Jump to content
Missouri Ozark

Please help ID this little guy

Recommended Posts

Missouri Ozark

Hello folks. I'm back after an extended break. I've found some really cool fossils on my land in southern Missouri, Texas county, USA. Just a few miles south of cabool. A seasonal stream flows through my land exposing some cool finds, not to mention- the heavy rains are washing the topsoil away. From the hundreds of artifacts I've collected, this spot must have been an indigenous settlement. My best guess is that this item was in the hands of those early Americans. I can see why, this is my 2nd most favorite of the collection. Please help me identify what this is. Any help would be greatly appreciated. FYI, I have overcast skies at the moment and very limited internet access. These pics are the best I can do. Mm measurements are roughly 66mm x 38mm x 25mm

IMG_20200112_105936435~2.jpg

IMG_20200112_111212055~2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Missouri Ozark

IMG_20200112_110057665~2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Missouri Ozark

In fetal position. Head at lower left facing facing downward eye is larger hole at lower left. Spine across top leading to the tail that wraps all the way to the nose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kane

I agree: not a fossil, but a weathered rock. No bone texture, no morphological symmetry. :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Missouri Ozark

The center upper left shows left shoulder and upper arm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Missouri Ozark

I'm no pro by any sense of the word. Is it possible that it was preserved in embryo state. Mineralized before breakdown? I'm seeing a small unborn mammal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minnbuckeye

There is a fancy term often used on the fossil forum referring to items that mimic something that they are not, such as seeing "the man in the moon" or images in the clouds or dinosaur eggs. Yes they have a resemblance but just aren't what they appear to be. Such is your rock, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Missouri Ozark

I respect the input. What about this creature laying atop this?

IMG_20200112_131220537.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fifbrindacier
3 minutes ago, Missouri Ozark said:

I respect the input. What about this creature laying atop this?

IMG_20200112_131220537.jpg

Hi, there's no creature here, i would rather say it's a pareidolia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fossildude19

Pareidolia  is the word that Minnbuckeye was looking for.

I have to agree. While I can see what you are talking about, it isn't a fossilized creature/creatures of any sort. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fifbrindacier
On 9/19/2014 at 2:26 PM, Pilobolus said:

Post 'em if you got 'em...

An armored jaw-less fish...obviously.

post-12980-0-84990500-1411151187_thumb.jpg post-0-0-38041300-1411151196_thumb.jpg post-0-0-68003000-1411151201_thumb.jpg post-0-0-57922000-1411151210_thumb.jpg

You might want to have a look at this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ludwigia
14 hours ago, Missouri Ozark said:

I respect the input. What about this creature laying atop this?

IMG_20200112_131220537.jpg

That is not a creature. Just another rock.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Missouri Ozark

Please take a retake on the attached pics of the same item along with another at a later stage of development. thanks

artifacts 106.jpg

artifacts 112.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Missouri Ozark

am I losing my mind here? How about this?

 

artifacts 072.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ludwigia

I'm sorry to say this as well, but I'm afraid that your imagination is running away with you. I think you should pay more attention to the judgement of our experienced participants here and maybe do some research yourself on the extremely rare cases where soft tissue parts are preserved in the fossil record to see what they really look like. One problem is however that when you google for instance "fossilized embryo", you come up with mostly either fakes or pareidolia. By the way, have you checked out what pareidolia means? I'm afraid that you may be under its influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Randyw

Sorry..it geologic. (A rock)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fifbrindacier
13 hours ago, Missouri Ozark said:

am I losing my mind here? How about this?

 

artifacts 072.jpg

That's other an embryo, sorry. 

Your last photo shows shells in cup and a hole probably made by a lithophage organism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockwood

There is one very basic concept that makes the embryo hypothesis unworkable here. The segmentation that forms vertebra and ribs should be evident at this stage of development. I don't see them.

To overcome the sheer odds against finding such a rock the fossil would need to show a more discernibly creature.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KingSepron

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minnbuckeye
2 minutes ago, KingSepron said:

 

 

Pareidolia, that was the term I was looking for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zenmaster6

To help you digest this (I have seen A LOT of rocks like yours)

There are 3 types of rocks. Igneous, Metamorphic and Sedimentary.

Sedimentary is the most common carrier of fossils, only in very rare times does metamorphic contain fossils (usually really hard shelled things)
Igneous is a pretty much never unless lava made a cast of a tree limb or something and even then, you'd know.

Your rock is not sedimentary. It is obviously some kind of chert (second) or metamorphized rock. Meaning you would not have a preserved fetus within it.
A fetus would not be preserved within even sedimentary rocks like this. A fetus would likely be within a larger 2-D skeleton *because they don't pop out of the mom and roll away*

and it would be a 2-D fossil of the bones from the fetus. Not the 3-D shape in a metamorphic rock. (even concretions with whole crabs within them usually don't portray the crabs details on the outside. Especially not the placenta or umbilical cord which are soft tissue and globally rare to see as even a color stain.)


I thought it might help for you to know why this wasn't a fossil rather than tell you "I agree, pareidolia" 

I would go online and research the differences between the 3 rock types, then use Macrostrat.org to find sediment near you and start swinging away :) 
I wish you luck with all future fossiling endeavors. Its a great hobby :dinothumb:

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.

×