Tiny embryo

[Midwest fossil]

Hi any suggestions on this one.

[Fossildude19]

Moved to FOSSIL ID. 

 

This looks like a concretion, to me. 

I see no eggshell texture to your item on the "outside"  of the "egg" .

Also, I see tool marks where matrix has obviously been removed, either to prepare the specimen, or carve some sort of figure out.

 

Please read through these topics:

 

 

 

 

 

[Midwest fossil]

So I cleaned it out to better see the critter inside.  I think it is has a solf shell so I don't think there would be cracking.  I am not an expert. I am willing to learn. one of the pictures is before I cleaned it out.  It has may be lon feathers and it looks like a foot or hand on top of the head.  I am attaching pictures close  up before I cleaned out. I really thought it was a snake at first. 

In the this picture I had only washed it with soap and water. 

[LordTrilobite]

Nope. Sorry to say.

There is no embryo here. Just an interesting concretion.

[Fossildude19]

Soft tissue preservation is extremely rare.    

 

Did you read through the topics I provided links to?
You don't mention where these were found - have other egg fossils been found in that area, specifically?

[val horn]

It is not an egg. Therefore the outside is a layer that formed around the center making it a concretion.  Concretions can form  around something, occasionally around a piece of biology, think mazon creek.  The center of your concretion looks like erosion to me rather than fossil because i dont see a recognizable pattern.  You might try to break it out with a hammer.  You might take it to your local museum and ask it and other fossils in your area

[doushantuo]

e.g(about 14MB).

(edit: fig 2F,2G might be nice in this context)

 Michael J. Pearson & Campbell S. Nelson (2005) Organic geochemistry
and stable isotope composition of New Zealand carbonate concretions and calcite
fracture fills, New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 48:3, 395-414, DOI:
10.1080/00288306.2005.9515122

1100303756_OrganicgeochemistryandstableisotopecompositionofNewZealandcarbonateconcretionsandcalcitefracturefills.pdf

Edited March 28, 2022 by doushantuo

[fossilhunter21]

Sorry, but I agree with everything that has been said. 

 

-Micah

[digit]

Interesting rock with very suggestively textured inside? Most definitely!

Fossilized egg with embryo? Absolutely not.

 

Fossilized eggs are extremely rare. Because of their rarity, they are much sought after items and so the internet is full of some actual fossil egg images and countless more worthless concretions being sold as eggs. This has the effect of making it seem like fossil eggs are a dime a dozen (sorry, couldn't resist that). In fact, fossilized eggs (real ones) are incredibly uncommon.

 

Because concretions are also rounded or spherical they suggest eggs as that is something we encounter frequently and so our mind equates the two shapes. Concretions when split open often have interestingly colored or textured interiors which only heightens the deception that these rounded rocks must contain something interesting.

 

You will see all sorts of suggestive rocks here that could easily be interpreted as eggs (but are not):

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=fossil+egg+concretion&tbm=isch

 

2 hours ago, Midwest fossil said:

I am not an expert. I am willing to learn. one of the pictures is before I cleaned it out.  It has may be lon feathers and it looks like a foot or hand on top of the head.

I certainly hope you are open minded enough to learn and accept the conclusions of those with lots of experience with fossils who have seen countless concretions while out hunting for fossils. Though the inside surface is most certainly suggestive, "looks like" does not imply "is". If you cannot accept our unanimous conclusion that your object is a non-embryo concretion you are welcome to take your item to any museum nearby with a professional geologist or paleontologist on staff for their opinion. The diagnosis will be the same though.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[minnbuckeye]

@doushantuo, Quite the  concretion the boy is sitting on.  Are you sure that isn't an egg instead?????

[doushantuo]

yeah, might be colossogargantitanogigantoolithus

[doushantuo]

And Tim mentions something:

the omission of data with regard to provenance.

e.g." found in scree(toe-of-slope deposit) consisting of friable ,greenish-brownish weathering claystone/shale,with sandstone intercalations on the millimetric scale"

Map coordinates,etc

 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by doushantuo

[Midwest fossil]

I picked this up at the Platt River 30 miles North East of Omaha. 

This may not be an egg as you say, but, I have no doubt there is a fossil.  I do have some concretions that I picked up and after cleaning them up some I cut them to be sure and I found only sediment.  This guy looked burned or covered with black ash. Most of what I find has the white silver ash that is common to this area.  I am working with the university and one I previously posted has been scanned CT AND confirmed it is an egg with embryo.  I had already cleaned the shell away to see what I had. It was not a concretions.  It was a solf shell dinosaur with feathers.  I am waiting on the copies of the scans.  The theory is to like a smooth river rock polished by years of being in a natural tumbler the shell has been worn away.  Here are a few other things I have picked up. 

[Fossildude19]

Who made the egg diagnosis?  What were their credentials?

What museum will it be donated to?

 

[Midwest fossil]

The archeology department and we have not gotten as far as donating it.  My understanding is there are some more tests to be done and identifying I suppose you would call it species.  I originally contacted the head of that department for lack of not knowing anywhere else to start.  Well first I took took to my vet where we attempted to x-ray it. 

I had been looking here at post and decided I would put up a few pictures.  I think there are new things being discovered everyday.  So I don't have to correct about everything. I pick up buckets of rocks that look interesting and only a few have turned out to be something. Some are shell and some are turtles. 

I suppose when I look at something that looks like an egg, for me, it is more about what I might find inside. I always take pictures before I  clean them up.  

 

[JohnJ]

23 minutes ago, Midwest fossil said:

I am working with the university and one I previously posted has been scanned CT AND confirmed it is an egg with embryo. 

 

Extraordinary claims require more than an unsubstantiated comment.  So again, what is the person's name at what university that "confirmed" you found a fossil egg?

[Kane]

1 minute ago, Midwest fossil said:

The archeology department and we have not gotten as far as donating it.  My understanding is there are some more tests to be done and identifying I suppose you would call it species.  I originally contacted the head of that department for lack of not knowing anywhere else to start.  Well first I took took to my vet where we attempted to x-ray it. 

I had been looking here at post and decided I would put up a few pictures.  I think there are new things being discovered everyday.  So I don't have to correct about everything. I pick up buckets of rocks that look interesting and only a few have turned out to be something. Some are shell and some are turtles. 

I suppose when I look at something that looks like an egg, for me, it is more about what I might find inside. I always take pictures before I  clean them up.  

 

Archaeology does not concern itself with the study and identification of fossils (unless they are human), and certainly not dinosaur fossils; that is the province of paleontology. 

 

[Randyw]

I live in omaha and there are absolutely no dinosaur fossils in nebraska. There have never been any dinosaur fossils in nebraska. We were under water at the time in question. The state has planty of fossils but they are maily before the dinosaurs or mammal fossils from after the dinosaurs. The cretacious rocks around lincoln are from under water sediments.
p.s. 30 miles n.e of omaha is in Iowa. The platte river is west and n.w. of omaha. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Randyw
Removed comment and added comment.

[Midwest fossil]

Yes and this is why further testing is being done. I was just given the scan results Friday.  WOW I can see you all don't like ever being wrong or getting out of your text books. I just read an article about a scientist cleaning fossil with acid and found solf tissue.  I suppose that was just fake news you can google it.  You, nor myself know everything. Much less being able to be certain by just a picture.  That's like sending a picture to your doctor of a strange spot on your hand and in 5 seconds told you have cancer only to take a shower and it turn out to be dirt.  When I receive the scanns I will definitely post them. 

I will not post someone's name without their permission.  I  realize archeology is not paleontology but I had to start somewhere.

[JohnJ]

1 hour ago, Midwest fossil said:

WOW I can see you all don't like ever being wrong or getting out of your text books. I just read an article about a scientist cleaning fossil with acid and found solf tissue.  I suppose that was just fake news you can google it. 

 

With respect, your presumption is completely wrong.  What many of us "like" is evidence to justify a claim that surpasses the nonspecific comments you have offered.

[Lone Hunter]

One could say it doesn't seem you like being wrong either.  Yes soft tissue is  found in fossils, rarely, no one will deny that but it doesn't make your rock an embryo. 

[Fossildude19]

Honestly, we love to see people find great, amazing, wonderful fossils. But you have to start somewhere, and that starting place is with science.

New discoveries are made everyday, it's true. However, there needs to be evidence to back up any claim.

 

In my 12 years here on the Forum, I have lost count of the people who join, make astounding claims, and then disappear when we cannot confirm their ideas.

Each one looses their temper, claim we are close minded, and challenge us to "think outside the box".  These discussions devolve to name calling on their part because they cannot keep their own minds open to the possibility that science doesn't work the way they claim/think it does, and that it is possible that they could be completely wrong.

Plenty claim they will come back, and prove us wrong. No one ever has, to my knowledge.

 

Scans can only show so much with rocks and minerals sometimes.  I am willing to look at any scans you can provide, and tell you what I honestly see. We are not jealous of your finds, or trying to sequester important finds. We would be the first ones to cheer you on if you made an important discovery. Unfortunately, some people are unable to back up their claims with evidence or reproducible results.

 

It would seem that we need to agree to disagree. 

 

 

[Top Trilo]

I agree with the above post and in the scenario mentioned above, the next step is typically locking the topic to further replies, as there is no evidence presented, but here the OP claims they have evidence and I think the forum would benefit from having a topic with evidence because at least we have something more to go off of. @Midwest fossil I look forward to seeing the scans and any other evidence you may have.

[Mark Kmiecik]

[digit]

2 hours ago, Midwest fossil said:

I just read an article about a scientist cleaning fossil with acid and found solf tissue.  I suppose that was just fake news you can google it.

I would love to see the link. What you state is impossible due to the rules of physics and logic. Fake new is likely an explanation if you did find such an article.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken