Need assistance with identifying fossil

[Dinohunter]

I am attaching photos of a fossil found in a cold water spring in Texas, that I call the Luvasourus. You cannot really see everything in these pictures.  The location in Texas where it was found (along with many others) is a spring with a water temp below 65 degrees.  It is unique for Texas, and no one has ever seen anything quite like this.   It has been reviewed by three Universities in Texas, a Paleontologist, and several others.  At this point I have been told it is probably pre-dinosaur, possibly petrified, possibly a species of Brighstoneus, or even the claw of a raptor, and baby T-rex.  No one knows, so posting on here to the REAL EXPERTS!  I have collected fossils over 50 years.  This is unique and need help.  Any advice is appreciated.

 

Side A:  three footed claw foot with visible claws.  One of the claws goes into side B.

There is a space in between side a and b that looks like shale or limestone.

 

Side B:  Skull with teeth.  Claw of Side A goes into the teeth of the skull. you must zoom in to see the teeth but two defined rows of teeth. Skull of ?   The bottom circular piece fits directly into the space to the right, measuring 2.5".  I believe this may be a petrified brain.  

 

In between side A and B is a space filled with what appears to be limestone or shale.  

 

The rock has a similar texture of that of a meteorite - burned looking, but caramel color, not black.  In the pictures it does not show very well, but when you apply water to it, the appearance is caramel colored and looks like a clay has hardened on the mouth area of side B.  When the artifact is wet, it takes on a caramel color, similar to a meteorite's color where it was burnt, but caramel colored.

 

I will gladly do a facetime or video with someone who is an expert, as these pictures do not show everything very well.

 

IMG 9255 - looking from nose back towards back of skull side B.   IMG 9260 - side A - one of the claws of the foot.  The claw is going into the teeth of side B.  Zoom in to see two rows of teeth, and where the claw actually smashed the tooth.  IMG 9264 - view of claw side A.  Notice the dark brown areas.  These areas turn caramel when wet.  Notice the circular indention.  This is where the leg of the claw would be located.  IMG 9263 - Side B Skull.  Notice from left to right = visible teeth on bottom, visible snout.  Remove middle round portion and move to indented space to right bottom area - fits perfectly.  The eye socket is located top middle, then back of skull.  The Brighstoneus recently found has similar characteristics on the snout/nose area.  

 

I am not an expert, however I believe this is very important to someone.  Please contact me if you have any questions.

 

 

[Kane]

I am seeing a sedimentary rock with possible chert and differential weathering.

 

I see no bone texture, symmetry, teeth or tooth enamel, petrified brain (soft tissue of that type is not likely to fossilize), or anything suggestive of this being a vertebrate fossil of any kind. I have very serious doubts that any expert would have claimed this to be a baby t-rex, raptor claw, or any of the other suggestions. Any of those would be fairly readily apparent in photographs, so there is no need for any video as these photos seem to provide enough angles to make a determination as to what it is not likely to be.

[abyssunder]

Nice rock!

I agree with Kane.

[jpc]

I agree with Kane and abyssunder.

You say it was reviewed by a paleontologist... I am intrigued to hear what they had to say.  

 

Edited November 20, 2021 by jpc

[Planko]

Cool looking rock

[fifbrindacier]

Hi, i agree too, no meteorite, nor claw or anything fossil. Sorry.

[Sjfriend]

As stated by others. I am seeing a rock. I am not seeing any fossil.

 

As for part of the "possibilities" you listed, Brightstoneus is from England, not US. And Brightstoneus, raptor or baby t rex are dinosaurs so that would absolutely rule out the "pre dinosaur" possibility.

[BobWill]

When you do find a fossil and you need help, please include the age of the formation you find it in. This will eliminate many possibilities and make our job easier and the results more accurate. If you don't know the age we can determine that by knowing the location. Texas has deposits from almost every period that produced fossils so a "cold spring" tells us nothing. As long as the location you provide is not too vague we can look at a geological map to tell the name of the formation. If you are interested in fossils you should learn about the geology of the areas you collect. It can also help to include information about other fossils found nearby, what layer it came out of, what other layers of rock appear at the site and whether it came out of bedrock or was lying on the surface.

[JohnJ]

 

8 hours ago, Dinohunter said:

It has been reviewed by three Universities in Texas, a Paleontologist, and several others. 

 

I live fairly close to you.  Specifically, who reviewed it at what universities?

[FranzBernhard]

10 hours ago, Dinohunter said:

It has been reviewed by three Universities in Texas, a Paleontologist, and several others.

 

10 hours ago, Dinohunter said:

At this point I have been told it is probably pre-dinosaur, possibly petrified, possibly a species of Brighstoneus, or even the claw of a raptor, and baby T-rex.  No one knows

Oh well, the universities are no longer what they used to be...   

Franz Bernhard

[Dinohunter]

Hey all.  Thanks for the reply.  Like I said, crappy photos, so I understand the comments. 

 

First of all, I am a little disappointed in the rude replies to a newbie,  as not one person asked for more info or pictures or said anything very nice. As a new person on this forum, and referred to this forum by an expert in your industry,  I would like you to re-think your replies to a newbie, as it could possibly have been someone that is much younger just getting interested in fossils and archeology. Your answers could discourage someone to the point of never trying to find a fossil again.   Maybe encourage some people through this forum?  Just a suggestion.  The world is cruel enough.  Encouragement is needed for people that actually care enough to go out in nature and look for fossils and other things.  We need these people in our world.  

 

Now, onward to my rock.  I have tried to answer some of the questions.

 

Location.  Central Texas.  About two miles from the Gault site:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gault_(archaeological_site), however I found this in a natural cold water spring, in a muddy textured area. There have been cretaceous era finds in the area as well.  Historically the area served cattle drives, as the springs have been known since the 1800s in Salado, Texas and the area.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salado_Springs

 

I am not sure if specific geological factors could contribute to fossilizing or petrification of the rock?  I am not a geologist or expert in this area, but the springs and other factors could make this rock not a normal specimen to the area.  Baylor, UT, Texas State and the local paleontologist club can not identify it. 

Each one has a different opinion from Rock to pre-dinosaur, to probably a shale fossil.  No one really knows, or cares.  

The Universities claim to be experts, but they are teaching from a textbook and learning from a textbook written 20 years ago.  They have no way to think outside the box, as they are so tired of seeing rocks that people think are something else that they don't care.  I understand.

 

Teeth.  The fossil has two rows of teeth. I have attached additional photos specifically of the teeth.  

I have marked up several photos so it makes additional sense.

 

In my original post I should have posted better photos, which is my fault.  Please take a second look, please.  I would really appreciate it if anyone has the time and expertise to assist - and is open minded in their research.   

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

 

[Mark Kmiecik]

It is nothing more than just a rock. No bones, no skin, no claws, no brain tissue. All of these have distinguishing features that identify them as bone or skin or claw or teeth or soft tissue like brain. This rock has none of the features common to any of these. What do you call a rock that has absolutely none of the features that a fossil should have? Rock, just plain, ordinary, everyday, driveway gravel rock.

[JohnJ]

15 minutes ago, Dinohunter said:

First of all, I am a little disappointed in the rude replies to a newbie,  as not one person asked for more info or pictures or said anything very nice.

 

No one was rude to you.  Disagreement is not necessarily rude.

 

19 minutes ago, Dinohunter said:

Baylor, UT, Texas State and the local paleontologist club can not identify it. 

 

This is not a very specific answer.  Who at each of those universities commented on this?  Which "paleontologist club"?

 

I am very familiar with the area you found this and I have seen countless similar rocks from the area.  I have an open mind.  However, I reach a completely different conclusion.  This is not a fossilized vertebrate fossil.  I think  your imagination is controlling your conclusion rather than the evidence. 

[digit]

16 minutes ago, Dinohunter said:

First of all, I am a little disappointed in the rude replies to a newbie,  as not one person asked for more info or pictures or said anything very nice. As a new person on this forum, and referred to this forum by an expert in your industry,  I would like you to re-think your replies to a newbie, as it could possibly have been someone that is much younger just getting interested in fossils and archeology. Your answers could discourage someone to the point of never trying to find a fossil again.   Maybe encourage some people through this forum?  Just a suggestion.  The world is cruel enough.  Encouragement is needed for people that actually care enough to go out in nature and look for fossils and other things.  We need these people in our world.  

In response, I looked back through the replies we gave to your post. I don't see rudeness but I do see that we have informed you that your rock is not what you believed (hoped) it to be. If that comes off as "rude" then I'm sorry but I don't think we can do better. We have a large number of members on this forum with significant experience with a wide variety of fossil material (including all sorts of dinosaurs). Your rock, sadly, is simply a rock that appears (to you) to be something else. We cannot confirm your assertion as this is an evidence-backed forum that aims to spread fossil knowledge and sometimes sharing that knowledge means informing folks that what they believe they are seeing is not in reality a fossil.

 

20 minutes ago, Dinohunter said:

I am not a geologist or expert in this area, but the springs and other factors could make this rock not a normal specimen to the area.  Baylor, UT, Texas State and the local paleontologist club can not identify it. 

Each one has a different opinion from Rock to pre-dinosaur, to probably a shale fossil.  No one really knows, or cares.

No, you are not an expert--but that is perfectly okay as many of us here on the forum are not professionals or experts (though some are). We are here to share knowledge and to bring people up the learning curve. Unfortunately, when the item in question is not in fact a fossil there is little that can be learned other than how pareidolia can lead people to believe that what they have is something that it is not.

 

The folks you have showed this to in person cannot identify it as some sort of dinosaur (or "pre-dinosaur") as it is neither--it is merely a geological oddity that has interesting shapes leading you to believe it is a fossil. I'd be surprised if any professional geologists or paleontologist would claim it to be anything else other than a slightly cherty piece of limestone.

 

24 minutes ago, Dinohunter said:

The Universities claim to be experts, but they are teaching from a textbook and learning from a textbook written 20 years ago.  They have no way to think outside the box, as they are so tired of seeing rocks that people think are something else that they don't care.  I understand.

 

Teeth.  The fossil has two rows of teeth. I have attached additional photos specifically of the teeth.  

I have marked up several photos so it makes additional sense.

 

In my original post I should have posted better photos, which is my fault.  Please take a second look, please.  I would really appreciate it if anyone has the time and expertise to assist - and is open minded in their research.   

This is usually the next step when someone refuses to believe the truth that their rock is not a fossil. We've been told dozens (if not hundreds) of times that the "experts" just don't understand how their rock is a "petrified mushroom" or "fossilized heart" or "embryonic T-rex" and that they don't understand the exceptional fossil because we can't "think outside the box" to imagine some sort of conditions where such a thing could exist.

 

Your photos were more than enough for us to see clearly that your item is a rock. We might be able to imagine what you believe you as seeing but the truth is that pareidolia is clouding your judgement and your item is not a fossil (no matter how much you believe). You may feel it is cruel, rude, or unsympathetic to pronounce your rock a rock (and not a fossil) but given what you have brought to us we can do nothing else. We see lots of interesting fossils that that new members bring to us. We help them to learn what they have brought. Are they received more favorably on the forum than you were? We hope not, our intention is to spread knowledge. The knowledge we are hoping to share with you is that your rock is decidedly NOT a fossil. It is your choice to accept that identification, remain here on the forum and learn about actual fossils. Alternatively, you can decide that you have been slighted by us (and the truth) and you can leave the forum to try to find another venue to verify your claim. We'd rather have you here and gaining knowledge about actual fossils but if you decide that you weren't looking for the truth but only confirmation of your preconceived ideas then this forum is not going to be able to help you.

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[R0b]

I do feel that number of people saying this is a rock was excessive, after the third time there is no reason to reaffirm the identification. This can be seen as rude in my opinion.

Edited November 24, 2021 by R0b
Spelling

[Dinohunter]

Thanks ROb.  

[Dinohunter]

Ken, In response

In response, I looked back through the replies we gave to your post. I don't see rudeness but I do see that we have informed you that your rock is not what you believed (hoped) it to be. If that comes off as "rude" then I'm sorry but I don't think we can do better. We have a large number of members on this forum with significant experience with a wide variety of fossil material (including all sorts of dinosaurs). Your rock, sadly, is simply a rock that appears (to you) to be something else. We cannot confirm your assertion as this is an evidence-backed forum that aims to spread fossil knowledge and sometimes sharing that knowledge means informing folks that what they believe they are seeing is not in reality a fossil.

What if you are wrong, Ken? 

 

No, you are not an expert--but that is perfectly okay as many of us here on the forum are not professionals or experts (though some are). We are here to share knowledge and to bring people up the learning curve. Unfortunately, when the item in question is not in fact a fossil there is little that can be learned other than how pareidolia can lead people to believe that what they have is something that it is not.

Pareidolia?  Seriously?  Some people see the glass half full - some half empty.  

 

The folks you have showed this to in person cannot identify it as some sort of dinosaur (or "pre-dinosaur") as it is neither--it is merely a geological oddity that has interesting shapes leading you to believe it is a fossil. I'd be surprised if any professional geologists or paleontologist would claim it to be anything else other than a slightly cherty piece of limestone.

 

I did not offer them a Dinosaur option.  They told me.  I sent pictures to Baylor.  I went to UT directly.  Another fossil was smashed with a hammer because, like you, Ken they were closed minded.   Texas State could not verify in their Paleontology department, as Dr. Boyd is not an expert in this area.  

 

Did anyone even look at any of the new pictures I posted?  There were no comments on the new pictures, as you have already made a determination and do not want to discuss.  You have seen so many rocks now that they all look like rocks.  Pareidolia can also be when someone DOES NOT see what others do.

[JohnJ]

10 minutes ago, R0b said:

I do feel that number of people saying this is a rock was excessive, after the third time there is no reason to reaffirm the identification. This can be seen as rude in my opinion.

 

I understand some may interpret the situation this way, but that does not automatically attribute "rudeness" to anyone's intent.

[Kane]

I am not seeing evidence of what you claim in the new photos. 
 

Closed minded is just as equally insisting the item must be a fossil as opposed to the alternative.

 

As a test of the scientific method, see if you can falsify your claims. Enumerate the reasons this may not be a fossil.

[JohnJ]

2 minutes ago, Dinohunter said:

Pareidolia can also be when someone DOES NOT see what others do.

 

Does this mean that you will never conclude this is a wildly shaped rock?

[Uncle Siphuncle]

Rock.  When I solicit input from professional or avocational experts, I try to approach with humility and leave preordained biases behind me.

[digit]

17 minutes ago, R0b said:

I do feel that number of people saying this is a rock was excessive, after the third time there is no reason to reaffirm the identification. This can be seen as rude in my opinion.

And you are free to your opinion--as we all are. I've seen folks post things like horn (rugose) corals to the forum and half a dozen folks confirm that this is what it is. That sort of consensus has let many new members know that we are certain of what we are saying (multiple confirmations).

 

If only a single person had said the item in question was a rock then the OP could reasonably assume that this was just one member's opinion and that others may think differently. It should be clear that nobody on this forum has seen this item as anything but a rock (which it is) and that there is no wiggle room in this ID.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Dinohunter]

I believe in scientific theory.  My theory has not been completely tested.  I am not sure if I will conclude it is a wildly shaped rock until I have the teeth tested for not being a rock.  

 

I am hoping to see if there are tests to be completed on the teeth, or a CT scan to see the inside structure.  

 

Once I have completed the scientific theory tests, then yes, I will conclude it is a rock.  If I had not found other specimens in the same area, then it would be different.

[fossil_lover_2277]

Firstly, like everyone else has said, it’s indubitably a rock, nothing more. Secondly, if you aren’t convinced, find someone with a stereo microscope and take a look at it under magnification. IF it’s a fossil bone, you will be able to see the preserved histology. If not, it will simply be minerals grains, crystals, etc. (I’m less familiar with geology than cellular biology)

[Kane]

A few considerations with regards the teeth hypothesis:

 

1. There is no enamel present.

2. Morphologically, they do not resemble the teeth of any known organism.

3. The “teeth” in the photo are fused together with only superficial separation (teeth do not fuse as a set or row in this fashion).