Dinosaur Embryo Fossil? Or...Just another rock?

[Lucky Pete]

Found in New Mexico on private property, not far from Morrison Formation...Circled in red highlighter is what appears to be a talon...last photo is of the opposite side..  

[Fossildude19]

Sorry, another no on this one.

This looks like a chert nodule, to me. 

 

[Top Trilo]

Since your other rocks have bryozoans, which live underwater you will not find any dinosaur fossils in the same location, age and formation change a lot so it doesn't really matter what formation you are near

[Lucky Pete]

6 minutes ago, Top Trilo said:

Since your other rocks have bryozoans, which live underwater you will not find any dinosaur fossils in the same location, age and formation change a lot so it doesn't really matter what formation you are near

As you said, age and formation change a lot...but the formation location matters quite a bit..especially when one considers the fact that freshwater lagoons and floodplain areas would come and go over the course of millions of years..therefore your sweeping generalizations don't apply here..

[Top Trilo]

1 minute ago, Lucky Pete said:

As you said, age and formation change a lot...but the formation location matters quite a bit..especially when one considers the fact that freshwater lagoons and floodplain areas would come and go over the course of millions of years..therefore your sweeping generalizations don't apply here..

You are correct that the land changes a lot but it is different for how deep in the ground, the surface, which I'm guessing is the level you collect this in was underwater

[Lucky Pete]

16 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

Sorry, another no on this one.

This looks like a chert nodule, to me. 

 

I'd be amazed to see another chert nodule that looks like this one, especially with an intact, articulated, embryonic structure like this one...

[JohnJ]

16 minutes ago, Lucky Pete said:

I'd be amazed to see another chert nodule that looks like this one, especially with an intact, articulated, embryonic structure like this one...

 

Pete, unfortunately, this assertion is unsupported beyond subtle, subjective appearance.

[jpc]

I have an appointment here at work next week with a citizen who is going to show me a pile of soft tissue fossils that are going to rock the doors off of paleontology.  I promised to give her a half hour of my time. The photos look like chert nodules.  I am again politely bowing out of this here discussion.  

[Fossildude19]

How far is "not far" from the Morrison Formation?

[Fossildude19]

29 minutes ago, Lucky Pete said:

I'd be amazed to see another chert nodule that looks like this one, especially with an intact, articulated, embryonic structure like this one...

What do you mean by "embryonic structure"? 

I see a bit of quartz (associated with chert, frequently) that vaguely "looks like" a skull, in a most general form. 

Pareidolia can account for this. 

What "embryonic structure" are you seeing? 

[Tidgy's Dad]

I am amazed how many responses posts like this get from the admin, moderators, long term members and newbies too.

The post below this in my listing has one reply and is far more worthy of comment. Genuine people asking for ids get little response if any at all. 

 

 

[grandpa]

Wow @Lucky Pete,

 

In a very short time you've made quite a reputation for yourself on this site.  It takes an awful lot to get a rebuke from Adam @Tidgy's Dad.

 

In your few short offerings you've presented chert nodules with designs that require significant imagination to see anything, proposed that they are extremely rare paleontological artifacts, and then argued with/ pushed back on those professionals who propose to help you and give you the advantage of their significant education and experience for the purpose of educating you.

 

I'd say that you are indeed "lucky" that the administrators have continued to indulge you and have not blocked you from the site.  Beware, your luck could run out.

 

You are welcome here so long as you "play nice" and contribute.  I've not seen evidence of that behavior yet.  How much "luck" do you think you have left?

[Top Trilo]

22 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

I am amazed how many responses posts like this get from the admin, moderators, long term members and newbies too.

The post below this in my listing has one reply and is far more worthy of comment. Genuine people asking for ids get little response if any at all. 

 

 

This is one of the threads I have an answer too. I respond to all ones that I have answers for but that amount is limited 

[Lucky Pete]

30 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

What do you mean by "embryonic structure"? 

I see a bit of quartz (associated with chert, frequently) that vaguely "looks like" a skull, in a most general form. 

Pareidolia can account for this. 

What "embryonic structure" are you seeing? 

There are too many commonalities here for pareidolia to be the case.."Pareidolia" is a word that gets thrown around a lot on these fossil ID groups , but pareidolia isn't applicable here, as you have pointed out with your outline..unless of course we both suffer from pareidolia...

 

[Top Trilo]

Just now, Lucky Pete said:

There are too many commonalities

The relative shape is there but it is pareidolia, the more specimens you view you realize that it doesn't align with real specimens. Just a shape we have in our head

[Lucky Pete]

2 minutes ago, grandpa said:

Wow @Lucky Pete,

 

In a very short time you've made quite a reputation for yourself on this site.  It takes an awful lot to get a rebuke from Adam @Tidgy's Dad.

 

In your few short offerings you've presented chert nodules with designs that require significant imagination to see anything, proposed that they are extremely rare paleontological artifacts, and then argued with/ pushed back on those professionals who propose to help you and give you the advantage of their significant education and experience for the purpose of educating you.

 

I'd say that you are indeed "lucky" that the administrators have continued to indulge you and have not blocked you from the site.  Beware, your luck could run out.

 

You are welcome here so long as you "play nice" and contribute.  I've not seen evidence of that behavior yet.  How much "luck" do you think you have left?

I don't know what to tell you, good sir..I do apologize if I've upset anyone, as this is not my intention..I wish you a happy Thanksgiving and a merry Christmas..

[JohnJ]

Many topics like this are opportunities to explain or illustrate how the science works.  

 

Further, time and time again they prove to be examples of the patience, knowledge, and experience of our community.

 

In this case, @Lucky Pete, as in your other topic, it takes much more than subtle appearances to seriously suggest this is a fossil.  You need more evidence this is anything other than a quartz based rock with differential weathering.

[Fossildude19]

40 minutes ago, Lucky Pete said:

There are too many commonalities here for pareidolia to be the case.."Pareidolia" is a word that gets thrown around a lot on these fossil ID groups , but pareidolia isn't applicable here, as you have pointed out with your outline..unless of course we both suffer from pareidolia...

I can see faces and images in clouds, ... too.  

It (pareidolia) is a fascinating subject, but does not mean odd looking rocks are actual fossils. 

It gets mentioned a lot on the forums, because everyone suffers from it occasionally. However, being able to differentiate between Pareidolia and actual fossils is much more difficult for those who are easily convinced that what they see is what they think it is.   

 

[Ludwigia]

Oh no! Not again! This is hopeless. I'm out before I'm in this time.

[LordTrilobite]

Same as the other threads. No embryo here at all. Just some vaguely suggestive shapes and a whole lot of pareidolia.

Sorry, but there's nothing else to add to this.

[Bobby Rico]

26 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

I can see faces and images in clouds, ... too.  

It (pareidolia) is a fascinating subject, but does not mean odd looking rocks are actual fossils. 

It gets mentioned a lot on the forums, because everyone suffers from it occasionally. However, being able to differentiate between Pareidolia and actual fossils is much more difficult for those who are easily convinced that what they see is what they think it is.   

 

Some giants for you Tim

[LabRatKing]

I found the embryos in this thread:

 

 

 

(stolen from Bertocchini Lab of Amniote Embryology as all my embryos barely have nervous systems let alone spines)

[Top Trilo]

33 minutes ago, Bobby Rico said:

Some giants for you Tim

Don't forget mount rushmore , only the shapes aren't natural

[Coco]

Hi,

 

I thought the same thing, but you were faster than me !

 

Coco

[Barrelcactusaddict]

@Lucky Pete That is a very interesting specimen; I do believe it is a vein of massive quartz running through chert, though. I'd definitely hang onto it as the appearance is strikingly similar to a skull, as was outlined. I've seen a lot of interesting shapes and forms in weathered/glaciated quartz & chert here in Wisconsin, so that's always interesting to see something new. I think it would make a nice conversation starter, myself! 

 

I apologize, I hope many here didn't intend their responses to sound rude; it's easy to mistakenly ID a specimen based on appearance and even in addition to knowing the location. We're all at different stages of experience, so patience is very helpful and important; we are all human after all!