoned the dept ~4 Oct and was passed on to me. The message said he was in Dallas and was coming back to NY on 5 October. He had found 2 fossils in TX that we “must see”: A dinosaur egg (confirmed) and an animal head 2 million years old.] + +From: Julia Kramer 
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 12:19 PM 
Subject: Fossil ID +Hey, +This man has called the communications department a couple of times, and finally just sent over some images. He says he has found a dinosaur egg, and maybe another fossil and I figured I would pass it on to you. He attached his information as a txt file, so I have just copy and pasted it below. +""I fully believe that this is a prehistoric dinosaur egg with the embryo still inside I found this in the state of Texas, and the other fossil seems to be a head and back with the spine and other things that you would know better than me showing on the fossil. I¹ve been told by folks in a science Museum out here that this is 2 million years old and it¹s the holy Grail I will be back in New York October 5 if you need to reach me before then you can call me at 469-804-4421 my cell number is 347-573-3850 my name is Mitch thank you in advance"" +Thanks! +Julia Kramer +Publicist +American Museum of Natural History +(212) 496-3306 + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:06 PM
To: Julia Kramer
Subject: RE: Fossil ID +Hi Julia, +Thanks for your email. I have had a look at the photos, and although it is sometimes hard to be sure with photos, I'd be very surprised if this was a fossil egg. It does somewhat resemble an egg, but it is much more likely to be a sedimentary concretion of some kind – it’s resemblance to an egg is merely accidental. Concretions often form when some object acts as a “seed” for cementation of sediment. The subtle concentric layering adds weight to this interpretation. On occasion, the thing that initiates the concretion, the “seed,” can be a fossil. To find this out would require finding out exactly what is in the center. +Fossil eggs usually have an easily identifiable shell which differs significantly from the enclosed sediments either by having a fine, specific kind of surface ornamentation (the smoother the ""shell,"" the less likely it is to be a non-bird dinosaur egg) or a specific type of crystalline structure in cross-section. Also, because eggshell is so brittle, the shell is almost always heavily cracked with apparent shifting of the eggshell bits – the more perfectly “egg-like” it is the less chance that it is a fossil egg. Ironically, one strong indication that this is not an egg is that it is so egg-shaped: most fossil eggs are not ""egg-shaped"" because most fossil eggs come from non-avian dinosaurs and are everything from spherical to torpedo-shaped. +Additionally, the thickness of the “shell” certainly rules out egg. Embryos in hard-shelled terrestrial eggs need shells through which they can conduct gas exchange – basically so they can breathe. Past a certain thickness, this becomes impossible. This specimen’s “shell” is much too thick. +As for the other piece, the photos are very blurry. If the pattern seen in the close-ups is what he thinks is fossil that pattern is actually merely the way rocks like that fracture. +In the future you can feel free to pass these folks directly on to me. +Best, +Carl + +From: Julia Kramer 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:22 PM 
Subject: Re: Fossil ID +Thanks, we do get calls about this on a semi-regular basis, so its okay to just give them your email? +Thanks! + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:24 PM
To: Julia Kramer
Subject: RE: Fossil ID +Absolutely! Thanks!" +116,4 Oct 2015,Fossil,Probable Arthrophycus-like trace fossil,Y,"From: John
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 12:39 PM 
Subject: Fossil identification +Good morning, +I found this (see pics) yesterday in the woods and was curious what I might be? Location is in western Arkansas. +You can contact me at of you need more information. +Thanks,","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:22 PM
To: 'John'
Subject: RE: Fossil identification +Hi John, +Thanks for your email. I've had a look at your photo and think you might have a trace fossil there. Trace fossils record the activities of organisms. Some kinds are footprints, tooth marks, burrows, etc. Yours reminds me of certain feeding traces of aquatic animals as they tunnel through the seafloor. Have a look at the ""digitating feeding probes"" on this page: http://www.northtexasfossils.com/tracefossils.htm or do an image search for Arthrophycus. Nice find! +Best, +Carl" +117,4 Oct 2015,Fossil shell,Horn coral,Y,"From: Thomas
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 7:29 PM 
Subject: Fossil to identify please +Good morning? +My name is Thomas. I found this on the shore of Moose River. Moose River is located in North Eastern Ontario Canada - At the southern tip of James Bay. I'll include a photo of location. +I'm sorry I didn't have a ruler with me but the shell like fossil approximately 2"" across. If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to email me back. I got many more. + +From: Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 4:44 PM 
Subject: Re: Fossil to identify please +Good day Carl, +Thank you for explaining to me what it may be. All kinds of fossils in the area. I also found volcanic rock with feldspar? in it. Less interesting but should give you an idea of the variety of rocks along the shore. I'll send more photos of different fossils I find, if that's okay with you. Thank you and have a good day. ","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 4:25 PM
To: 'Thomas'
Subject: RE: Fossil to identify please +Hi Thomas, +Thanks for your email. Looks to me like you've found a horn coral. Horn corals were solitary corals that lived on Earth from the Ordovician to the Permian (as old as ~500 million years and as young as 250). By comparison the oldest known dinosaurs are about 245 million years old. From the little I've gathered it looks like the rocks around where you found it would be Devonian in age (from about 409-354 million years old). Either way, it would be 100s of millions of years old. Nice find! +Best, +Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 5:06 PM
To: 'Thomas'
Subject: RE: Fossil to identify please +I'll help as much as I can!" +119,5 Oct 2015,Presumably fossil egg,Concretion,N,"From: William
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:10 AM 
Subject: +Good morning, I am William From N.D. and I think I have found an egg. Will be sending pics. Just want to know if this is the right e-mail address. + +From: William 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:47 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: RE: + +From: William 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:13 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: RE: +Here is the pics + +From: William 
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 8:42 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: RE: +[Same photos attached] + +From: William
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 8:42 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: RE:","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 1:37 PM
To: 'William'
Subject: RE: +Hi William, +Thanks for your email. I’d be happy to have a look at your find. Please email me very sharp photos (no more than 5 and no larger than 500k) that include scale. +Best, +Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 2:18 PM
To: 'William'
Subject: RE: RE: +Hi William, +Thanks for the photos. Although it is sometimes hard to be sure with photos, I'd be very surprised if this was a fossil egg.  It does somewhat resemble an egg, but it is much more likely to be a sedimentary concretion of some kind – it’s resemblance to an egg is merely accidental. Concretions often form when some object acts as a “seed” for cementation of sediment. On occasion, the thing that initiates the concretion, the “seed,” can be a fossil. To find this out would require cracking the concretion open. +Alternatively, it might also be a lithified mud nodule. These start as balls of mud that harden through drying or chemical processes, sometimes at different rates within the ball. Mud nodules can also be balls of mud that affect the surrounding sediments and chemically alter them in a way that makes a shell-like layer harden and adhere to the mud interior. This can result in an object like yours with a hard “shell” and a looser interior.
Fossil eggs usually have an easily identifiable shell which differs significantly from the enclosed sediments either by having a fine, specific kind of surface ornamentation (the smoother the ""shell,"" the less likely it is to be a non-bird dinosaur egg) or a specific type of crystalline structure in cross-section. Also, because eggshell is so brittle, the shell is almost always heavily cracked with apparent shifting of the eggshell bits – the more perfectly “egg-like” it is the less chance that it is a fossil egg. But the lack of shifting in the broken bits on the surface of your find reveals the uneven geometry of the surface – this would be very unexpected for an egg.. +Sorry to bring bad news, +Carl" +120,5 Oct 2015,"Fossil with a lot of sharp teeth, hardened reptile scales, two short arms and fingers all tangled up under the head or skin that settled after it died",Rock,N,"From: Christine 
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:19 AM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: I THINK THIS IS A FOSSIL +I found this is my backyard when I was cleaning up leaves and stuff. I thought it was a meteorite at first because of the black layer on it. But when I looked closer at it I saw it has teeth. Alot of sharp teeth. And the free and white parts of it look just like hardened reptile scales. I am not sure if it is two short arms and fingers all tangled up under the head or if that is skin that settled after it died. Or something totally else. It's heavy and shines so much if you put water on it. It has little hairs I think growing on it. And when I put it in the sunlight they Stand up. I dont think the hairs are related. Haha. Maybe I just spent too much time staring at it through a magnifying glass. Do you know if it is indeed a fossil. And if I could profit from finding it? Thank you. My name is Christine. Write me back please.   -------->>> Here are the photos I took. Every side of it looks so different. It's crazy.","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 1:45 PM
To: 'Christine'
Subject: RE: I THINK THIS IS A FOSSIL +Hi Christine, +Thanks for your email. I’ve had a look at your photos and feel pretty certain it’s not a fossil. It’s lacking the fine detail I’d like to see in order to confidently ID it as such. And I can’t really see any of the features that you describe. Sorry for the bad news. +Best,
Carl" +121,5 Oct 2015,Fossil,Rock with crystals,N,"From: Katie 
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 1:26 PM 
Subject: Fossil identification +Hi Carl Mehling, 
I recently acquired this and not sure what it would be exactly. My friend found it hiking in The Rockies of Colorado. Would really appreciate if you could indentify this for me. Thanks! + +","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 2:20 PM
To: 'Katie'
Subject: RE: Fossil identification +Hi Katie, +Thanks for your email. I’ve had a look at your great photos and feel quite sure it’s not fossils but rather crystals. I really don’t know crystals well at all but I think the red dots are garnets. No good idea what the black crystals would be. Either way it’s a very attractive find! Well done. +Best,
Carl" +122,5 Oct 2015,2 chamber fossilized heart,Chert nodule,N,"From: Steven
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 6:20 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: [What Is This Fossil?] Dinasaur Heart -bird or fish? +i have what i assume is a 2 chamber fossilized heart. i would like to send +photos in hopes someone can help me identify this. I am in Denver Colorado. +i've sent photos to the curator of the museum of nature and science a couple years back and did not get a very good response, since then i've tried numerous times both their and other online options, and haven't received any fee back. hope someone can let me know what i'm looing at and if it's something that should be regarded as a prize, + +From: Steven
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 6:35 PM 
Subject: an you help me identify if this is a bird or fish heart. +I looks like a 2 chamber heart.  You can make out the artery, the chamber’s where it is broke, and the tissue on the outside in the last photo. +I can take some digital photos if there is an interest in seeing more. +Thank You: +Steven + +From: Steven 
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 2:41 PM 
Subject: RE: an you help me identify if this is a bird or fish heart. +Thank you for the response.  I will look closer and get educated on chert nodules?  Never heard of em. +Thank You: +Steven + +From: Steven
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 5:34 PM 
Subject: just a follow up on some digital photos. +I looked up several items on Chert Nodules.  And still didn’t find anything that looked really close to what I have.  However there are some similarities, such as the colors.  Let me know if your still convinced this is a chert, please.  And I will not be a bother anymore. +Thank You: +Steven","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 2:33 PM
To: 'Steven'
Subject: RE: an you help me identify if this is a bird or fish heart. +Hi Steven, +Thanks for your email. Unfortunately, I feel very strongly that you do not have a fossil. It lacks the fine details I would want to see to feel confident it was a fossil. It is much more likely to be chert nodule – it’s resemblance to an fossil is merely accidental. The type of fracture it exhibits where it has broken is very consistent with the way chert breaks. +It could also be a sedimentary concretion of some kind. Concretions often form when some object acts as a “seed” for cementation of sediment. On occasion, the thing that initiates the concretion, the “seed,” can be a fossil. To find this out would require cracking the concretion open. But as mentioned before the fracture type is more consistent with chert. +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 3:22 PM
To: 'Steven'
Subject: RE: an you help me identify if this is a bird or fish heart. +My pleasure! + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 4:38 PM
To: 'Steven'
Subject: RE: just a follow up on some digital photos. +Hi Steven, +Chert comes in so many varieties that finding photos of pieces similar to yours will be very difficult. The main detail on your piece that makes me lean towards chert or something similar is the way the reddish part is fractured – that type of fracture is very consistent with chert. +Best,
Carl" +123,6 Oct 2015,?Possibly fossil whale vertebrae,Modern whale vertebrae,N,"From: Matthew 
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 9:55 PM 
Subject: Whalebone +Hello I found this in the surf near Cape Hatteras North Carolina. Do you have any idea what sort of whale it might have come from? Or how old? +Thank you for your help – Matthew + +From: Matthew +Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:31 AM +Subject: RE: Whalebone +Thanks Carl, I appreciate your help! +Matthew","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 3:43 PM
To: 'Matthew'
Subject: RE: Whalebone +Hi Matthew, +Thanks for your email. Sorry, but I can't ID this any better than you did. I agree that it is whale but whale vertebrae are extremely similar to one another. However I don't think it is old enough to be considered a fossil. What you might do is look into the cetaceans that are currently found off Cape Hatteras and figure out which ones could have vertebrae of that size. +Best, +Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 1:53 PM
To: 'Matthew'
Subject: RE: Whalebone +My pleasure!" +124,8 Oct 2015,Fossil,"Fossil, probably marine invertebrate",Y,"From: Michelle
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 1:55 AM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: Fossil Identify question from Vancouver Island for Carl Mehling. +Hi there! My name is Michelle and this is a fossil that was found digging in the back yard two days ago.  We live near the end of Cowichan Lake...mouth of the Cowichan River. Vancouver Island. +It is a type of sandstone ? Just for fun I posted a pic on Facebook... without the dimensions.  +The replies were. Something from the movie Aliens.  Shellor vertebrae lines.  Bigfoot. Interesting. Old KFC . Baleen whale hair fiber. Plankton tubes.  Piece of trilobite. +Here are the photos with a small ruler.  Thanks so much for taking a look! + +From: Michelle
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 2:26 PM 
Subject: Re: Fossil Identify question from Vancouver Island for Carl Mehling. +Hi there! +We set traps out this summer after looking at conceptual photographs of the big guy. Rumors of Kokanee being his brand. But it is the Island..If we get anything will pass on to you.  +Thanks so much Carl for entertaining my question. You rock!  Have a great day ~ Michelle.  +P.S. can I put your comment on the comments section for my friends on fb ? For those who were curious.  +I will address as the Division of Paleontology American Museum of Natural History. If  that is ok with you. Thanks again ! :) + +From: Michelle
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 2:27 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: Re: Fossil Identify question from Vancouver Island for Carl Mehling.","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 3:36 PM
To: 'Michelle'
Subject: RE: Fossil Identify question from Vancouver Island for Carl Mehling. +Hi Michelle, +Thanks for your email. I will have to agree with you that this is a fossil and the rock does look like sandstone. Unfortunately, there may not be enough of it preserved for me to properly ID it. My guts says that it is at least safe to say it’s likely a marine invertebrate. And I have seen fossil corals much like this. However, I can confidently rule out something from the movie Aliens, old KFC, baleen whale hair fiber, and plankton tubes. I’m unwilling to rule out any part of Bigfoot until we actually have him. And although I feel pretty strong it’s not a part of a vertebrate or trilobite that could be possible. And since, in the broadest sense, “shell” could apply to coral, I will leave that one alone. The best thing to do might be to keep collecting in your back yard and find more of this specimen or a more complete example! Good luck! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 11:17 AM
To: 'Michelle'
Subject: RE: Fossil Identify question from Vancouver Island for Carl Mehling. +Watch it: you might catch all manner of things with that bait, Michelle. +But feel free to post my comments to FB. +Be well,
Carl" +125,8 Oct 2015,Presumably fossil,Horn coral,Y,"From: Scott
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 7:40 AM 
Subject: What exactly is this +I found this in a muck field about 10 years ago behind where I was living.  Sorry I didn't have a regular ruler on me when I took the pictures.  It has alot of tiny crystals on one end of it.","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 3:48 PM
To: 'Scott'
Subject: RE: What exactly is this +Hi Scott, +Thanks for your email. Looks like you have a horn coral there. Horn corals were solitary corals that lived on Earth from the Ordovician to the Permian (as old as ~500 million years and as young as 250). By comparison the oldest known dinosaurs are about 245 million years old. Nice find! +Best,
Carl" +126,9 Oct 2015,Possible fossil,Helmet shell lip,M,"From: Bob
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 11:02 AM 
Subject: Fossil (?) Identification +My wife found this washed up on the beach in Myrtle Beach SC. A friend of mine told me it is pottery,but I'm not so sure. +Can you offer any ideas? +Thanks! +Bob + +From: Bob
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 8:05 AM 
Subject: Re: Fossil (?) Identification +Carl, +Mystery solved! And by the quickness of your response, you didn't even have to research it. Always ask the experts first. +Thank you very much! +Bob","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 1:41 PM
To: 'Bob Schaller'
Subject: RE: Fossil (?) Identification +Hi Bob, +Thanks for your email. Your instincts were on the right track. It is not pottery. It is a piece of a large snail shell. This is one of the lips from the snail’s aperture. You can see exactly where if you Google images of the “helmet shell.” What I can’t tell is if it is old enough to be a fossil. A fossil of this kind along that beach would look virtually the same as a modern shell. But at least you can tell your friend it isn’t pottery! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 12:32 PM
To: 'Bob Schaller'
Subject: RE: Fossil (?) Identification +My pleasure!" +127,9 Oct 2015,Fossil,Small cetacean vertebra,Y,"From: william
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 8:17 PM 
Subject: Found fossil +Hi Carl I found this on a construction site in North Charleston, SC +Thank you so much for any help you can give me in IDing this +Thanks Will + +From: william
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:35 PM 
Subject: Re: Found fossil +Thanks!","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 1:53 PM
To: 'william'
Subject: RE: Found fossil +Hi Will, +Thanks for your email. Looks like you found yourself a small cetacean vertebra, probably a dolphin. And based on the color and the context of the find it is likely a few million years old to as much as maybe 30 million. Nice find! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 11:20 AM
To: 'william'
Subject: RE: Found fossil +My pleasure!" +128,10 Oct 2015,Possible fossil,Botryoidal mineral,N,"From: Donald
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 1:11 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: Fosil ? + +From: Donald
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 3:16 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: Re: Fosil ? +Thanks","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 1:58 PM
To: 'Donald'
Subject: RE: Fosil ? +Hi Donald, +Thanks for your email. What you have there is not a fossil but crystals. The form they are taking is called botryoidal. If you do a Google image search for 'botryoidal' you will find many beautiful examples. Nice find! +Best, +Carl" +129,10 Oct 2015,Presumably fossil,Probable crinoid stem fragment,Y,"From: Daniel
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 9:00 PM 
Subject: I +Found on north Shore straits of Mackinac Mi. ","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 11:47 AM
To: 'Daniel'
Subject: RE: I +Hi Daniel, +Thanks for your email. Looks like you have a fragment of a crinoid stem there. Crinoids are stalked relatives of starfish that go back about half a billion years. They are still with us today but were amazingly abundant deep in Earth’s past. It looks like the rock in the immediate area of your find is Silurian (~409-439 million years ago) so that would make good sense. Just for reference, the oldest known dinosaurs are around 245 million years old. Nice find! +Nest,
Carl" +130,11 Oct 2015,Fossil,Probable non-fossil rock,N,"From: Bobbi-Lynn
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 3:22 AM
To: Carl Mehling
Cc: Logan
Subject: Hatta, UAE Marine Fossil +Dear Mr. Mehling, +I am a science teacher in the United Arab Emirates and have stumbled across this fossil.  Can you please help me identify it?  A student has been trying to figure it out, and we are having a hard time! +Thank you so much for any help you can provide! +Bobbi Lynn + +From: Bobbi-Lynn
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 1:14 AM 
Subject: Re: Hatta, UAE Marine Fossil +Hi Carl! +Thanks so much for your response!  Now I'm even more intrigued to try and figure out what caused it!  There are many of these examples in the rock outcropping of the dried up ocean bed in that particular part of the desert.    +I truly appreciate your help.  Thank you! +Bobbi Lynn","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 12:30 PM
To: 'Bobbi-Lynn'
Subject: RE: Hatta, UAE Marine Fossil +Hi Bobbi-Lynn, +Thanks for your email. I get the sense that your find is more geologic rather than paleontologic. It lacks the finer details I would like to see to confidently ID it as a fossil. But that said, it still could be a fossil of a type I am not yet familiar with. Sorry for the vagueness! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 4:45 PM
To: 'Bobbi-Lynn'
Subject: RE: Hatta, UAE Marine Fossil +My pleasure!" +131,12 Oct 2015,Fossil shell,Fossil snail,Y,"From: Andrew 
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 4:00 PM 
Subject: Fossil id +I found this near Borah Peak outside of Mackay, Idaho.  It was along a drainage coming off the northwestern slope of the mountain.   I found it interesting enough to warrant packing it off the mountain.  Now several years later, I find myself still packing this thing every time I have moved.  Can you help me ID this? Looks like a shell that has been fossilized in quartz?  Any help would be appreciated! +Andrew","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:49 PM
To: 'Andrew'
Subject: RE: Fossil id +Hi Andrew, +Thanks for your email. What  beautiful piece! Looks like you have a gorgeous fossil snail there. The most promising source rocks on Borah are Upper Paleozoic in age (roughly 250-250 million years old). I think that makes sense regarding the look of the rock (probably limestone) that it’s in. Just for reference, the oldest known dinosaurs are around 245 million years old. And it does look like it might be a quartz replacement of the shell, or at least some kind of recrystallization. Nice find! +Best,
Carl" +132,12 Oct 2015,Fossil,Halysites,Y,"From:
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 6:14 PM 
Subject: Found this fossil in U.P Michigan was wondering about it? If you can help ID. It","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 2:03 PM
To: ''
Subject: RE: Found this fossil in U.P Michigan was wondering about it? If you can help ID. It +Hi Mystery Person, +Thanks for your email. What you have a gorgeous example of the chain coral Halysites. This coral genus lived on Earth from the Ordovician to Silurian (~450 to 412 million years ago). For reference the oldest known dinosaurs are about 245 million years old. Nice find! +Best,
Carl" +133,13 Oct 2015,"Trace fossil or straight-shelled cephalopod, and possible fossil imprint","Probable trace fossil, rock",M,"From: Kouga
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:49 AM 
Subject: Fossil ID +I was wondering if you could help me identify these specimens. I found them both outside my house in Johnson County Kentucky while walking around. +I posted the first specimen (attachments 1-2) on a fossil forum and someone identified it as a trace fossil of some kind of shelled animal (though they didn't specify what animal). I emailed it to an admin of another fossil site (based in Kentucky) to see if he could tell me what animal had left the tracks, but he thought it looked more the chambers of a straight-shelled cephalopod. What's your opinion? +I'm not sure if the second specimen (attachments 3-4) is a fossil at all, but it definitely looks like some kind of imprint. I thought it was a boot print before realizing it was in rock. A couple people suggested that it may be evidence of seafloor bioturbation, while someone else thinks it might just be a suggestive rock.
Any help is appreciated! + +From: Kouga
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 2:51 PM 
Subject: Re: Fossil ID +Thanks for the reply! I agree that it looks more like a trace fossil (not that it counts for much, being a fossil newbie), but do you have any clues as to what kind? I'm leaning toward Taenidium satanassi, although I can't find much info on them (like what animal left the tracks or their presence in Kentucky). + +From: Kouga
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 5:41 PM 
Subject: Re: Fossil ID +Ah, that's unfortunate. If it could've been identified, maybe it would've helped me to know what kind of fossils to be looking for. Still a neat find in itself, being my first fossil that isn't plant-related. Thanks for the help. :)","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 2:10 PM
To: 'Kouga'
Subject: RE: Fossil ID +Hi Kouga, +Thanks for your email. I can definitely see why you got the two IDs you got for that first one. It indeed looks very much like both of those things. But I would lean toward trace fossil because there does not appear to be any shell preserved, all of the sediment is quite similar, and most telling is the fact that the units vary a tiny bit in their size, which would be very unexpected for a cephalopod. But I’m not getting a strong fossil signal from the second specimen. It lacks the finer details I’d like to see in order to confidently ID it as a fossil.  Sorry I can’t be more definitive! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 3:07 PM
To: 'Kouga'
Subject: RE: Fossil ID +I think Taenidium satanassi is a good start but I don’t think that’s actually what it is. T. satanassi backfill segments contain two types of sediment (your appears to have just one) and of those two, one of them is composed of fecal pellets. But if yours is a trace fossil it is very likely a meniscate backfilled burrow like T. satanassi. Knowing the animal creator is the really hard part. The only way to confidently lock a trace fossil to its maker is for the maker to have died with the trace right after making it. This is incredibly rare. Add to this the fact that animals of very different morphology can produce very similar traces and you can see why it is best to call this maker a burrowing marine animal, probably an invertebrate. + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 4:40 PM
To: 'Kouga'
Subject: RE: Fossil ID +My pleasure!" +134,14 Oct 2015,Presumably fossil,Probably rock,N,"From: Doug 
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 11:15 AM 
Subject: please help to identify +Good morning. +I am attaching some pictures of something I found recently while on the beach in Rehoboth, DE.  Due to storms, we have had several days of high tides and I found this the other day while walking on the beach. +Thanks in advance for any insight you may be able to provide. +Regards, +Doug","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:59 PM
To: 'Doug'
Subject: RE: please help to identify +Hi Doug, +Thanks for your email. The photos are extremely blurry so I can’t be very sure but I get the sense this is not a fossil. It doesn’t seem to have the finer details I would like to see in order to make a confident fossil ID. +Best,
Carl " +135,15 Oct 2015,Fossil,Horn coral,Y,"From: kelsy
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:03 PM 
Subject: fossil identification +Dear Carl, +A patron brought this fossil to our library today hoping to identify it. He found it near Seneca Lake here in Geneva, NY. We think it is a coral but just wanted to be sure. Photos are attached. +Many thanks, +Kelsy + +From: kelsy
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 4:51 PM 
Subject: Re: fossil identification +Carl, +Thank you so much! I'm sure our patron will be thrilled with this information (and I enjoyed learning about the fossil as well). +- Kelsy","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 4:07 PM
To: 'Kelsy'
Subject: RE: fossil identification +Hi Kelsy, +Thanks for your email and your patience while I was away. You can tell your patron that he is the lucky finder of a fossil horn coral. Horn corals were solitary corals that lived on Earth from the Ordovician to the Permian (as old as ~500 million years and as young as 250 million). If it came from the rocks locally exposed near Geneva (rather than being brought there by people or glaciers) it would be Devonian in age (between about 354 and 409 million years old). By comparison the oldest known dinosaurs are only about 245 million years old. Nice find! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 10:11 AM
To: 'Kelsy'
Subject: RE: fossil identification +My pleasure!" +136,15 Oct 2015,Mastodon teeth,Mastodont teeth,Y,"From: Carolyn 
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 10:43 AM 
Subject: Fwd: Museum Visit +Dear Carl, +First I need to apologize for the lateness of this thank you for our informative, humorous and charming visit with you August 25 at the museum.  Since we met, we have been away, I had knee surgery, and then we had trouble figuring out how to get these photos online. +As you can see in the photos of smiling faces, they had a ball meeting you.  They each loved the personalized dedication in their book....you are certainly a special guy!!! +We really enjoyed the ""Life at the Limits""  that you so graciously led us to.  We would not have known it was there since we have a ritual of where we go in the museum.  It would have been a sin to miss it because the older three (12,11,and 10) took their pads and took notes for over an hour.....that is how enthralled they were.  We actually had to drag them away for lunch because Sebastian at 8 was hungry and wanted to go see the big bears. +I have enclosed photos of our molars and we had a couple of questions. We believe you said they were from a mastodon as Charles of Littleton, N.H. claimed at his museum and not a mammoth.  Is that right?  Each family is going to have one for safe keeping and of course they all like the one where you can see teeth.  You said ""the best one"" is a personal thing and they were both wonderful for different reasons.  What is the reason for each.....the first one is the one with three deep ridges and the second one has the visible teeth.  This info will help whichever sister/brother combination gets the one without teeth showing.  +The last photo shows the brown filler that must have put on so the fossil would sit properly to be displayed.  The photo with both of them shows how they must have looked displayed.  +We'll appreciate the answers to our questions because then we will do a blind behind the back division of these treasures.  They may take turns sharing them, too. +The sate of Pennsylvania has a motto....You have a friend in Pennsylvania.  The McAdams family feels we have a friend at the AMNH.  THANK YOU. +All the best, +Carolyn","[Carolyn won an auction tour back in 2011and took the tour in 2014. Then in 2015 she visited with her grandchildren who had bought my Inside Dinosaurs book and wanted them signed she also brought “some Mastodon molar teeth [her sister] bought 25 years ago from the family of a man who had a home museum. This man would invite school children to his museum.” She wanted my opinion about the teeth.] + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 10:06 AM
To: Carolyn
Subject: RE: Museum Visit +Hey Carolyn! +Thanks for this email and your patience while I was away. Those pictures are great! And I’m so happy the kids had such a blast. More than an hour of notes… I wish you could know how happy that makes me. They are our replacements! +Now the teeth are definitely not mammoths. But I can only be pretty sure one is a mastodon (Mammut americanum): the smaller fragment. The other tooth is definitely a proboscidean but I get the sense it is not a true mastodon but probably in the larger group informally called mastodonts. I don’t claim to know proboscideans very well at all but gomphothere might be another possibility here. As for why each is wonderful I can only give you my perspective, of course. The Mammut tooth shows the wear pattern that illuminates the chewing mechanics of the living animal, and in a way makes this one more alive because you can see the evidence of it having been used. The other tooth is more complete and shows the full unworn cusp morphology. +Hope your knee is feeling better! +-Carl" +137,17 Oct 2015,Fossil,Isotelus pygidium,Y,"From: Tom
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 6:39 PM 
Subject: Fossil to be identified +Hi Mr. Mehling, +I saw your email on the AMNH site and that you would try to identify a fossil. I'm attaching several photos from different angles. I apologize now as these photos are +2MB. I could have made them small but I feel that if you need to zoom in, you'll see better detail. +The fossil was found in south central Tennessee. Found in a limestone and shale formations in a road cut. +Thank you for your time. +Tom","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 4:42 PM
To: Tom
Subject: RE: Fossil to be identified +Hi Tom, +Thanks for your email and your patience while I was away. I can't really call myself a trilobite expert but that definitely looks like a Isotelus pygidium to me. If you don’t already know, trilobites were marine arthropods that lived on Earth from about 530 million years ago to about 250 million. Isotelus is a genus of trilobite from the Ordovician (~500-439 million years ago) and the back end of a trilobite is called the pygidium. There are definitely Ordovician rocks in south central TN so that fits nicely, too. Very nice find! +Best,
Carl + +[He posted this also to the Fossil Forum as PLCTom on 17 October and was told the same thing!]" +138,19 Oct 2015,Fossil,Rock,N,"From: Joe
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 1:43 AM 
Subject: Fossil, got to know +Hey, Carl,  +I hope you can help me identify this one found in Illinois. Thanks, Joe Morris + +From: Joe 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 10:30 AM 
Subject: Re: Fossil, got to know +Thanks a bunch. Yeah it's weird. I thank I will find a geologist to take a look. I sent you a definite picture of a fossil. I have a lot of for sure fossils. Most, of which, I can classify myself. I need to know if you only do a one time only or Will you take on all of my stuff. + +From: Joe
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 1:11 PM 
Subject: Re: Fossil, got to know +Lol, I will try to not get carried away. I will be making a donation. So hopefully that helps. I really appreciate it!!!. Anyway, everything comes from my property. There is a natural creek on and also a rock pile of when the dug the pipes, drainage ditch, and two houses. So, we find all sorts of thing. I have found dino bones, around 60 horn coral, and two many critters to list. I have two fossil books. Its hard to tell some things. The pics are of museum quality. All fossils I clean up. We keep it all. I am putting together a massive collection that can be passed down and learned from. Thank you take your time. I will do one at a time not to overwhelm. Joey, ","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 4:49 PM
To: 'Joe'
Subject: RE: Fossil, got to know +Hi Joe, +Thanks for your email and your patience while I was away.  I’ve had a look at your interesting find and although it is certainly odd I don’t think it is a fossil. It lacks the finer details I would like to see in order to offer a confident fossil ID. I think it is just a geological wonder. But a nice find either way! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 12:21 PM
To: 'Joe'
Subject: RE: Fossil, got to know +I would be happy to try and ID more things for you, but let’s just not make it too many! Best, Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 3:13 PM
To: 'Joe'
Subject: RE: Fossil, got to know +Standing by. + +[For some reason he resent the October 29, 2015 10:30 AM email again two times at 3:49 PM] +" +139,19 Oct 2015,Possible fossil,Odd rock,N,"From: Steven 
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 6:57 PM 
Subject: Fossil?
Hi. I found this rock (pictures attached) in my backyard in Virginia. I am curious to know what it is.  Can you identify it?
Thanks,
Steven + +From: Steven
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 5:50 PM 
Subject: Re: Fossil? +Thanks for taking a look at it.
Steven","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:59 PM
To: 'Steven'
Subject: RE: Fossil? +Hi Steven, +Thanks for your email. I’ve had a look at your find and I don’t think it is a fossil. It lacks the fine detail I would like to see in order to be convinced it was a fossil. But I don’t really have an alternative for you. It is definitely odd! Maybe we can just consider it a geologic wonder. +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:36 AM
To: 'Steven'
Subject: RE: Fossil? +My pleasure!" +140,20 Oct 2015,Not rocks,Geodes,N,"From: Dan
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 8:52 PM
To: visitorinfo
Subject: Here's the pictures I can take more if you need to me too +Hello my name is Daniel I got a bunch of these would look like rocks but they're not rocks there's more where that came from a guy who sold jewelry recently died he's a friend of the neighbor of a friend of mine and he had all these stones and all this stuff in his backyard and that's how I acquired these anyway how I hope they're there what they say they are thank you Daniel + +From: Vivien 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 4:33 PM
To: Carl Mehling; visitorinfo
Subject: RE: Here's the pictures I can take more if you need to me too +Hello Carl, 
A vertebrate fossil inquiry: + +From: Dan 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:53 PM 
Subject: Attachments +Hello sir my name is Dan here's the pictures you asked for I'm pretty sure they're doing what I think they are just don't know how old but I know there are fossilized and if you look at some of the small fragments of the ones that do or crack if yellow inside like from the yolk I guess thank you Dan + +From: Dan 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 8:14 PM 
Subject: RE: Attachments +Thank you for your time thank you","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:34 PM
To: ''
Cc: Vivien
Subject: RE: Here's the pictures I can take more if you need to me too +Hi Daniel, +Thanks for your email. Your email was forwarded to me but I didn’t receive any attachments. Can you please resend the images?
Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:35 AM
To: 'Dan'
Subject: RE: Attachments +Hi Dan, +Thanks for the photos. I can say with fair confidence that they are not fossils. These are geodes, which are mineral balls with a crystal-filled hollow inside. +Best,
Carl" +141,22 Oct 2015,Fossil skull,Rock,N,"From: mike 
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 4:34 PM 
Subject: Fossil identity +I have a fossil skull that a friend found 20 years ago.he passed away and he left me his fossil.I have never seen anything  like this nore can I find anything like it on line.I am sure its a fossil and anybody that has seen it in person thinks its a fossil to.I would like to no what it is a fossil of.I think its older then most of the fossil that are found.and I think it could be a new type of creature I don't no what else to call it.here are some pics + +From: mike 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 9:16 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: RE: Fossil identity + +From: mike 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:12 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: Is it possible that this is mummified.? Because there is such a difference in the texture from the inside of the skull to the outside.I am sure this is a skull.I am a reasonable person.I no people see what they want to see when they find rocks.ithis i... + +From: mike 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 10:30 PM 
Subject: +Thank you for your thoughts on this.I have a apointment with the museum on friday..i will let you no what they say","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:01 PM
To: 'mike'
Subject: RE: Fossil identity +Hi Mike, +Thanks for your email. Unfortunately, your email had no attachments. Can you resend the images? +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:47 AM
To: 'mike'
Subject: RE: Fossil identity +Hi Mike, +Thanks for the photos. Unfortunately, I think you have a suggestive rock there. It lacks the fine, specific details I would need to see to feel it was a fossil. Sorry! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:58 PM
To: 'mike'
Subject: RE: Is it possible that this is mummified.? Because there is such a difference in the texture from the inside of the skull to the outside.I am sure this is a skull.I am a reasonable person.I no people see what they want to see when they find rocks.ithis +Sorry, Mike. There's even let chance that it's a mummy of some kind. The pattern on the rock and the way that it weathered is very consistent with a hard metamorphic kind of rock. And this is almost the worst kind of rock in which to expect either fossils or mummies. Plus it just doesn't resemble a skull closely enough to identify it as such. +I missed some of what you wrote because you put it all in your subject line and it go truncated. +Best, +Carl" +142,22 Oct 2015,Big dinosaur bone,Rock,N,"From: Taylor
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 8:35 PM 
Subject: Big Dino bone +Hello Carl +I have this bone and I'm curious if you know what dinosaur it went to and what part of the body thank you +Taylor","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:05 PM
To: 'Taylor'
Subject: RE: Big Dino bone +Hi Taylor, +Thanks for your email. I’ve had a look at your find and feel quite sure it is not a dinosaur bone. In fact I don’t think it is a fossil at all. It lacks the fine detail I would like to see in order to confidently ID it as a fossil. Sorry for the bad news! +Best,
Carl" +143,23 Oct 2015,Presumably fossil bone,Palmoxylon,Y,"From: Mike 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:06 AM 
Subject: Bones +This old bone has been in family for a long time, I believe it came from montana but have no idea what kind of animal it came from. any info would be greatly appreciated. +Thanks, Mike","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:13 PM
To: 'Mikw'
Subject: RE: Bones +Hi Mike, +Thanks for your email. I’ve had a look at your find and feel quite sure it is not a fossil bone. The grain is very unlike the grain of bone. However, I do believe this is a fossil. And it is the grain I see in the end-on view that helps the most with the ID. I’m almost certain it is Palmoxylon, or fossil palm “wood.” It’s not really wood because palms don’t have true wood but it is fragment of the petrified trunk fibers of a palm tree. It’s too bad you can’t be sure where it came from because I might be able to give you some idea about its age, but I can say that Palmoxylon is known from at least 100 million years ago. Very nice find! +Best,
Carl" +144,23 Oct 2015,Presumably fossils,Sedimentary concretions,N,"From: Suzanne 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 1:01 PM 
Subject: Fun item for identification +Okay, cleaning out my purse (it's not uncommon for me to have fossils in my purse) I found these two items.  I have seen this stuff most of my life, but these two items are different than anything I have picked up in 40 years.  The item above the penny is obvious, it sits on a flattened base and the whole thing wobbles when set on a flat surface.  The other item has a needle like sharpness.  Both found in a clay bed on McFadden beach in Texas.  We found a plummet in the same area a while back.  I have read that phallic items have been found there, could this be one or (as my kids say, ""mom you have the mind of a 12 year old boy!"") is my mind in the gutter?😏 if you tell me the latter, I'm not sharing the information with my family!😁 thanks! Suzanne + +From: suzanne 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 6:44 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: 2nd item + +From: suzanne 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 6:40 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: Let's try again + +From: suzanne 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 6:29 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: Re: Let's try again +😊","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:17 PM
To: 'Suzanne'
Subject: RE: Fun item for identification +Hi Suzanne, +Thanks for your email. Unfortunately the image I received is too small for me to make out good detail. Can you possibly reshoot the pieces at a larger size? +And a purse full of fossils and a gutter mind are outstanding attributes. Don’t change a thing. +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:43 AM
To: 'suzanne'
Subject: RE: Let's try again +Hi Suzanne, +Thanks for the photos - these are much better. But, sadly, I don't think either is a fossil. They lack the fine detail I would need to see in order to feel confident they were fossils. I think they are sedimentary concretions of some sort. Pretty cool, though! +Best, +Carl" +145,23 Oct 2015,Possible fossil,Rock,N,"From: Michael
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 2:20 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Cc: Lynette
Subject: FW: Fossil Picture +Hi Carl, we found this in new jersey while looking for fossilized shark teeth. I made the mistake of telling my son it looks like a dinosaur tooth or a raptor claw (and now he wants answers). I'm not sure if it is a rock or not but we would appreciate it if you took a look. If you could copy my wife on the response (she is copied on the email) she will get the info to my son sooner than me. +Thanks and have a good weekend +Mike + +From: Michael
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 6:15 AM 
Subject: RE: Fossil Picture +Well thanks for getting back to me Carl. I took my family to the Museum of Natural History last year and we all really enjoyed it! We have a huge hole in our backyard that my kids have been digging, I'll give you first dibs when they find something interesting (or you can just help me fill it when they go to college in 10 years)! +Mike","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:22 PM
To: 'Michael'
Cc: Lynette
Subject: RE: Fossil Picture +Hi Mike, +Thanks for your email. Sorry, but I think you're going to have to get back on the hunt. This is no fossil. It is merely a suggestive rock. They do that, you know. Keep digging! +Best, +Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:48 AM
To: 'Michael'
Subject: RE: Fossil Picture +Sounds great, Mike! Keep digging!" +146,23 Oct 2015,Fossil,Ammonite chamber steinkern,Y,"From: Dare 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 4:29 PM 
Subject: Fossil ID +Hi,  I've searched fossil images for ages and can't find online. I found it in South Dakota along the Missouri river. Could you tell me what it is?                              + +Thanks so much. +Dare +Colorado + +From: Dare 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:08 PM 
Subject: Re: Fossil ID +Thanks so much.  I would have never figured that out on my own.  It's perfectly symmetrical and flawless. Nice to know what it is after 20 years. +Dare","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:30 PM
To: 'Dare'
Subject: RE: Fossil ID +Hi Dare, +Thanks for your email. What you have there is a chamber steinkern of an ammonite. If you don’t already know, ammonites are shelled relatives of octopuses that went extinct about 65 million years ago. They had coiled, chambered shells like today’s nautilus. What you have is the mud that filled one of those chambers, turned to stone, and survived the weathering that destroyed the shell material. We find very similar specimens in the Cretaceous of NJ. Yours has got to be from the Late Cretaceous whose rocks are well represented in SD. Very nice find! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:09 PM
To: 'Dare'
Subject: RE: Fossil ID +So glad to be of service, Dare!" +147,24 Oct 2015,Fossil,Probable orthocone,Y,"From: Jim
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 11:28 PM 
Subject: fossil identification +Hello, +I got this email online and it said you could identify fossils.  I saw this while hiking in Utah and wondered what it was. +Let me know if you know what it is. +Jim","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:42 PM
To: 'Jim'
Subject: RE: fossil identification +Hi Jim, +Thanks for your email. I feel pretty sure you have a weathered orthocone, or straight-shelled nautiloid there. Nautiloids are shelled relatives of octopus and squid and are still with us today but were incredibly common and diverse in the Paleozoic (~530-250 million years ago). The straight-shelled ones persisted a bit into the Mesozoic (until around 210 million years ago). And just for comparison the oldest know dinosaurs are from about 245 million years ago. Nice find! +Best,
Carl" +148,25 Oct 2015,cephalopod concretions,unknown,N,"From: Alan
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 8:05 PM 
Subject: Fossil locality question. +Carl, +A student of mine brought couple of cephalopod concretions into class, they are really cool, but I cannot identify the locality they are from (most students who bring fossils in have examples from rather obvious localities). These concretions are jet black, smooth river polished stones, one contains an ammonite that looks like Perisphinctes, the other looks like an orthocone nautiloid. I don't tend to think of those two taxa as appearing together and I have never seen concretions with cephalopods that look as dark as these do. I have attached a picture of each. I figured that you might have an idea as you have collected fossils everywhere and might have seen them before.  +My student has no knowledge of their origin other than she was given them as a child because she liked rocks and fossils.  +Any thoughts? Make me feel stupid with ""of course, these are from...."" +Thanks +Alan","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:49 PM
To: 'Alan'
Subject: RE: Fossil locality question. +Hey Alan, +Well, I think you’re safe from the ""of course, these are from...."" stupidity inducer. I don’t recognize these at all. When I first saw the ammonite I thought maybe England, but if they are from the same place and time then that’s a no go, of course. I do know of very dark concretions like this with ammonites and other mollusks from the Upper Cretaceous of Colombia, but that, too, is confounded by the orthocone… Ooooh! I just thought of something: That “orthocone” might actually be a belemnite phragmocone! Now that would make better sense for the co-occurrence. But belemnites in concretions? Not sure I know of any localities for that. Sorry! +Best,
Carl" +149,25 Oct 2015,Possible fossils (one possible fossil anemone),"Manganese dendrites, horn coral, branching bryozoan mold",M,"From: Tyler 
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 10:26 PM 
Subject: Fossils in Nevada +Hi Carl, +I found these rocks in the desert of southern Nevada near the Valley of Fire. I was curious as to whether they were fossils or not. Thank you! + +From: Tyler 
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 2:14 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: Re: Fossils in Nevada +Thank you so much Carl! One more here I was curious about, if you don't mind. It looks almost like an anemone to me. ","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 5:21 PM
To: 'Tyler'
Subject: RE: Fossils in Nevada +Hi Tyler, +Thanks for your email. You have some gorgeous things there! The first one (small, black, branching pattern on rock) is not a fossil, believe it or not. These are called manganese dendrites and they form when water carrying dissolved manganese gets into a crack in a rock and deposits the manganese in this pattern. Absolutely beautiful! The second one (The white, round design with the radiating lines) is a horn coral. Horn corals were solitary corals that lived on Earth from the Ordovician to the Permian (as old as ~500 million years and as young as 250 million). By comparison the oldest known dinosaurs are only about 245 million years old. And the last one (dots along a trough) is the mold of a branching bryozoan. Bryozoans have been on Earth for hundreds of millions of years and very often co-occur with horn corals so there is a good chance they are the same age. Great finds! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 2:30 PM
To: 'Tyler'
Subject: RE: Fossils in Nevada +Sorry, Tyler. The photos are too blurry to read. Can you send sharper photos?
Thanks,
Carl" +150,26 Oct 2015,Fossil,Septarian concretions,N,"From: Kathy 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 9:41 AM 
Subject: Fossil found on Wolf Creek, KS +These were found by high-school envirothon team while at a training day. Is there anything to them? +Thanks, +Kathy  + +From: Kathy 
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 2:32 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: Re: RE: Fossil found on Wolf Creek, KS +Thank you so very much for your time and answers!!! +Kathy","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 10:03 AM
To: 'Erik'
Subject: RE: Fossil found on Wolf Creek, KS +Hi Cathy, +Thanks for your email. You have what are called a septarian concretions (Google “septarian concretion” for many nice examples). It’s not a fossil in itself but rarely they may hide one in the center – to find out would require cutting or breaking it. Septarian concretions form as a ball of mud dries causing a network of cracks. Later, these cracks can fill with some mineral that cements the cracked pieces back together. Cool finds! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 4:23 PM
To: 'Erik'
Subject: RE: RE: Fossil found on Wolf Creek, KS +My pleasure!" +151,26 Oct 2015,"Fossil, coprolites","Heteromorph ammonite, non-coprolites",M,"From: Tim 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 2:24 PM 
Subject: Can you ID this fossil? +I have a fossil in a display cabinet in my 6th grade science classroom. I have not been able to identify it. I have attached a photo of it. it is about 12 cm across. Can you tell me what it is? +Tim + +From: Tim
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 12:03 PM 
Subject: RE: Can you ID this fossil? +Carl, +Thank you for your reply. I teach sixth grade Earth Science in Vancouver, WA and have lots of displays in my classroom for the students to look at. I try to identify everything for them, so they get a good idea of what Deep Time is. That was one fossil I could not ID. I will write up a label this morning. The fossil was given to me by someone in our maintenance department. He said his father was quite a fossil hunter and wanted some of his fossils displayed so kids could see them. I have attached a couple of pictures of my fossil display. +Sincerely, +Tim + +From: Tim 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:07 PM 
Subject: RE: Can you ID this fossil? +My classroom is more like a museum than anything else. I am currently dealing with someone for a large sample of Coprolite. The students love the idea of fossilized dinosaur dung. I'm attaching a picture. Do you think it looks authentic? +Tim + +From: Tim 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 6:41 PM 
Subject: RE: Can you ID this fossil? +I have a couple of little ones that did not cost much. As I recall, one was from Washington. I am attaching photos. +Tim + +From: Tim 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 9:40 AM 
Subject: RE: Can you ID this fossil? +The larger of the two, which has a bulge in the middle came from Ebay and was listed as being from Washington. The smaller one, which is more crescent shaped was in a box of rocks in a local rock shop; it was labeled as being coprolite. (possibly from Washington since that is where I live. +Do you have any suggestions for a reliable source from which to purchase an authentic dinosaur coprolite? +Tim + +From: Tim 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 12:02 PM 
Subject: RE: Can you ID this fossil? +Sounds good - I will check them out. +Tim + +From: Tim 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 2:13 PM 
Subject: RE: Can you ID this fossil? +Just a point of interest. I went to college in River Falls, WI and my brother was a geology major there. Once he took me out to one of his favorite fossil hunting areas. At the top of a hill on one of the township roads just outside of town, there is some exposed rock in a ditch. It's filled with crinoids. Every spring, the runoff water going down into the ditch exposes more crinoids. It seems that no matter how much you pick, there's always more the following year. +Tim + +From: Tim 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 3:29 PM 
Subject: RE: Can you ID this fossil? +There's also an outcropping of St. Peter's Sandstone back there. It's called the Sandstone Monument. We used to ride our bicycles there and climb to the top of it. It's about 10 meters tall. Here's a link that talks about it: +http://stcroixbios.tripod.com/bios/id35.html +I actually found a picture of it. + +Tim","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 10:10 AM
To: 'Tim'
Subject: RE: Can you ID this fossil? +Hi Tim, +Thanks for your email. Wow! What a nice fossil. It sure looks like a heteromorph ammonite to me. If you don’t already know, ammonites are shelled relatives of octopuses that went extinct around 65 million years ago. The majority of ammonites have spiral shells that rotate along a plane. But there are a variety that diverge from that geometry and spiral away from the plane, spiral more loosely on the plane, change direction, or a variety of these things. They are collectively called the heteromorphs. Most ammonite fans consider them the most interesting and confusing. I would guess yours came from the Late Cretaceous of the Dakotas or Montana  based on the colors and the fact that heteromorphs are common in those rocks. Very nice fossil! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:07 PM
To: 'Tim'
Subject: RE: Can you ID this fossil? +Superb display, Tim! Bravo! + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 3:05 PM
To: 'Tim'
Subject: RE: Can you ID this fossil? +As luck would have it, coprolites are my special expertise! If you haven’t yet paid for that specimen, don’t. There is almost no chance it is genuine. The market is absolutely flooded with non-coprolites because “dinosaur turd” is so much easier to sell than “amorphous crystalline mass” or “unidentified geologic oddity.” I always tell people “Caveat Empturd.” If you hunt for coprolites on eBay avoid anything from Utah, Washington, or anything pyritized. And anything at all identified as a dinosaur coprolite is automatically suspect as they are extremely rare for some reason. I’d be happy to have a look at anything you are considering. +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 12:42 PM
To: 'Tim'
Subject: RE: Can you ID this fossil? +Hmmm… The Washington one is suspect. I know these things certainly look like turds but I think that similarity is superficial. These have been debated for years and I feel that the non-coprolite camp makes the best case. I’d love to learn I am wrong on this one but right now the evidence is quite against them. Now the other one could possibly be a coprolite, but very unlikely to be from a dinosaur. So you know where it was purported to have been found? + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 11:55 AM
To: 'Tim'
Subject: RE: Can you ID this fossil? +Hi Tim, +I would consider the first one a pseudo-coprolite and the second one highly suspect (i.e., not likely). As I said before, genuine dinosaur coprolites are truly rare so anything for sale online is extremely suspect. I can offer you sources for genuine shark coprolites and other things however. +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 1:20 PM
To: 'Tim'
Subject: RE: Can you ID this fossil? +I trust coprolites from these folks: +http://www.rhyniechert.com/ddfossils.html +http://www.fossilworkshop.com/index.html + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 2:28 PM
To: 'Tim'
Subject: RE: Can you ID this fossil? +I’ve been to places like that. Simply incredible, huh? + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 4:21 PM
To: 'Tim'
Subject: RE: Can you ID this fossil? +Cool!" +152,26 Oct 2015,Possible fossil,Possible fossil,M,"From: Thomas
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 6:13 PM 
Subject: Fossil identification? +Dear Sir, +Please see attached photos of what may be a fossil (?) which was found in a load of gravel from a quarry somewhere in the area of Tallahassee, Florida. Any information you could provide on this would be very much appreciated. +Please respond to Thomas +Thank you for your help with this. +Thomas + +From: Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:15 PM 
Subject: RE: Fossil identification? +Carl,  +Thank you for having a look, I have never really seen anything like it either. +Thanks again. +Thomas","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 10:16 AM
To: 'Thomas'
Subject: RE: Fossil identification? +Hi Thomas, +Thanks for your email. I’ve had a good long look at your photos and can’t be sure it’s a fossil. The parallel lines running through the center are the most promising detail but it isn’t enough for me to feel confident it is a fossil. It very well could be but it’s poor preservation may render it beyond identification. Sorry! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 3:06 PM
To: 'Thomas'
Subject: RE: Fossil identification? +My pleasure!" +153,27 Oct 2015,Possible fossil,Ammonite,Y,"From: Brock 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 12:25 PM 
Subject: Possible Fossil? +Hello, +I'm trying to reach Carl Mehling based on a fossil identification page I happened across.  +I have this odd rock from the shoreline of Lake Waco, TX. Like many lakes in Texas, it is artificial, so I'm not counting on this being close to any ancient lake beds or the like.  +I have attached pictures of the rock below. There is a distinct curved portion with numerous segments about 1/4 inch wide. This curved part is 3 inches wide at the bigger side and more like 2 inches wide at the smaller side. It weighs 1.5 lbs.  +Does this look like it is anything notable or is it just my imagination?  +Thanks! +Brock + +From: Brock
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 10:00 PM 
Subject: Re: Possible Fossil? +Hi Carl, +This is welcome news - I had no idea that Waco was a hotspot for anything besides wooly mammoths - this is nice to know! I feel better about my old paperweight now.  +Thank you very much!! +Brock","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 10:39 AM
To: 'Brock'
Subject: RE: Possible Fossil? +Hi Brock, +Thanks for your email. I am happy to say this is not your imagination! This is a fossil ammonite. If you don’t already know, ammonites are shelled relatives of octopuses that went extinct around 65 million years ago. There are great Cretaceous exposures all round Waco and they are well-known for their ammonites so that all fits nicely. Nice find! +Best,
Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 11:51 AM
To: 'Brock'
Subject: RE: Possible Fossil? +My pleasure!" +154,27 Oct 2015,Fossil,Rock,N,"From: Kirstin 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:13 PM 
Subject: Jaw fossil identification +Dear Carl Mehling, +I came across your contact details on the website of the American Museum of Natural History, with an offer to help with fossil identification. I would be very grateful if you could provide any thoughts on this fossil found by my friend in the mountains near Ushuaia, Argentina. Unfortunately he didn't bring it back with him, but I am very intrigued by the photos he took!  +Kind regards, 
Kirstin ","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:02 AM
To: John
Subject: FW: Jaw fossil identification with photos +Hey Doc, +What do you make of this? At first it looks exactly like a horse skull. But then I get convinced it’s just a crazy rock… +Thanks,
Carl + +From: John 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:59 AM 
Subject: Re: Jaw fossil identification with photos +Pretty sure it’s a cool “pseudo-fossil”.  But the background looks a lot like the rocks in which we find fossils in Chile. + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:00 PM
To: John 
Subject: RE: Jaw fossil identification with photos +I thought so on BOTH of those points! Thanks! + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:03 PM
To: 'Kirstin'
Subject: RE: Jaw fossil identification with photos +Hi Kirsten, +Thanks for your email. At first glance I was pretty sure this was the fossil skull of a mammal, maybe a horse. But I looked more closely and shared it with another expert and we both agree it is a very cool fossil mimic: it’s just a rock that looks a lot like a fossil. It lacks the fine and specific details we’d need to see in order to feel comfortable calling it a fossil. Very weird! +Best,
Carl" +155,28 Oct 2015,Bones or a skeleton of a dragon that spits fire,No response required,N,"From:
Date: October 28, 2015 at 6:24:18 AM EDT
To:
Subject: American Museum of Natural History
Subject: Dragon that spits fire aged 1850 years.
Comment or Question: My clients are in possession of bones or a skeleton of a dragon that spits fire. We managed to check the age and when it died at the geology centre and we were told it was just 95 years dead.. So my clients in Uganda happen to be selling the skeleton to any willing museum at a competitive fee after checking the skeleton.","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:51 AM
To: Barbara
Subject: RE: American Museum of Natural History +SpecTACular! Wow… Thanks a million for sharing this one! I’ll get Mark to dig in the coffers IMMEDIATELY!" +156,28 Oct 2015,Fossil,Probably mold of club urchin spine,Y,"From: louisa 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 7:33 AM 
Subject: Can you identify my fossil? +Dear Carl Mehling, I found this fossil on the beach in Eastbourne, England.  +I have no idea what it is, please can you help me identify it?  +I know I should have included a ruler in the picture for scale...but you can get an idea of the size from my fingers. .  +I will be very grateful if you can tell me about it. I love this little fossil!  +Best wishes from Louisa.  + +From: louisa 
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 10:21 AM 
Subject: Re: Can you identify my fossil? +Hi, thank you ever so much for taking the time to tell me about my fossil, i was delighted to get your reply. Although the spine of an ancient sea urchin is not easy to viusalise, its wonderful to finally know what it is and the age is just mind blowing. I am going to be scanning the beach from now on! +With my best wishes from Louisa. ","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:56 AM
To: 'louisa'
Subject: RE: Can you identify my fossil? +Hi Louisa, +Thanks for your email. What a gorgeous fossil you have found! I believe it is the spine from some kind of sea urchin. What you have is the mold in the rock where the spine once sat. I think the fossils from that area are Cretaceous so your fossil is likely between about 65 and 144 million years old. Fantastic find! +Best,
Carl   + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 4:02 PM
To: 'louisa'
Subject: RE: Can you identify my fossil? +My pleasure! Keep hunting!" +157,28 Oct 2015,Possible fossilized egg,Concretion,N,"From: Charles
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 5:52 PM 
Subject: +I found this possible fossilized egg about 20 miles east of Camp Verde Az. along Hwy 260. Fossil Creek is only about 10 miles from there also. It was on the surface on the side of a hill. Fossil sea shells and plant life are very common in the area also. I am very interested to hear what you have to say about it, and appreciate your time. +Thanks, Charles + +From: Charles 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 12:46 PM 
Subject: RE: +Thanks you for responding so fast. The information contained is definitely not bad news, learning about it and knowing for sure what it is was very fun. Again thank you for your time.","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 12:37 PM
To: 'Charles'
Subject: RE: +Hi Charles, +Thanks for your email. I have had a look at your attached photos, and although it is sometimes hard to be sure with photos, I'd be very surprised if this was a fossil egg.  It does somewhat resemble an egg, but it is much more likely to be a sedimentary concretion of some kind – it’s resemblance to an egg is merely accidental. Concretions often form when some object acts as a “seed” for cementation of sediment. On occasion, the thing that initiates the concretion, the “seed,” can be a fossil. To find this out would require cracking the concretion open. +Alternatively, it might also be a lithified mud nodule. These start as balls of mud that harden through drying or chemical processes, sometimes at different rates within the ball. Mud nodules can also be balls of mud that affect the surrounding sediments and chemically alter them in a way that makes a shell-like layer harden and adhere to the mud interior. This can result in an object like yours with a hard “shell” and a looser interior.
Fossil eggs usually have an easily identifiable shell which differs significantly from the enclosed sediments either by having a fine, specific kind of surface ornamentation (the smoother the ""shell,"" the less likely it is to be a non-bird dinosaur egg) or a specific type of crystalline structure in cross-section. Also, because eggshell is so brittle, the shell is almost always heavily cracked with apparent shifting of the eggshell bits – the more perfectly “egg-like” it is the less chance that it is a fossil egg. +Additionally, the thickness of the “shell” almost certainly rules out egg. Embryos in hard-shelled terrestrial eggs need shells through which they can conduct gas exchange – basically so they can breathe. Past a certain thickness, this becomes impossible. Your specimen’s “shell” is much too thick. +Sorry to bring bad news, +Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 3:03 PM
To: 'Charles'
Subject: RE: RE: +My pleaure!" +159,28 Oct 2015,Megalodon tooth,Probable Megalodon projectile point,Y,"From: Matt
Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2015 9:17 PM
To: Carl Mehling
Subject: Fwd: Tooth pictures +Hi, I called a few days earlier about help in identifying a prehistoric fossil tooth. The tooth was found 6ft below ground on a side hill in Deerfield Mass.  I have attached some photos below for you to look at.  I live  in Greenwich ct and you can see it in person if need be.   +Thank you and look forward to hearing back from you. +Matt +","[Judy forwarded his phone message. He said he has a prehistoric tooth he wants dated and wants to know what organism it came from. Believes it’s a megalodon. I called back and left a message for him to email me photos.] + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 1:41 PM
To: 'Gmail' +Bcc: Mick
Subject: RE: Tooth pictures +Hi Matt, +Thanks for your message and email. I have to agree with you 100% that this is a Carcharocles megalodon tooth. And of course that is cool just by itself. But there are other details here that are interesting. As far as I know C. megalodon teeth don’t really naturally occur on the East Coast north of Maryland, or if they do, they are exceedingly rare. Yet they have been found as far as (I think) Maine in archaeological contexts. Indians traded these teeth for a long time and for long distances, even well inland. And you’ll see that your tooth is missing the outmost prongs of its root. This kind of damage would also be very rare in nature. But if you look at the overall outline you might notice that it looks a lot like a stone projectile point. My guess is that if this was genuinely excavated from well underground it is a Carcharocles megalodon tooth that came from somewhere along the southern East Coast, was traded to more northern Indians, and fashioned into a spearpoint. Thus, it would be not only a paleontological find but an archaeological one. I would strongly suggest getting in touch with the folks at the Massachusetts Archaeological Society (http://massarchaeology.org/) and see what they suggest. Very nice find! +Best,
Carl" +162,30 Oct 2015,Presumably fossil,Fossil shell,Y,"From: Thomas
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:05 AM 
Subject: What is this?? + +From: Thomas
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 12:20 PM 
Subject: Re: What is this?? +Hi Carl +My farm in South Carolina. 50 miles inland from ocean. +Sent from my phone so please excuse brevity. + +From: Thomas
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 12:41 PM 
Subject: Re: What is this?? +Maybe a couple more pictures from different angles? +Sent from my phone so please excuse brevity. ","From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 12:00 PM
To: 'Thomas'
Subject: RE: What is this?? +Hi Thomas, +Thanks for your email. It definitely looks like you have a fossil shell there but there is not much else I can add because it is so fragmentary. If you can tell me where it was found I might be able to guess its age. However, since it is quite water worn it may have travelled some distance from where it originated, thus making an age assessment very difficult. +Best, +Carl + +From: Carl Mehling 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 1:34 PM
To: 'Thomas'
Subject: RE: What is this?? +Hi Thomas, +I don't think other angels will help here because the specimen is fragmentary but I'm also not a very knowledge fossil shell person - Ha! But as you probably know, SC is a fantastic state for fossils. Most of the ones I know of are from about 5 million to 35 million years old. Nice find! +Best, +Carl" \ No newline at end of file