Dinosaur Embryo Fossil

[Lucky Pete]

Unidentified, Naturally Formed Cast/Mold Fossil of the contents inside an embryonic egg of some sort, found in New Mexico on private property...any help

appreciated...thanks..

 

[Rockwood]

Pete, you need to establish that there is egg shell and bone to make such a claim. I see no evidence of either. 

It may be a fossil of some sort however.

[Paleostoric]

I agree. No evidence of egg shell to say that this is even an egg. For the most part, it looks to me like just a rock.

[Fossildude19]

Another rock, unfortunately. 

[Ludwigia]

I'm also seeing nothing but rock here.

[jpc]

Yeah, sorry, just a rock.

[Lucky Pete]

Gentlemen...

As the original author, I can only say that I am sorry you're unable to interpret this specimen to my satisfaction, but I do appreciate the input...I know it's certainly not always easy to discern what's what when you are just looking at a photograph..Also, I might add that I never actually said it was an egg per se, but rather, the CONTENTS INSIDE an embryonic egg, in which, fine silica particles will eventually replace the organic matter within the egg itself...so even as bacteria eat away at the embryo within, these aforementioned silicates take on the shape and form of whatever was previously there..In closing, let me just say that the tendency (for me) is to weigh my 30+ years of field experience as an amateur paleontologist, along with the obvious and compelling photo evidence provided here, a bit more heavily than I would in comparison to the typical, cookie cutter academic classroom experience and standardized textbook teachings that are often found in the academic paleontological branches of the sciences..And that's the bare minimum that a classroom environment can provide..having said that, again I truly appreciate all of your valuable input, as it is always good to hear a different perspective whether I agree with it or not...

[Top Trilo]

I can see the resemblance to a skull shape but as the others have said unfortunately this is not an embryo they only fossilize under perfect rare circumstances and just shape isn't enough to claim something is a fossil.

[LordTrilobite]

Now, often photos not adequate to properly judge fossils. But At least in these photos there is zero indication of an embryo. Nothing that looks remotely anything like known dinosaur embryos at all that's visible here.

This just looks like an ordinary rock with some possible inclusions of some sort. But no clear evidence of bones.

[Rockwood]

22 minutes ago, Lucky Pete said:

I am sorry you're unable to interpret this specimen to my satisfaction

I would like to invite you to convince us that you are right in your interpretation. Something that represents the reason you are so certain.

I assure you amateur paleontologists are respected here as long as they argue civilly.

[jpc]

I speak as a museum guy who spends his work life and spare time with dinosaur and other fossils.  And I like to quote Carl Sagan... "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". 

Our job as museum professionals is NOT to explain things to YOUR satisfaction, but to correctly and scientifically explain what you've found.  As far as I can see there is no sign of embryo in there.  I am willing to bet, though, that you will not see this, as you have likely given up on us.  It happens quite a bit here.     

[GallinaPinta]

2 hours ago, Lucky Pete said:

Gentlemen...

As the original author, I can only say that I am sorry you're unable to interpret this specimen to my satisfaction, but I do appreciate the input...I know it's certainly not always easy to discern what's what when you are just looking at a photograph..Also, I might add that I never actually said it was an egg per se, but rather, the CONTENTS INSIDE an embryonic egg, in which, fine silica particles will eventually replace the organic matter within the egg itself...so even as bacteria eat away at the embryo within, these aforementioned silicates take on the shape and form of whatever was previously there..In closing, let me just say that the tendency (for me) is to weigh my 30+ years of field experience as an amateur paleontologist, along with the obvious and compelling photo evidence provided here, a bit more heavily than I would in comparison to the typical, cookie cutter academic classroom experience and standardized textbook teachings that are often found in the academic paleontological branches of the sciences..And that's the bare minimum that a classroom environment can provide..having said that, again I truly appreciate all of your valuable input, as it is always good to hear a different perspective whether I agree with it or not...

I believe the most you have in there is solid sediment with a few oyster shell fragments layered in between. I find them all the time here in PR. I like to call these "mystery rocks"

[Ludwigia]

3 hours ago, Lucky Pete said:

 the obvious and compelling photo evidence provided here

I think the only one here to whom it's obvious and compelling is yourself. Everybody else who's chimed in, including the professionals, just see a rock. Take it to your local paleontologist. He'll probably tell you the same thing.

[digit]

5 hours ago, Lucky Pete said:

Also, I might add that I never actually said it was an egg per se, but rather, the CONTENTS INSIDE an embryonic egg, in which, fine silica particles will eventually replace the organic matter within the egg itself...so even as bacteria eat away at the embryo within, these aforementioned silicates take on the shape and form of whatever was previously there.

So, I'm confused it is an embryo or the contents inside an egg but not an actual egg? Not sure how that happens--please enlighten us as to your thought process of how this occurs.

 

We are all well familiar with how mineralization occurs forming a pseudomorph of the original animal remains. Generally, this happens only with the hard body parts (bones or shell) as soft tissue preservation (aka "mummification") of skin or internal body parts requires an exceedingly exceptional preservation environment. Virtually all animals never get a chance to be preserved as fossils because they are not buried quickly enough so that bacteria, fungi and other decomposers break down both the soft body tissues and degrade the skeletal remains so they do not last long enough to become mineralized. Bacterial decomposition takes place over the course of days while mineralization to form a pseudomorph takes thousands to millions of years so it's not really the case of both processes happening on the same time scale as you seem to be implying (unless I'm completely not understanding your point).

 

5 hours ago, Lucky Pete said:

In closing, let me just say that the tendency (for me) is to weigh my 30+ years of field experience as an amateur paleontologist, along with the obvious and compelling photo evidence provided here, a bit more heavily than I would in comparison to the typical, cookie cutter academic classroom experience and standardized textbook teachings that are often found in the academic paleontological branches of the sciences.

You are free to trust your experience in what you believe over the scientific-based opinions of a variety of avocational and vocational paleontologists with a combined experience well in excess of your 30 years. You have asked for our opinions on this item. We are used to seeing items and judging only from photographs. When the images are not good enough to make a diagnosis we usually ask for clearer photos or for images from a different angle so that we can see characteristics clearly in photo form. Nothing you have shown in your images comes close to meeting our criteria for being able to make out any fossil in your circled area (much less a true rarity like an embryonic dinosaur). We have brought up the "Sagan Standard" that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and your claim of a dino embryo is most certainly an "extraordinary claim". You have not backed your photos up with the reasoning of why you believe this to be a dinosaur embryo--your "extraordinary evidence" is missing.

 

We enjoy seeing mystery fossil material here on the forum and usually have the breadth and depth of fossil knowledge among our membership to be able to assign an ID or at least narrow the field for further research into a proper ID. We have given our opinions that we are not seeing an embryo or any other fossil material in your specimen. If you still believe what you have found is something extraordinary it falls on you to provide reasoning why you believe your object to be an embryo. Simply stating it looks like what you believe an embryo should look like is not really compelling proof.

 

If your purpose behind posting this item is to ask our opinion that has been done. If you intended to convince us it is something that none of us our seeing then you need to do more than post photos and expect us to see what you believe you are seeing. Take close-up photos and highlight what parts you believe are visible. Only by trying to support your side of the argument can we work toward resolving this difference in opinion. You are free, of course, not to try to convince us but seek a different opinion by taking this item to your closest museum with a paleontologist and have it examined in hand.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Lucky Pete]

Gentlemen..

Having posted this specimen earlier, and then asked to explain why I thought it was a fossil, and not "Just a rock"  I was intrigued by the various responses it received...and although most of the replies were informative and friendly, they all had one commonality...That being the biased,(and incorrect) notion that the soft tissue parts of an organism cannot be preserved PRIOR to decomposition and/or predation, AND that if burial occurs rapidly enough after death,  especially if the presence of a high amount of salt is found in the surrounding soil, or if there are indications of rapid burial due to the settling of excessive volcanic ash, soft tissue preservation under those circumstances then CAN and DOES occur..Also, in my post this time, I have endeavored to circle in red highlighter those areas on this specimen that serve to help indicate it's organic origin: 

1) Enlongated head with visible fracture near the eye orbit..another fracture to the lower jaw..

 

2) Footprint Impressions, one complete, and one partial, as indicated in the second photo..these suggest the possibility of trampling, maybe even by it's own  siblings...

3) In the last photo, a partially exposed, yet still visible forelimb and front claw can be seen curled up just below the jawline, and the overall contortion of the body of the specimen is somewhat similar to the fetal position seen in modern bird and reptile embryos at later stages of development...

[Huntonia]

I don't think the other responses were based on the idea that soft tissue cannot preserve in its various states and under the correct circumstances. Indeed soft tissue CAN fossilize as you stated. However it is extremely rare, and when soft tissue does fossilize, as with any fossil, it leaves diagnostic features that can be clearly seen by a well trained eye. As indicated by others there is none of the symmetry, clear morphology, bone material, or otherwise clear details that one would expect from such a fossil.

 

I hate to say it but this is not a dinosaur embryo, there may be some fossil inclusions in this piece but I believe your interpretation of them is purely pareidolia. We can only provide our opinions, if you decide they are incorrect then that is your choice, but it would seem to eliminate the purpose of asking in the first place.

[JohnJ]

3 hours ago, Lucky Pete said:

1) Enlongated head with visible fracture near the eye orbit..another fracture to the lower jaw..

 

2) Footprint Impressions, one complete, and one partial, as indicated in the second photo..these suggest the possibility of trampling, maybe even by it's own  siblings...

3) In the last photo, a partially exposed, yet still visible forelimb and front claw can be seen curled up just below the jawline, and the overall contortion of the body of the specimen is somewhat similar to the fetal position seen in modern bird and reptile embryos at later stages of development...

 

 

 

I assume these assertions are based on the photographic 'evidence' you've provided.  However, your conclusions are in no way obvious.  

 

Based on the circled areas, I could just as easily assert they are evidence of dissolution cavities, variable densities, and freeze/thaw fractures in a silicate based rock.

 

Experience notwithstanding (yours or mine), assertions obligate one to provide greater support than additional, unsupported observations.

[Rockwood]

4 hours ago, Lucky Pete said:

1) Enlongated head with visible fracture near the eye orbit..another fracture to the lower jaw..

 

2) Footprint Impressions, one complete, and one partial, as indicated in the second photo..these suggest the possibility of trampling, maybe even by it's own  siblings...

3) In the last photo, a partially exposed, yet still visible forelimb and front claw can be seen curled up just below the jawline, and the overall contortion of the body of the specimen is somewhat similar to the fetal position seen in modern bird and reptile embryos at later stages of development...

These are explanation for the shapes to be seen. The devil is in the details though. It needs to be proven that other explanations don't fit equally well. I don't believe this to be the case here.

 

[Lucky Pete]

Unfortunately it's not only difficult to prove my claims using photo evidence, but nearly impossible, especially when one considers the fact that BECAUSE there are only a very few of these types of specimens known to exist in the fossil record, comparable examples of similar specimens are fairly non-existent, and even scientific papers or reference material depicting similar examples are very rare, therefore, because most paleontologists actually only know whatever they've been TOLD to think by an instructor/professor..or perhaps what they've read in a textbook, they really  cannot say with any certainty exactly what they are looking at when it comes to these kinds of specimens, because they really don't know.. (Although many seem to THINK they know what they are talking about, they in fact, oftentimes do not) In many cases, I have been told to be suffering from Pareidolia, but the truth is, when mis-identification occurs, it's usually more likely to be the result of a well meaning, well educated paleontology student or fossil collector who is suffering from what is called, the "Dunning Kruger Effect" in which, ironically, seemingly intelligent people are nonetheless blindly ignorant of the fact of their own ignorance, or in some cases, are just too stupid to know exactly how stupid they sound while trying to come off as intellectual or intelligent...Sadly, it happens to the best of us...Myself included, I am sure...

[Rockwood]

15 minutes ago, Lucky Pete said:

because most paleontologists actually only know whatever they've been TOLD to think by an instructor/professor.

I respect your independence. One should always question authority. I end up doing it regularly.

[Ludwigia]

49 minutes ago, Lucky Pete said:

  because most paleontologists actually only know whatever they've been TOLD to think by an instructor/professor..or perhaps what they've read in a textbook, they really  cannot say with any certainty exactly what they are looking at when it comes to these kinds of specimens, because they really don't know.. (Although many seem to THINK they know what they are talking about, they in fact, oftentimes do not) In many cases, I have been told to be suffering from Pareidolia, but the truth is, when mis-identification occurs, it's usually more likely to be the result of a well meaning, well educated paleontology student or fossil collector who is suffering from what is called, the "Dunning Kruger Effect" in which, ironically, seemingly intelligent people are nonetheless blindly ignorant of the fact of their own ignorance, or in some cases, are just too stupid to know exactly how stupid they sound while trying to come off as intellectual or intelligent...Sadly, it happens to the best of us...Myself included, I am sure...

As far as I know, one of the first things most paleontologists learn during their studies from their instructors is, among other things, to keep an open mind and to gather as much irrefutable evidence as possible for their claims. We still haven't experienced either so far from yourself and now your insinuations are getting quite personal. Just belittling the arguments of your "opponents" is no way to pursue a normal scientific debate and downright insulting, if I may say so. I respect your independence as well, but this is no way to support your arguments without alienating a lot of people who would otherwise be willing to discuss this with you in an objective fashion.

 

PS. Normally when such claims are made, precise information as to location, geological formation, lithology, biozone, etc. should be given. This is sadly lacking here, with the exception of a vague mention of private property somewhere near Edgewood and silica particles.

[Paleostoric]

21 minutes ago, Lucky Pete said:

they really  cannot say with any certainty exactly what they are looking at when it comes to these kinds of specimens, because they really don't know.. (Although many seem to THINK they know what they are talking about, they in fact, oftentimes do not)

In that case, this piece should remain unidentified and cannot be determined as an embryo, a fossil, or a rock since we could be incorrect in saying it is a rock, and you can be incorrect in saying it is an embryo. By this statement, no one can truly know exactly what you have, so it is suffice and fair to say that it is unidentifiable and should be considered some intriguing mass.

[Pemphix]

Sorry, no fossil here, just rock imho.

All the guys responded here, have a lot of  knowledge about geology/paleontology and a lifetime (in a lot of cases scientific) experience with fossils and esp. with dinos.

No need to doubt there well founded experience/opinion....and especially not,  if it is quite obvious as in this case.

As part of the scientific world i can totally support what was said by jpc about the ID: "Our job as museum professionals is NOT to explain things to YOUR satisfaction, but to correctly and scientifically explain what you've found."

 

Dino embryos are not common for sure, but not as rare as you stated. Furthermore, a lot of papers existing about the topic (just some links of them attached below) showing a field of paleontology is deep into the topic with a lot of experience.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235671931_Sauropod_Dinosaur_Embryos_from_the_Late_Cretaceous_of_Patagonia

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6110932_A_Theropod_Dinosaur_Embryo_and_the_Affinities_of_the_Flaming_Cliffs_Dinosaur_Eggs

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296165651_Dinosaur_embryos_Unscrambling_the_past_in_Patagonia

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235650742_Secondary_Cartilage_Revealed_in_a_Non-Avian_Dinosaur_Embryo

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7693610_Embryos_of_an_Early_Jurassic_Prosauropod_Dinosaur_and_Their_Evolutionary_Significance

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286631297_Upper_Jurassic_theropod_dinosaur_embryo_from_Lourinha_Portugal

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236196178_Embryology_of_Early_Jurassic_dinosaur_from_China_with_evidence_of_preserved_organic_remains

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11771690_Embryonic_Skulls_of_Titanosaur_Sauropod_Dinosaurs

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272152118_Embryos_and_eggs_for_the_Cretaceous_theropod_dinosaur_Troodon_formosus

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232845064_Embryonic_Skeletal_Anatomy_of_the_Sauropodomorph_Dinosaur_Massospondylus_from_the_Lower_Jurassic_of_South_Africa

 

 

[Lucky Pete]

I know that SOME embryonic egg fossils exist, and I know that SOME articles and papers have been written on the subject matter.. however, I posit that NOT ENOUGH reference material has been written, nor have enough comparable fossils that are similar to this one and others I have posted have been found yet to draw any solid conclusions and that's why (other than photos and description) I can offer you no further proof of evidence or information that will otherwise sway your opinion or outweigh your own  biases...But I have enjoyed the conversation, and will continue to try my darndest to post something that we can all unequivocally agree on someday..

[Bobby Rico]

Hi 

The quality of these photos are not great and blurred. No close up images too. This does not help you, your claim, or us to determine exactly what you have. Our members here that have replied to your thread have spent a very lot of time collecting in the field, and this is an education in itself. To be a good fossil hunter, you need to understand the geography, to be observant, to have knowledge to know what to look for and have an open mind. To prove that you have an embryo you need real facts that can be backed up by science.  The facts need to be specific to this piece because talking about palaeontologists being narrow minded has no bearing on this being an embryo or not.