Jump to content
turtlefoot

What am I looking at here? - Updated with more images.

Recommended Posts

turtlefoot

First point, I cannot get a decent image of this fossil to save my life.  That being said, I took a bunch of sub par image in hopes someone can put the pieces together to come up with an id.  It measures approximately 35x22mm and is definitely a different material than the host rock.  I found it in the same area that I have been finding all of my other fossils.  This is outside Willow Springs, Missouri, USA.  I originally thought it might be a rugose coral of some sort, but it looks to have horizontal segments or something similar.  I am about 95% (or more) positive that it is a fossil and not just geology.  I will continue working on attempting to get better images.  If I do, I will add them to the thread.

 

Thank you for your assistance.

001.jpg

002.jpg

003.jpg

004.jpg

005.jpg

006.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ludwigia

Please also show us a pic of the entire object/stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockwood

I'm not at all sure, but there may be some cylinder like shapes that would suggest a heliolitid coral.

It's a really long shot though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digit

I'm afraid I'm in the 5% camp here--I'm not seeing anything beyond geological here. Can you point out what you believe to be fossil in this rock?

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turtlefoot

Here is the image of the entire rock.  I am sorry that it took me so long to get it here, but I had something come up that kept me away from the house.

007.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turtlefoot
11 hours ago, digit said:

I'm afraid I'm in the 5% camp here--I'm not seeing anything beyond geological here. Can you point out what you believe to be fossil in this rock?

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

 

You are easily right.  It very easily could be a "different looking" rock.  In hand though, it looks like either a very worn fossil, or one that needs the host rock removed from over and around it.  Here are some more images.  I marked them a little bit.  The red dots are where there are segments and the red lines are where there are breaks or separations between the segments, like with a trilobite.  If it is a trilobite, it is either very worn or needs a lot of prep work.

008.jpg

009.jpg

010.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Country Dirt Kid

Turtlefoot? Are You the same turtlefoot that runs the shotgun headstamp ID site or do I have the wrong turtlefoot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turtlefoot
11 minutes ago, Country Dirt Kid said:

Turtlefoot? Are You the same turtlefoot that runs the shotgun headstamd ID site or do I have the wrong turtlefoot?

You have the same one.  It's me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digit

I admit that I do not have the advantage of having the piece in hand. Still, the "segments" as you are seeing them do not seem very regular and I'm wondering if there is more pareidolia there than fossil? ;) My experience (can't really claim it an "area of expertise") is more along the lines of shark teeth and other fossil types that are very separate from their matrix and distinctively biological in nature. As a result I'm terrible with non-obvious Mazon Creek concretions and likely wouldn't spot the subtle form of a trilobite buried under matrix. Others may be able to see what you are seeing but I'm only seeing subtly evocative textures on what appears to be an interesting rock of geological (non-biological) origin. Looking forward to hearing more who may be more familiar with rocks from your region.

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Country Dirt Kid
17 minutes ago, turtlefoot said:

You have the same one.  It's me.

Nice to meet you. I sent you a message. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turtlefoot
22 minutes ago, digit said:

I admit that I do not have the advantage of having the piece in hand. Still, the "segments" as you are seeing them do not seem very regular and I'm wondering if there is more pareidolia there than fossil? ;) 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

You could easily be right.  A trilobite is the number one fossil on my bucket list.  That sure could affect what I am seeing on features that are not clearly defined for sure.  This feature is in a rock that has other fossils in it (cridoid and cephlapod) so it will still stay in my collection.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ludwigia

Now that I've seen the whole thing and the new pics, I'm under the impression that this is a strongly cemented conglomerate. The cracks appear to be natural breakage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shamalama

Overall this looks like a worn piece of Chert to me. Chert sometimes replaces limestone and will preserve fossils but the quality is highly variable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turtlefoot
6 hours ago, Ludwigia said:

Now that I've seen the whole thing and the new pics, I'm under the impression that this is a strongly cemented conglomerate. The cracks appear to be natural breakage.

There are now two votes for natural geology.  That is what I am going with.  I really appreciate your help with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark Kmiecik
21 hours ago, turtlefoot said:

007.jpg

Lower left portion looks like a fragment of something organic, but I don't know what. There are two or three other spots that look fossil-y that I would like to examine using a loupe, and even then if it is organic in nature, it may still not be identifiable beyond "a fragment of something".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turtlefoot

There are several fossils in this stone on other sides.  I am sure that your are correct that some on this side have a possibility of being organic.  I can also see that even if there is something organic on this side, being and identifiable something might not be possible.  I really appreciate you time.  Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ludwigia

I can also go along with Mike's observations, but like he said, even if there are some things in there, an id is practically impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×