esskapee Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 I've amassed a decent collection of rocks, minerals, crystals, and petrified wood, and even a few fossils in my 57 years in Northern California. Some I've found, others acquired at garage and estate sales and the local flea market. At one garage sale there was a milk crate full of various stones, geodes, cut agate, and such. They all looked good at a glance so I bought the whole crate. At home I went through it and every piece was a really nice specimen. At the bottom of the crate was a small rock. It wasn't anything obvious like the rest, so I looked at it under a light turning it all around in my hand until the light hit it just right and I couldn't believe what I saw. It looked like the 1st picture with the cast shadows. I noticed all the features of a pit viper: the head- the nostril, heat sensing pit, eye socket, eye guard, and the bigger pit under the eye which must've been the void from the venom gland. I know what a rattlesnake looks like, as I've seen many. But I wasn't positive at first as the other side was mostly flat, as in the 2nd pic. What wasn't flattened was symmetrical with the right side, specifically across the top between the eye guards. I noticed a scaling pattern across the top and color changes, as well as on the bottom view looking up of the right side, as shown in the 3rd and 4th pic. The 4th pic shows the scales along the mouth and color changes as well, and a couple horizontal marks under the chin. The 5th picture shows the medial line and the head features on both sides. The left side is flat but its features are in alignment with the right side The 6th and 7th pics are of the bottom and I think the 2 curved lines are its fangs folded back in the mouth. All of this tells me that I have a real fossil of a pit viper head. Any opinions and/or expert knowledge greatly appreciated, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 Soft tissue only preserves under very rare conditions, so unless there are visible bones (it would likely preserve skeletally), it is unlikely to be a snake head despite apparent similarity to extant examples. It wouldn't be the first time mother nature throws a curve ball like this! 4 ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
val horn Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 No it is not a snake head. As Kane pointed out fossils are very rarely mummies, no skin, etc would be left, teeth if present would still look exactly like teeth, and have an enamel shell. Pattern recognition is a remarkable human skill; a survival trait in hunting, gathering, and avoiding predators. The skill is build in, but not always correct. When not correct it is often pareidolia. When I look at your rock I see a shark tooth in the upper right portion in your first picture above where you are seeing an eye. I dont know if I am also engaging in pareidolia , or if perhaps the stone was collected because of the shark tooth in matrix? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esskapee Posted May 9, 2021 Author Share Posted May 9, 2021 Please read this - https://www.icr.org/article/scales-colors-proteins-dinosaur-skin To me that translates to " textures and color patterns of reptile scales can get replicated through fossilization" And this from another article- When the original compounds in the skin begin to break down, they can form chemical bonds with trace metals, and under exceptional conditions, these trace metals act like a “bridge” to minerals in the sediment in which the fossil forms. This protects the skin material from being washed away or decomposing further. The results suggest that the trace metal constituents and patterns in ancient reptile skin, even after fossilization, are similar to those of modern reptiles, indicating that little change has occurred in their skin structure over many millions of years. From what I can tell is that there are too many features in the right places on all sides for it to be a random non fossil. I mean the shape from all angles, the scales along the mouth line and on top view. The 2 fangs aligned with each other, the same size, in the location they are found in a vipers mouth Empirical evidence through close observation these pics fit too perfect to be random coincidences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 It's interesting that this concept is commonly used by paleontologists in replacing elements of bilateral creatures that were not recovered. Were it observed here more than supposed it would be more useful as evidence going in the opposite direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 No scales, no precise bilateral symmetry, what you indicated as fangs would not be fused into the rest of the "fossil," too many pits/depressions to show surface regularity. For reference, a pit viper skull (middle): 1 ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esskapee Posted May 9, 2021 Author Share Posted May 9, 2021 "no skin, etc would be left",.... the articles I listed above highly make that statement wrong. New knowledge changes old thinking. "teeth if present would still look exactly like teeth, and have an enamel shell." These fangs look like fangs as they are tucked away inside the mouth. There is no enamel shell visible because they are under the skin Look again at the 2 fangs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 Unfortunately, one of the citations was to a non-scientific source. Since you are posting here in fossil ID, it is assumed you are unsure about the specimen, and we are providing you with our opinion. I am hoping you are not posting in fossil ID to tell us what the specimen is. Yes, new knowledge can change old thinking, as is the wont in science, but it must also be held under strict conditions of testability and falsifiability. 1 1 ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 I see a brachiopod internal mold with muscle scars and a median septum. But it isn't. I know this is my personal pareidolia. Its a rock. 2 2 Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 No. Not a snake head as others have already stated. Using mirror imaging techniques to replicate crushed or missing portions of actual guaranteed known fossils is a valid technique. One half of Sue the T. rex skull was replicated in this way (I seem to remember reading). Taking an unsymmetical rock which you are envisioning may be a potential fossil and then mirror imaging it to fit what you wish to believe is not a valid approach to convincing anybody of your assertion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia Pareidolia is a fascinating phenomenon that allows us all to "see" fanciful images in cloud formations or face profiles in rock formations. It is the pattern matching hardware of our advanced brains seeking to fill in the details from vague patterns. It's served our species well but it can cause us to believe we are seeing something that is just not there. This is one of those cases. It has already been mentioned that complete heads of snakes do not fossilize in this manner. We see several "fossil snake heads" each year by new members who are struck by interesting vague features that their imagination (aided by pareidolia) can convince them that they are looking at a rare preservation of a mummified snake head with tissue and scales preserved. Every single one brought to us here on the forum turns out to be a quirky rock with vaguely (usually exceedingly vaguely) resembles the shape or features of a living snake's head. It simply does not happen that snakes fossilize in this manner. This is not a rare one in a million case of exceptional preservation but the more mundane case of rocks that resemble something else. We've devoted a whole topic here on the forum to look-alikes and fakers which our members find while out searching for real fossils. Welcome to the forum. You'll find this a welcoming place that is based in the science of fossils. We have many members who are experts in various fossil fields and numerous professional paleontologists as well. We'd love to see images of any of your real fossils but you can rest assured that this one is not one of them. Still fun to keep look-alike fakers in your collection but this one is not in any way a mummified snake head. Sorry. Cheers. -Ken 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esskapee Posted May 9, 2021 Author Share Posted May 9, 2021 @Rockwood as far as the fossil is concerned, in actuality there are no elements missing, just part of the left side has been pressed flat, and the 5 features on the right side (which are in the correct locations on a vipers head) are still visible on the flattened side... all 5 features! All in basic alignment with the right side. Across the top between the eye guards is symmetrical. And the scales and color changes along the mouth in this pic are exactly as they are found today .. re: The results suggest that the trace metal constituents and patterns in ancient reptile skin, even after fossilization, are similar to those of modern reptiles, indicating that little change has occurred in their skin structure over many millions of years. The shape of the head from the viewpoint is what it looks like if it was a living snake there are just too many things in the right locations from all sides with the smallest of details for it to be a coincidence. If that were the case then your tryllobite is most likely not real , its an extremely accurate coincidence also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 6 minutes ago, esskapee said: The shape of the head from the viewpoint is what it looks like if it was a living snake there are just too many things in the right locations from all sides with the smallest of details for it to be a coincidence. If that were the case then your tryllobite is most likely not real , its an extremely accurate coincidence also. As stated, yours is not the first "fossil snake head" we have seen. This is not a common but a repeating example of pareidolia that we see with regularity. None have been fossil snake heads--they have all been rocks which provide just enough lumps and bumps for the imagination to fashion into a seemingly convincing argument. All we see is a lumpy bit of cherty rock. That's all we'll ever see because that is all that is actually there. You can draw lines on images and try to convince yourself that you are adept at spotting faint but telltale clues. You may, in fact, succeed in the effort to convince yourself but you have not shown any proof that would rise to the level of a truly rare (possibly unique) fossil. The simpler explanation is that you are finding features to match your hypothesis (or foregone conclusion) at this point. You will not convert any of us to your side as we are science based and work from experience and knowledge of how things work and what is possible. You've asked for our opinions and we've chosen 'Nay' over 'Yea' for sound reasoning and logic. If you disagree with our identification you are welcome to take your rock to the nearest museum or university that has a vertebrate paleontologist on staff and ask their opinion. It will be the same but perhaps you'd be convinced by someone looking at it in person. We have many topics on this forum which provide useful information in identifying a ride range of actual fossils. We also have many topics where we try to enlighten new members about the unusual rocks that brought them to seek our our forum. We hope that the discussion here will assist not only you but others who might find this discussion in search results when they find a rock that seems unusual enough to investigate. Cheers. -Ken 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
val horn Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 If you know what it is, put a label on it and keep it in your collection. It is your collection, not mine or anyone else on this forum. If you feel it is very rare and valuable to science, if you want, take it to your local museum as a donation to their collection. The museum is also free to pass their own judgment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planko Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 Seems you have made up your mind. I understand as I have posted stuff on here and had to accept the vast knowledge here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 We are once again faced with a no-win situation. The OP has obviously decided, despite scientific evidence to the contrary, that they have a snake head. They do not. They have a metamorphic rock. They will not change our opinions, nor will we change theirs. There is no further point in pursuing this avenue of inquiry. We would kindly ask that the OP take their item to a local museum PALEONTOLOGIST and have them explain what they see, and why. Best of luck to you @esskapee 1 5 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts