Jump to content

Dino head??


FossilHunter037

Recommended Posts

Hello to all of you, I am new to this community.

 

To to make the story short, I live in Lebanon (on the east mediterranian sea) and found few interesting stones in my family summer house.

The story behind them is that my grand father found them somewhere near Mount Lebanon +- 1000m of altitude some 50 years ago.

To me they really look like a dino's head, at least half of it (the other half probably having decomposed).

Also note the shell like fossils that are incrusted on it and the tooth sockets.

What do you experts think?

Any clue on the species?

It weighs +- 3kg and it is rock solid

 

I have two more pieces to share with you folks later ;)

Tete 11 sagital Dr 2.jpeg

Tete 12 sagital Dr.jpeg

Tete 13 avant.jpeg

Tete 14 loges dentaires.jpeg

Tete 15 loges dentaires 2.jpeg

Tete 16 fossiles stratographiques 2.jpeg

Tete 17 fossiles stratographiques 3.jpeg

Tete 18 fossile stratographique 1.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the Forum.

Unfortunately, this is not a skull of any kind.

No bone texture, and no actual skull morphology.

This looks like an oddly eroded piece of limestone with shell fossils attached.

  • I Agree 7

    Tim    -  VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  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

It might be a petrified fossil in witch case i read that you lose the bone structure but only keep stratigraphic fossils such as the small shells.
For the morphological part if you look at pic nr 3 that could be half of the skull with the orbital cavity and the maxillary branch of the bone under it. Then in all logic if you look underneath in the pictures 4 and 5 you see the tooth sockets with the larger ones to the front as in most animals…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m sorry but i’m with fossildude. While it’s a cool looking rock  It’s not a skull or even the cast of one. Theres no sutures, bone, or any of the anatomical features you would expect to see on one. IE nasal passages etc all skulls are made up of multiple individual bones not one solid piece.

  • I found this Informative 2
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, FossilHunter037 said:

It might be a petrified fossil in witch case i read that you lose the bone structure but only keep stratigraphic fossils such as the small shells.
For the morphological part if you look at pic nr 3 that could be half of the skull with the orbital cavity and the maxillary branch of the bone under it. Then in all logic if you look underneath in the pictures 4 and 5 you see the tooth sockets with the larger ones to the front as in most animals…

 

Welcome.

 

Unfortunately, your hope that this is a skull will be disappointed.  I'm not sure what you are reading, but I know of No large bone fossils that "lose the bone structure but only keep stratigraphic fossils such as the small shells".

 

 

  • I found this Informative 1
  • I Agree 1

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As others have said, it’s definitely not a skull, but it does have some interesting looking inclusions. Possibly shell fossils as previously mentioned.

 

So while you don’t have a skull fossil as you hoped, you still may have something neat. Shell fossils are cool too! :) 

  • Enjoyed 2
  • Thank You 1
  • I Agree 2

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.  -Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't. -Bill Nye (The Science Guy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as long as we are at it, i also found what I suppose to be two petrified vertebrae that have merged together..

Also a mirage? :)

Colone 1 3-4 sup.jpeg

Colone 1 vue sup.jpeg

Colone 2 coronal inf.jpeg

Colone 3 sagital Dr.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also see a limestone rock, in which there are fragmented shell remains.
The one with an elongated shape in this photo, what could it be?   numulites maybe?   :headscratch:

 

 

Tete 16 fossiles stratographiques 2.jpegNummulites perforatusNummulites perforatusNummulita

 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, FossilHunter037 said:

 

So while we're at it, I also found what I assume to be two petrified vertebrae that have fused together ...

Also a mirage?  :)

Yes ! they are still rocks, very beautiful to decorate aquariums, and gardens. ;)

  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not vertebrae at all. Again, no real bone texture or morphology.

 

  • I Agree 1

    Tim    -  VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  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

14 hours ago, Paleorunner said:

I also see a limestone rock, in which there are fragmented shell remains.
The one with an elongated shape in this photo, what could it be?   numulites maybe?   :headscratch:

 

 

Tete 16 fossiles stratographiques 2.jpegNummulites perforatusNummulites perforatusNummulita

 

Now that is a cool fossil. I would like to find one of those myself. (though admittedly not as much as I would like to find a Dino head)

The bonelike structures you see are produced by karst erosion, you and me are not the only ones to be mislead by that kind of thing. Your specimen is one of the more convincing looking, but still not a skull as far as I see it.

Although it is theoretically possible to have the hollow shape of a bone replaced by sediment including shell fossils, it is much more common that the sediment including shells is eroded to resemble bones. Mine only had bivalves, nothing as nice as the ones above.

 

Best Regards,

J

  • I found this Informative 1
  • Thank You 1
  • I Agree 2

Try to learn something about everything and everything about something

Thomas Henry Huxley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a piece of art. Don't know who is the maker, Mother Nature or Men?

" We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. "

Thomas Mann

My Library

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2021 at 6:34 PM, Paleorunner said:

I also see a limestone rock, in which there are fragmented shell remains.
The one with an elongated shape in this photo, what could it be?   numulites maybe?   :headscratch:

 

Tete 16 fossiles stratographiques 2.jpegNummulites perforatusNummulites perforatusNummulita

If the geological age is Cretaceous (and probably is) your idea/ID could be right. :)

  • Thank You 1

" We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. "

Thomas Mann

My Library

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...