Home - Photographers - Discussion - Gallery - Login/Logout

shell

click to expand
It's disappointing that you can't really tell it's embedded in rock and not mud.

The local paper had an article a while back about some stumps that sand washed away from and left exposed... estimated at 8500 years old. That's probably two orders of magnitude longer than I would've guessed something could last buried in wet sand. Admittedly the world is not packed with things that have a taste for cellulose.


click to expand
one that's come free from the rock. I want to call it shale, because that's what the loose sedimentary stuff was called where I grew up, but I have no clue about geology.
click to expand
one-that's-come-free again, lifted from its hollow and turned over, which shows the detail better.

I saw in a book that Liracassis petrosa looks sort of like this. A web page suggests that's like thirty million years ago. But...don't trust me in the slightest here.
click to expand
click to expand
The reverse was flat stone with a bit of another shell embedded. I have no way to know how mineralized this was, but it may well have been a proper fossil.
> Welcome to Photography.edu > Photographers > Rob > shell

"I highly recommend Texas Star. The personalized service consistently exceeds my expectations." -John Waiveris (photographer/software engineer)