Which animal did we find?

[KatrienE]

My sun found this in the mountains, in Aragon, Spain on a mountain by accidence, while playing.

It looks like a little bird, we can see a print of little feathers.

But the skeleton doesn't really look like the ones we found online.

Who can help us? We are curieus.

 

 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

Hi, and welcome to TFF from France! We've got some quite knowledgable members on here, so I'm sure we'll be able to figure out what you've got here.

 

Unfortunately, I can already tell you this is not a bird. But it does look a bit crustacean to me. May be @caterpillar, @RJB or @glu can confirm or deny this. In the meantime, could you tell us a bit more about the geology of the area: how old the rocks are, what kind of sediment (marine or terrestrial) and what other fossils you've found there. This may help narrow options of identification down...

Edited July 11, 2021 by pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon

[KatrienE]

I'm sorry, I have absolutely no idea about the geology-specifics here ... (or anywhere else ...) 

To me it are all the same rocks, like the one on the picture.

We didn't find any other fossils, my son found it by accident.

Is it actually a fossil or just a dead animal? How do you define something a fossil? It is completely not my field of expertise, however now we found this, it is very exciting to know what it is. Thank you!! 

[FranzBernhard]

35 minutes ago, KatrienE said:

Is it actually a fossil or just a dead animal?

Good question! Every dead animal, part of a dead animal or a trace left by an animal (or plant, of course) older then 10.000 years is a fossil. 

To me, this looks like two different shell fossils in limestone. I don´t tell you, that I get a somewhat rudist vibe from your specimen, but that´s my very special kind of pareidolia .

I will tag other members from the general area:
@marguy, @Quer

Franz Bernhard

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

4 hours ago, FranzBernhard said:

To me, this looks like two different shell fossils in limestone.

 

Yeah, I considered shell. But the mode of preservation just reminds me of that of crayfish and shrimp more... 

[Jared C]

4 hours ago, KatrienE said:

How do you define something a fossil?

That's actually more of a complicated question than you think, but first I would like to also throw in my two cents that you (might) have an invertebrate on your hands - there was a small moment where I thought you could have a fish but the primary fossilized elements are too similar to our local fossilized oysters for me to keep that opinion.

 

Secondly, what makes a fossil? People have different meanings for a fossil, and most are legitimate in their own ways. The most common definition is that you have a fossil when the elements of a dead organism's body are "mineralized", meaning "replaced with stone". However, you must remember that fossilized bone, for example, is not always completely replaced with stone, and that some original organic components often stay inside the bone for millions of years.

 

Other people say that it's a fossil if what you find is over 10,000 years old. In my mind, revolving your definition around a fixed number like that is short sighted, because not everything will fossilize at the same rate (due to ground chemistry, exposure to the elements, etc )

 

Still, others will add on to one of these definitions with a further caveat: Something can also be a fossil IF it comes from an extinct animal. That definition can be strange, but it's often fitting. For example, when the occasional frozen mammoth is found in Siberia, it's never mineralized and and has the chance of being under 10,000 years old. It would still however, be a fossil. Or consider this foot from a Moa that was found in a New Zealand cave:

Moas went extinct in the 1400's, after the arrival of the original Polynesian ancestors of the Maori people. This foot is mummified, not mineralized, and younger than 10,000 years old - but it's still fair to say that it's a fossil

 

So, rest assured, I can tell you with 101% confidence that you do have a fossil. Someone who's more knowledgeable in invertebrates than I will have to tell you the exactly which one though.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Jared C
fixing details

[marguy]

I have no idea about the rest of the fossil organism visible in this photo; perhaps by specifying the location of the find a Spanish member of the forum will be able to have an indication for the age of the rocks in this town/region?

[KatrienE]

We found it in El Grado, in Huesca, Spain ...

[caterpillar]

I don't think it's a crustacea

[Plax]

We are looking at a cross section though a fossil of some sort judging by the flatness of the exposed elements. Turn your head sideways to the left and I could see a possible colonial organism such as a coral or bryozoan but not definitely either. This is speculation on my part.

[Paleorunner]

[Paleorunner]

By KatrienE,Could you indicate the exact location on the map?
It depends on where you find it, there is Miocene (yellow) and Jurassic - Cretaceous (green).

[Thomas.Dodson]

 

6 minutes ago, Paleorunner said:

By KatrienE,Could you indicate the exact location on the map?
It depends on where you find it, there is Miocene (yellow) and Jurassic - Cretaceous (green).

Seconded. El Grado proper is Miocene but it is located close enough to Jurassic and Eocene deposits as to make sure.

 

I'd guess a cross section of something like Plax mentioned but I can't speculate further. 

[JohnJ]

An "exact location" is not necessary; but it would be helpful to use the map to let members know the map color of the location.  It is always understandable that it may be best if exact locations are not published on an international, public forum.  

[Thomas.Dodson]

25 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

An "exact location" is not necessary; but it would be helpful to use the map to let members know the map color of the location.  It is always understandable that it may be best if exact locations are not published on an international, public forum.  

This is true. I’m not sure why but when I read/think specific/exact location I usually think of something like county/province or just enough to determine geologic age. Something like coordinates or directions are too* specific and not a good idea in public communication. I need to consider my exact wording I guess. Maybe it’d make a good signature disclaimer. 

[Paleorunner]

6 hours ago, JohnJ said:

An "exact location" is not necessary; but it would be helpful to use the map to let members know the map color of the location.  It is always understandable that it may be best if exact locations are not published on an international, public forum.  

sorry, I did not explain well.
With the map and my comment I wanted to tell us where the find was, I didn't want to ask for something as exact as coordinates.

[JohnJ]

11 minutes ago, Paleorunner said:

sorry, I did not explain well.
With the map and my comment I wanted to tell us where the find was, I didn't want to ask for something as exact as coordinates.

Understood, and no problem.  

[FranzBernhard]

Its all about pinning down the formation as accurate as possibly. Exact location isn´t necessary, formation is. (Well, exact location also pins down formation - in most cases ).

Franz Bernhard

Edited July 14, 2021 by FranzBernhard

[KatrienE]

Dear helpfull people,

 

We used the image of the area on Google earth to define the 'color' of the place where we found the fossil. It is yellow and indeed, very near the lighter green.

Yesterday, we accidentally saw a sign 'Paleontological museo', two kilometers of where we are now, so we passed there but it was closed. I emailed them and included the same picture I uploaded here. 

 

He answered, in Spanish "Podría ser un rudista en sección, es decir, una variedad de bivalvo del Cretácico." 

He asked to come to see him with the fossil. So one of these days, we can do that ... 

To be continued I guess... 

[Fossildude19]

Translation: " It could be a sectioned rudist, that is, a Cretaceous variety of bivalve".

[FranzBernhard]

1 hour ago, KatrienE said:

"Podría ser un rudista en sección, es decir, una variedad de bivalvo del Cretácico." 

"Texas Rule"* seems also to be applicable in Spain!

 

*"If it is from Texas and of Cretaceous age and you don´t know what it is, its probably a rudist."

 

Franz Bernhard

Edited July 14, 2021 by FranzBernhard