Jump to content

Part of Bone Found in Dry Creek Bed


theonlymogly

Recommended Posts

Alright guys, I'm new here. This is my first post. But I went to go back to a place i used to go swimming when I was younger and on the walk down the creek to get there, I found this bone fragment. Odd thing is the dry bed was flowing this time which I have never seen other than one other time. I didnt think much of it as I found these all the time. I put it on my pocket, got some cool pictures and left. I came home and did a little digging and i cant figure out what its from. It feels like porcelain or china-ware full of air. So I'm assuming it is fossilized. It was found is Lisbon, Ohio. But another odd thing is it reeks of a strong sulfer smell but only when its wet. Peaking of that i know you shouldnt be licking random things but I did the tongue test and it did stick. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

(I will be taking photos is reference of top and bottom. The "socket" side is the front.)

Dimensions

Front, top to bottom- 8.5cm

Front, left to right- 8cm

The thickest portion is the top right corner, measuring at 2cm. Top left corner 1.8cm. The rest is on average .5cm. The "socket" does warp the other side of the fragment. The back side is much smoother than the front side. Any other questions just ask. I have as many as you probably do.

16152640081014414315106477208206.jpg

16152640520818185345273200032747.jpg

16152640762662007292582243176913.jpg

16152641039295050004001706634891.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I see this looks geologic. Some geologic features and processes such as oolitic limestone and wear can do a pretty good job mimicking cancellate bone structure. It's a good faker but in my opinion not a fossil.

  • I Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shape is suggestive of a hip bone I really can imagine a socket for the femur and the rough pubic bone articulation. But the texture is wrong. The smooth sides smooth but not burnished. The rough flat side is not bone like at all. If you are seeing an internal surface. The spiderweb pattern would cover most of the surface.  The side image again does not show cancellous bone.  Even the shape when you really look isn’t quite right,  hip bones are flat compared to a long bone but have a significant curve.  This is why it is a good faker.  Geological but not fossil.

  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Thomas.Dodson said:

From what I see this looks geologic. Some geologic features and processes such as oolitic limestone and wear can do a pretty good job mimicking cancellate bone structure. It's a good faker but in my opinion not a fossil.

Thank you Thomas! I looked into what you said and I agree with the oolitic limestone. It did a crazy good job at looking like bone.

5 hours ago, val horn said:

The shape is suggestive of a hip bone I really can imagine a socket for the femur and the rough pubic bone articulation. But the texture is wrong. The smooth sides smooth but not burnished. The rough flat side is not bone like at all. If you are seeing an internal surface. The spiderweb pattern would cover most of the surface.  The side image again does not show cancellous bone.  Even the shape when you really look isn’t quite right,  hip bones are flat compared to a long bone but have a significant curve.  This is why it is a good faker.  Geological but not fossil.

Thats exactly what i thought when I saw it. I couldnt see any type of structure where it looks like is has "broken off" of other places though. And the socket is only about the size of an american quarter, which is tiny for a hip bone. But thank you guys!

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...