Re: Fossil Identification?

Edward Hennessey wrote:

"Paul" <Paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:47A26B19.83C3AB4A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Feles wrote:

I'm wondering if anyone on this newsgroup can help me to identify the
below fossil, which I found on the surface in south Louisiana:

http://www.fotothing.com/photos/fc6/fc6f4df57c46e3a6b7950f8d5e582172.jpg?ts=1201617265

The reverse side is shown here:

http://www.fotothing.com/photos/d44/d44eb407199f1607bce56dc0d78d0051.jpg?ts=1201617798

I at first thought it was a crinoid, but I find it's too large to
correspond to most descriptions of crinoids.

Could it be coral?

Thanks,

Feles

Iberia Parish is kind of young to have fossils.
It is Plio-Pliestocene to recent.

See if your find has five rays. It could be a sand dollar.

P:

I didn't see definite signs of a periproct to support an echinoid suspicion.
Also, the specimen fails to show differential inflation on one side or
marginal tapering that also indicative of that possibility. Note also that
one side shows concentric rings often associated with tabular calcareous
concretions while the other appears to evidence a stippled infilling
possibly correlated with its orientation during mineralization.

If our OP was willing to break the specimen or variously section it, that
would allow a better speculation of its nature.

As John Harshman noted on sci.bio.paleontology, it appeared too large for a
section from a crinoid column, besides which, I don't know what record, if
any, there is of crinoid
material from the area.

Of course, I would gladly exchange all of these words for a chance to handle
the piece under
a microscope.

Regards,

Edward Hennessey

Hands on would be great. But..
There should be nothing older than Pliocene on the surface there.
Perhaps the salt dome brought a miocene object to surface.
The miocene pretty much sits on the Jurassic. A trace of oligocene
in spots.
If it is older than that I would suspect it was imported.
.

Loading