Is this bone or rock? Also is this a fish armor plate or anything else?

[natwell19]

Ok, so I'm sure I annoyed many with my last "fish" post. But I am wondering if I found an armored head plate? I'm not going to argue this time... As it doesn't really get me anywhere and I really want to continue to get responses to my questions.

 

I also found this of sorts and I don't know if the brown rocks are bone or just brown rocks. They do not appear to be chert, and they do have some holes in them but they may just be rocks. In middle Tennessee, where these were retrieved, we have driveways that look like this. And no, I did not lick them and I will not lick them ...

 

Thanks! 

 

 

[Coco]

Hi,

 

I can't help you.

 

Don't take your fossils in the hand to make your photos, it accentuates the blur of moving and the hands aren't a good indication of measurement, there are all sizes !

In addition to the origin and age of the terrain in which the fossils are found, size is also important for proper identification. I invite you to read my last link in my signature. If you don’t have a rule, print the document I made available and put your fossils on it before making your photos, making sure to leave a box with the apparent size (pedagogical message)

 

Coco

[Fossildude19]

The last images look like conglomerate to me.

The first items look like regular limestone or sandstone.

What is the location of the finds?

County would help.

 

 

[natwell19]

Place: Middle Tennessee

Fossil types in area: Ordovician - Devonian and some 

 

Dang, I forgot about the sizing. I had the tape measure sitting right next to me.  Sorry about that.  

[natwell19]

These were found in the same area, a road cut out. Limestone is the main bedrock as well as some coquina.

 

[Fossildude19]

I guess there is a possibility that some of the lines are sedimentary structures.

Not seeing any fossils here, though.

I do like that you are asking questions, and trying to figure things out.

Middle Tennessee is too broad of an area to be able to pinpoint the geology. County would be better.

If you are hesitant to share the county, then google "Geologic Formations near ******* County, TN. "

 

Still seeing conglomerate, here:

 

[tombk]

 

1 hour ago, natwell19 said:

And no, I did not lick them and I will not lick them

I don’t see any fossils either. But it’s hard to tell without the Lick Test (jk).

[natwell19]

@Fossildude19 Thank you! Oh I can share the county. The place I found these is right on the Williamson County/Davidson County line. And sorry I wasn't clearer about the conglomerate. The small brown rocks inside of it look like bone to me. I'll post another picture and magnify it. I popped one of the rocks I was talking about out. 

 

@tombk Hahahahaha!    

[Rockwood]

2 hours ago, natwell19 said:

And no, I did not lick them and I will not lick them ...

I haven't a clue why anyone would.

[Fossildude19]

Bones are not my forté, but the stones don't look like bone to me.

[natwell19]

@Fossildude19 @Rockwood @tombk

 

Well, I did the lick test, and my tongue stuck!!! This was on the little brown one. Now I'm pretty sure I'm going to die... but I looked on several university websites and they only really give the lick test to distinguish fossilized bone and just rock! 

[Kane]

Just keep in mind that the lick test is not 100% diagnostic for bone given that the capillary action that draws in the tongue (or moistened fingertip) is porosity — a feature that other rocks may also have.

[natwell19]

@Kane So what is a test that can show that a rock use to be bone? Are there any? I would prefer not to lick rocks...  I also want to know if I have a giant sloth metacarpal or just a porous pebble...

[Lone Hunter]

It's a porous pebble like this one,  this sticks to my tongue also, it's  the composition of the stone that will determine if it's sticky. The lick test is also used to help determine coprolite, sometimes, and if you have concerns just wash your item with soap and water and let dry before licking.  I'm no expert but best test is if it looks like a rock it's a rock. 

Edited October 5, 2021 by Lone Hunter

[Rockwood]

1 minute ago, Lone Hunter said:

best test is if it looks like a rock it's a rock. 

Experience is the best teacher. Study every bone, modern or fossil, you get the chance to. Know anyone who is a hunter ? They are a good source of bones.

[ClearLake]

20 minutes ago, natwell19 said:

 So what is a test that can show that a rock use to be bone?

Here is a nice website from the Kentucky Geological Survey that discusses your exact question: https://www.uky.edu/KGS/fossils/fossil-did-i-find-fossil-bones.php

As others have suggested, experience is a big help and spend some time looking at examples of what fossil bones normally look like. I emphasize “normally look like” because that is what you are most likely to find, not the most odd or unique thing you can think of or find on the web. 

 

25 minutes ago, natwell19 said:

if I have a giant sloth metacarpal or just a porous pebble...

Perhaps you were just picking a dramatic example, but given that your rocks are likely to be Paleozoic, we can safely rule out Giant Ground Sloth or anything even remotely similar.   Porous pebble seems much more likely as there are no distinguishing features (shape, texture) that suggest bone. 

 

Several have mentioned a conglomerate and based on the look of the “underside”, that is not a bad suggestion. You have a wide variety of sizes and shapes of inclusions, the very definition of a conglomerate. Was this rock taken out of the formation or found on the ground?  To me there is a distinct possibility that this is a piece of cement/concrete. It looks a lot like what you see when that is dumped on the ground and sticks together everything that was on the ground. But it could be rock and I’m with others and see nothing definitive that suggests bone/armor plating/fossil.  Does this rock fizz if you put vinegar on it?

[natwell19]

@ClearLake I was picking a dramatic example! I'm glad you got that. But, there have been mammoth, giant sloths, and other "ice aged" animals found in the area, but it's not a common thing. That's how the Nashville Predator's got their name and mascot, they were building the arena and found a bunch of bones, one being a saber-toothed cat. So, it was also a hopeful statement, but realizing I was in an area where coral was I probably wasn't going to find one of those. It was definitely from the formation because there is a drill mark, from where they dug into the ground and exposed all of the limestone/clay wall, on the rock itself matching the ones on the wall. The formation I was at seems like it changes from limestone to more of a clay coquina mix. The height also changes because it is on a hill (it's quite hilly here).

 

It does look a lot like our aggregate driveway that we have, but I picked i t up because I thought the rocks in it looked like they could have a "spongy" hole appearance. I also knew it did come from the wall because of that drill mark. I will put vinegar on it though!

 

Vinegar indicates calcite right? Does that mean it is more likely or less likely. 

[natwell19]

@ClearLake @Rockwood @Lone Hunter @Fossildude19

 

I put some vinegar on it and tried to get some of the matrix that was stuck on it off. I think it ate into it more... here is a picture of how it looks now. I am a nurse and have taken multiple anatomy classes, and if this is not bone and some sort of a carpal, I don't know what is. To me this doesn't look like just a rock. There are also multiple other things that are the same conglomerate that are more conspicuous looking as well. I'm going to work on getting them out. But here is the cleaner rock/fossil/carpal. 

 

I read the link that  @ClearLake posted and these are some quotes, " The distinctive feature of bones is that they typically have a fibrous or spongy texture on the inside or where the ends of long bones are exposed." Also, "Also, the outer layer of bone may be somewhat polished... Bone fossils also have very specific, rather than general shapes." Now this might look like a "general shape" but it could easily be a carpal of many different animals. 

 

They also said, "You can look at specific bones of animals (lizards, fish, etc.) on the internet for comparison to specimens you think might be bone.

Some bones are obvious, like the Pleistocene mammoth.... But most fossil bones are smaller or are fragments and are not as easily recognized. Most fossil bones have texture that are porous or fibrous and have canals just like modern bones when examined closely, which is unlike other types of fossils."

 

Tennessee has had many different environments. It was ocean, then it was shallow ocean, then it was swamp, then it dry land. During the cretaceous it was very much like Louisiana so it is possible that dinosaur bones or something else could be found here. There are records of different types of extinct crocodiles being in the state as well.

 

1. This has the "spongy texture" at the deeper points

 

2. This has a polished look at the levels at the surface and as the points get deeper they become more pitted and more fibrous looking.

 

Thanks everyone for all of your information. I will be posting more later.  

 

 

[Lone Hunter]

Any chance this is actually a sponge? 

[Fossildude19]

Not being a bone guy, I'm going to bow out of this one.

[Lone Hunter]

I'm not a bone guy either and still on the learning curve,  I see fibrous texture but not what I would expect for bone, here's a picture for comparison.  

[Rockwood]

A fossil, yes, lickable, no. I'm pretty sure this is a shell hash of some sort. 

Not bone for sure.

[Earendil]

1 minute ago, Rockwood said:

A fossil, yes, lickable, no. I'm pretty sure this is a shell hash of some sort. 

Not bone for sure.

Where are you seeing shells? It just looks like another rock to me. 

[Rockwood]

54 minutes ago, yardrockpaleo said:

Where are you seeing shells? It just looks like another rock to me. 

There aren't really identifiable bits, just mush. The mineral build up on the surface combined with the general texture make the ID fairly safe though I believe.

[Earendil]

9 hours ago, Rockwood said:

There aren't really identifiable bits, just mush. The mineral build up on the surface combined with the general texture make the ID fairly safe though I believe.

 @natwell19 If we could get a direct view of the white 'mineral buildup' we could confirm or deny that it is a shell hash plate. I, however, am still inclined to believe that it is just a rock. We'll see, @Rockwood has much more experience than me with this sort of thing.