Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / February 2004

Yes, indeed, I have heard of fossil mucus, though not the classic
"snot" your question might bring to mind. Here is a quote from a web
page petaining to the taphonomy of fossils at the world-famous early
Oligocene Florissant plant-insect fossil locality in Colorado at
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/lagerstatten/Floris/taph.html

"The Florissant fossils are located in a lacustrine shale with
alternating layers of diatomite (the fossil containing layer) and
volcanic debris. Microbial preservation may be very important in this
lagerstatte. Insect and plant fossils are covered in a film of mucus
supposedly produced by diatoms. This mucus formed because diatom
abundance was very high at certain times of the year, times of
'bloom', high enough to leave evidence in the fossil record. A mat of
this mucus was formed every bloom and dead organisms were caught up in
it. The mucus slowed decomposition until burial on the lake bottom,
which may be the main reason for the exceptional preservation found
here. Both hydrodynamic and biological disruption would have been kept
to a minimum. Relatively quick covering by an ash-clay layer probably
also helped."

Fossil Plants And Insects At Bull Run, Nevada
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/salinevalley2/br/bullrun.html

If so, what would it be

A "snotolith".

Frank