hi this was found on roker beach near newcastle i have often wondered if it s a fossil jellyfish but i am probably compleatly wrong would love some help identifiying what it is, thanks.
Nice find starburst1812
It it is very hard to ID because it's very fade, but my best guess would be some kind of fossil coral or Bryozoa. It could be a jellyfish, but it isn't my strong point so I'm not sure.
hi tabfish having looked at the specimen i dont think ot is wood it is hard to get a good picture for you but it is on a type of sandstone and the specimen seem to go into the sandstone about 5mm it could well e a sponge although i know very little about fossil sponges it would be hard for me to say i will try and get a better picture for you in daylight , thanks for you help
Just to throw another idea up for grabs...
I wonder if it might be a recent mark caused by a blast (thinking quarrying operations), the 'core' being the end of the drill-hole, and the radiating marks being damage caused by the explosion (as the now-absent rock containing the hole shattered).
Well I'm convinced that this is fossil - of crinoid, coelenterate or 'other' I couldn’t say, but it looks interesting enough to have a closer look. Could you contact us at email@example.com and we can discuss means of getting it to London
i reaaly do hope it is of interest and would love to send it to you for further investigations i apologise now if it is just a lump of tarmac! i have contacted you at the email provided look forward to hearing from you, thanks to everone else as well for there ideas
Hello everyone I have heard back from the expert and this is what they have said :-
Having looked at the images you sent, they are not that clear, but I can probably make an attempt at what you have. Initially there was some thought that it might be a fossil of a jellyfish, but although I am not primarily a palaeontologist, that was not my opinion. I have asked a colleague in our palaeontology department, and he also does not think it is due to an organism. Fossils of jellyfish are quite rare, I believe, because they have no hard parts(soft parts simply rot away) and so require very still conditions and very fine-grained rock for something to be preserved. This is normally, so far as I know, a shale or mudstone. The rock you have does not look like either (they are normally a slate grey colour and they have a good parting into slabs), whereas your specimen is a golden yellowish colour. This is much more likely to be a sandstone or limestone. Secondly, the radiating pattern is a bit too regular for something produced by a jelly-like mass. I am pretty sure that what you have is a radiating thin crust of the mineral calcite (calcium carbonate). If it is indeed a thin layer of calcite it would have grown outwards in all directions equally (or roughly so) from a nucleating point, but constrained in any up or down growth by overlying strata. I am not exactly sure where Seaton is, but the Permian Magnesian Limestone runs through north Yorkshire and south Northumberland, and contains many nodular masses of calcite (usually magnesian calcite), and I would not be surprised to find that it is from that formation.
I hope this is of help and interest.
So there you have it I'm slightly disappointed as I was hopeful that it was something more interesting but at least I know I won't make the same mistake again! Thanks for all you help though :)
I see Peter's explanation as another opinion, but one I don't agree with.
Of all the (numerous) calcite veins I've ever seen, I'm sure none of them has had such structure. What he's postulating would require an open fracture (if the vein was formed at the same time as the fracture was propagating, I can't see how a radial structure could result; concentric structure, perhaps). If the microenvironment was suitable for calcite precipitation in an open narrow fracture (whereby filling it would form a vein), there would have been countless crystallization nuclei on the surfaces, causing the calcite to grow to fill the fracture without any such radial structure. Also, the small circular feature in the middle needs explanation.
I still prefer my 'explosive' explanation. But it is still also just an opinion.
When rocks are blasted in quarrying operations, they tend to fail partly along existing weak surfaces, which can include veins and open cracks. As such, it is possible that the surface bearing the markings is a vein surface, which has been scarred by the explosion.
Any quarrymen viewing?