Sea turtle embryo ID request

[TDR]

This is not my field of expertise.  I chipped this out of a rock found on the surface in my yard.  Texas gulf coast.

 

This appears to me to be a fossilized near term embryo of a sea turtle.  

 

The matrix has reminants of other fossilized embryos (guess based on size and feature) all compacted together.  From nest? Gastric filter?

 

Be kind, please.  I know the stigma  about a lay person’s ‘great find’ and imagination.

 

 

[Fossildude19]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is not an embryo.   

 

It looks like a chert nodule, with some adhering matrix. 

 

Soft tissue is rarely preserved. I'm pretty sure this isn't soft tissue preservation.

 

Mother nature creates all manner of items that can "Look" like something we may be familiar with. 

The difference lies in knowing how things come to be fossilized, and morphological features identical to the real thing.  

[SailingAlongToo]

Definitely looks geological rather than biological.

[LordTrilobite]

Sorry, not an embryo, not a fossil.

[TDR]

1 hour ago, Fossildude19 said:

The difference lies in knowing how things come to be fossilized, and morphological features identical to the real thing.  

Thank you all for your input.  

 

I was thinking the soft tissue was infiltrated with calcium salts post mortum.  The top layer of skin appears to have shifted too as evidenced by the eyelid shifting and moving from the eyeball which can be seen beneath the outer layer of calcium.  

 

Lithopedions calcify in different ways- If I recall correctly of those studied, calcification of the entire specimen is rare.  I’m not drilling a hole here to poke around.

 

i didnt know enough about turtle anatomy to imagine the details I’m seeing on the flippers.  I’m bringing it to a turtle expert for another opinion. 

 

Here is the general orientation of details that can be see through the outer layer.

 

[Bobby Rico]

3 minutes ago, TDR said:

turtle expert for another opinion. 

 

We have a turtle expert here on the forum let’s give him a look @Tidgy's Dad 

[Tidgy's Dad]

Cheers, Bobby. 

It's not an embryo or any other part of a turtle, I'm afraid. 

Or indeed a fossil. 

I agree with Tim's view that it's a chert nodule with adhering matrix. 

[fifbrindacier]

I also Don't see any fossil here, sorry.

[Carl]

I agree with the others: not fossil here. Sorry.

[abyssunder]

I agree with the others, no soft tissue there. It looks close to a hyperostosed bone, but is just a far resemblence.

[abyssunder]

19 minutes ago, Carl said:

I agree with the others: not fossil here. Sorry.

Darn, you are tracking me?...

I'm sure not.

Same idea. I appreciate this!

[jpc]

I agree with these folks... No fossil here.  But I did learn a new word... lithopedion.  Thanks for that.  

[TDR]

Thanks for all the replies!

[Zenmaster6]

I agree as well, another mind thrown into the pot. Anytime I see the word embyro, its always been a leaverite case. Organs and soft tissue especially embryos never fossilize. I know you cant say never because maybe 1 could be out there but even the paleontologists who dig fossils dont look for embryos because they are less common that seeing 3 shooting stars collide in the sky.

[Mark Kmiecik]

Not an egg -- no embryo. The end result shown in the photos cannot be formed by the process(es) that normally preserve soft tissue, like those found in the Burgess Shale of Canada and the Francis Creek Shale of Mazon creek, Illinois. The few locations around the world which have soft tissue preservation are well known and differ dramatically physically and geologically from the specimen you have presented. If your specimen was indeed an embryo, they would have been discovered in that area at least 100 years ago and the area would be world famous. Alas, it isn't. Can you guess why?

[Troodon]

1 hour ago, Zenmaster6 said:

. I know you cant say never because maybe 1 could be out there

Correct its called Willo the Thescelosaurus dinosaur

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/willo-the-dinosaur-loses-heart-93712793/

[TDR]

52 minutes ago, Mark Kmiecik said:

If your specimen was indeed an embryo, they would have been discovered in that area at least 100 years ago and the area would be world famous. Alas, it isn't. Can you guess why?

Can you explain more?

[Mark Kmiecik]

16 minutes ago, TDR said:

Can you explain more?

The area has been populated for hundreds of years. If that is indeed a fossil embryo, they would have been discovered there a long time ago. We would be aware of their existence for some time now. Fossils are seldom one-of-a-kind. Where you find one you'll find from hundreds to millions more just like it. There is no place along the entire Gulf Coast where fossil eggs with preserved embryos have been found. The simple explanation is because there are none to be found. It is not possible to find something where it doesn't exist, unless it was brought it and dropped by someone. That is not likely because a fossil embryo could be worth more than the average house, and not likely to be lost or abandoned. This is the same reason you don't find 20-carat gem-quality diamonds there -- they don't exist in that location.

[TDR]

7 minutes ago, Mark Kmiecik said:

Fossils are seldom one-of-a-kind. Where you find one you'll find from hundreds to millions more just like it. There is no place along the entire Gulf Coast where fossil eggs with preserved embryos have been found.

Thank you.  I was going to look up the two sites where an embryo was discovered just to expand my knowledge.  I think you referenced the places?  Anyway, they should have a whole bunch of embryos from those sites to study. Hundreds to millions?

[Mark Kmiecik]

17 minutes ago, TDR said:

Thank you.  I was going to look up the two sites where an embryo was discovered just to expand my knowledge.  I think you referenced the places?  Anyway, they should have a whole bunch of embryos from those sites to study. Hundreds to millions?

200 embryonic bones from one square meter (roughly 3 x 3 feet) in the huge bone bed found in China, and there's probably at least a few thousand more that have not yet been extracted. Hundreds of thousands of unhatched eggs in China, Montana, and other places. Number where you found your specimen? ZERO!

 

As for the two sites I mentioned. It was in reference to soft body tissue, not embryonic material. However, since an egg contains an embryo, yes hundreds of thousands of them have been found at those two locations. Number where you found your specimen? ZERO!

 

The fossils found in that area are well known, and even though new species may be found in the future, the odds are slim that any of those will be an embryo, since there is no evidence that any part of the area was a breeding ground for sea turtles. New discoveries are being made all over the world, but those are pretty much limited to unexplored areas in remote locations. The Gulf Coast is neither unexplored nor remote. We know what is there. We have known for almost 200 years. If you want to make new fossil preservation-type discoveries you'll need to search areas where the population density is less than 1 person per 10 square miles. Less than that would be even better.

[TDR]

2 hours ago, Mark Kmiecik said:

200 embryonic bones from one square meter (roughly 3 x 3 feet) in the huge bone bed found in China, and there's probably at least a few thousand more that have not yet been extracted. Hundreds of thousands of unhatched eggs in China, Montana, and other places. Number where you found your specimen? ZERO!

 

As for the two sites I mentioned. It was in reference to soft body tissue, not embryonic material. However, since an egg contains an embryo, yes hundreds of thousands of them have been found at those two locations. Number where you found your specimen? ZERO!

 

The fossils found in that area are well known, and even though new species may be found in the future, the odds are slim that any of those will be an embryo, since there is no evidence that any part of the area was a breeding ground for sea turtles. New discoveries are being made all over the world, but those are pretty much limited to unexplored areas in remote locations. The Gulf Coast is neither unexplored nor remote. We know what is there. We have known for almost 200 years. If you want to make new fossil preservation-type discoveries you'll need to search areas where the population density is less than 1 person per 10 square miles. Less than that would be even better.

Please accept my apology.  I realized right after I snapped back at you that you were referencing soft tissue and probably should have righted the record then.  I’m not quite sure why I felt so defensive to your response when hearing everyone else seems cool.  Again, my apologies.

 

I’m not out looking to make great discoveries, this fell in my lap.  I respect professional opinions so I won’t sit here and defend my position.  I see it from a different medical based and unbiased view because I am not versed in the area of paleontology.  

 

Best regards to you and and your passions.  

[JohnJ]

2 minutes ago, TDR said:

Please accept my apology.  I realized right after I snapped back at you that you were referencing soft tissue and probably should have righted the record then.  I’m not quite sure why I felt so defensive to your response when hearing everyone else seems cool.  Again, my apologies.

 

I’m not out looking to make great discoveries, this fell in my lap.  I respect professional opinions so I won’t sit here and defend my position.  I see it from a different medical based and unbiased view because I am not versed in the area of paleontology.  

 

Best regards to you and and your passions.  

 

Most of us on this Forum, and those that responded to your topic are not professionals in paleontology.  However, there are many decades of varied experience encompassed in the respondents above.  Stick around and continue to expand your fossil knowledge with the rest of us.   

[TDR]

I would like to add other similar finds have been made in my region but they are all dismissed as impossible.  Also-  the surrounding matrix usually contains what appears to be fossilized partial embryonic remains that suggest different species would nest in the same bed and as eggs were destroyed the remained in the next and piled one upon another.  

 

The matrix from which the thing I think is a turtle embryo contains reminants of 4 other species.  

 

It seems to impossible to entertain.  I do respect that.  

 

I have not read Anthony Martin’s book on nesting behaviors because this isn’t my field- but I have been trying to reach out to him for an in person consult since we live in the same town.

 

I seriously wish you well and thank you for your input.

[TDR]

6 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

 

Most of us on this Forum, and those that responded to your topic are not professionals in paleontology.  However, there are many decades of varied experience encompassed in the respondents above.  Stick around and continue to expand your fossil knowledge with the rest of us.   

Thank you. 

[Mark Kmiecik]

15 minutes ago, TDR said:

Please accept my apology.  I realized right after I snapped back at you that you were referencing soft tissue and probably should have righted the record then.  I’m not quite sure why I felt so defensive to your response when hearing everyone else seems cool.  Again, my apologies.

 

I’m not out looking to make great discoveries, this fell in my lap.  I respect professional opinions so I won’t sit here and defend my position.  I see it from a different medical based and unbiased view because I am not versed in the area of paleontology.  

 

Best regards to you and and your passions.  

And I apologize for being rude and brusque. We are scientifically oriented in our pursuit of paleontology on this forum, and we spend a great deal of our collective time here trying to convince people that a square is not a triangle. Some folks are so entrenched in belief that they cannot see reality, and sometimes it is quite frustrating. If you scan through a few pages of this ID thread, you will find many posts that have had further input terminated by the administrators. In some instances it is funny. In others it is not. We aim to be civil with all, especially new members just starting out with fossil collecting, but the thousands of hours of collective experience among the 28,000 members of this forum is generally something that should be convincing. I doubt that your specimen is what you say, but I actually hope it is. We all learn what we can from each other. The best any of us can do is provide opinions based on experience.