Micro Raptor

[Redbearded812]

I have some weak terrible pics of it, but I think this is a micro Raptor from the Triassic period, size of a cat, first time a bird evolved to dinosaur. I think it's curled up in a ball and died sunk to the bottom of the  what use to b ocean for millions of years and was embedded in sand and limestone combined with the water replacing the nutrients of the fossil made it well preserved, similar to the way most matrix would house dino fossilis, except this isn't digging it out of a rock quarry somewhere, this was just a Rock at the bottom of the bottoms in a creek.

[digit]

7 minutes ago, Redbearded812 said:

have some weak terrible pics of it, but I think this is a micro Raptor from the Triassic period, size of a cat, first time a bird evolved to dinosaur. I think it's curled up in a ball and died sunk to the bottom of the  what use to b ocean for millions of years and was embedded in sand and limestone combined with the water replacing the nutrients of the fossil made it well preserved, similar to the way most matrix would house dino fossilis, except this isn't digging it out of a rock quarry somewhere, this was just a Rock at the bottom of the bottoms in a creek.

Thanks for the photos--good enough for us to see what you are speaking of.

 

If you found this anywhere within Indiana it is certainly not a micro raptor nor any sort of Triassic dinosaur as you do not have exposed rocks from that period anywhere in your state. Like Florida Indiana is dinosaur-free.

 

Confused at your statement of birds evolving TO dinosaurs as the order is reversed with birds evolving FROM dinosaurs.

 

Your rock seems to be a piece of sedimentary rock (possibly limestone or sandstone) that looks shiny enough that it might be infused with silica to form some sort of microcrystalline quartz like chalcedony (chert). There do not appear to be any signs of fossils in this rock. This seems instead to be a possibly river worn and rounded cobble of a high silica mineral with no signs of any fossils apparent. Perhaps you could show us why you believe this to be a fossil? We know that the rocks in your area are not from the proper time period for this to have a chance of being a dinosaur but maybe we can understand what features are leading you to this conclusion.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Mark Kmiecik]

2 hours ago, Redbearded812 said:

I have some weak terrible pics of it, but I think this is a micro Raptor from the Triassic period, size of a cat, first time a bird evolved to dinosaur. I think it's curled up in a ball and died sunk to the bottom of the  what use to b ocean for millions of years and was embedded in sand and limestone combined with the water replacing the nutrients of the fossil made it well preserved, similar to the way most matrix would house dino fossilis, except this isn't digging it out of a rock quarry somewhere, this was just a Rock at the bottom of the bottoms in a creek.

 

nu·tri·ent

/ˈn(y)o͞otrēənt/

noun

plural noun: nutrients

1. a substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life.

    

   So, you're saying that the edible, nourishing parts of the dinosaur that never existed nor ever will in Indiana, were replaced by water which made it "well preserved" instead of just rotting as dead things do at the "bottom of the bottoms of a creek". One thing I would like to know, since you have all this vital information: How deep was the creek? 

    

   P.S. -- The creek you found it in didn't exist 65 million years ago as a creek or an ocean.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Mark Kmiecik
forgot smiley face emoji and added Post Script

[Fossildude19]

As far as I know, Microraptor has only been found in the Cretaceous of China. 

They weren't around in the Triassic. And the fossils look nothing like your item.

So far, I am seeing a rock.

 

I hate to dampen your enthusiasm, but what you have isn't what you think it is. 

[Redbearded812]

[JohnJ]

@Redbearded812

I've merged your other photos into this topic.  It maintains the continuity of the comments thus far.  

 

That said, I would hope you could address the  previous questions by the members above.  You seem fairly convinced of your identification.  Is there any room in your thoughts that you could be mistaken?

[Mahnmut]

Hi Redbearded 812,

Before asking if this is Microraptor or any small raptor, I wonder what details tell you this is a dinosaur fossil at all?

Maybe to you it is obvious, but to me, and others here who are much more experienced with dinosaur fossils than I am, it is not.

Not only because it has been said, with good reason, that there are no dinosaur fossils in Indiana, but also because we do not see any of the shapes or structures one would expect from a dinosaur fossil.

best Regards,

J

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jpc]

Please tell us what you see in this that makes it any kind of fossil.  

[Mark Kmiecik]

I'm waiting for the "four wings" part of the explanation.

[Redbearded812]

 bone is sticking out both ends of the rock. A skull with teeth shows in a darker form against the lighter stone.  I sanded some parts of it and the dark spots yield debris that is very dark. I need better pics . But is there anywhere I can have this looked at by a professional?? Can anyone tell me definitively that it is not a dinosaur fossil?? And I understand there isn't rock formations and outcrops with visible dinosaur fossils here in Indiana like there is in Wyoming and Utah and out west but a very altogether different process and dynamic when considering the Midwest to once b a vast ocean?? There r 4000- 5000 ft of bedrock underneath the hills and vegetation here, not yet to b examined or understood by paleontology or geologist.. I'll take any help I can get and any constructive criticism that u guys can offer me.. I appreciate the help 

[Redbearded812]

If what I have is just a Rock then what r the things sticking out that are not metal or deposits and  yet r as hard as the rock itself. And one side has one protrusion  and the other side has two?? Any help is appreciated, If I'm wrong I would rather understand correctly the knowledge and foundation of things I'm missing

[Troodon]

I can definitively tell you its not a dinosaur.   There is no bone structure or enamel associated wth teeth seen with your example.  I'm not a professional but I've collected dinosaurs  in the west for over 25 years and know what bone/skulls look like of theropods or herbivores.   I cannot tell you what geologic process created your stone. 

No need to go far to get a response from a professional  @jpc will give you his opinion.

[Redbearded812]

2 hours ago, Troodon said:

I can definitively tell you its not a dinosaur.   There is no bone structure or enamel associated wth teeth seen with your example.  I'm not a professional but I've collected dinosaurs  in the west for over 25 years and know what bone/skulls look like of theropods or herbivores.   I cannot tell you what geologic process created your stone. 

No need to go far to get a response from a professional  @jpc will give you his opinion.

Can u tell me what the things sticking out of the rock r?? 

[Troodon]

8 minutes ago, Redbearded812 said:

Can u tell me what the things sticking out of the rock r?? 

No, I can tell you what its not, a fossil, but I'm not a mineral guy

[digit]

4 minutes ago, Redbearded812 said:

Can u tell me what the things sticking out of the rock r?? 

If the areas that are projecting out of the main mass of this rock are connected internally (impossibly to know without sectioning the rock) then it could represent some sort of crack or fissure that had been infilled with a material that wears less readily and thus may protrude from both ends. Alternatively, the entire rock may have been a concretion which was covered by an outer layer that has mostly worn away except for these two spots. Difficult to know for sure what resulted in these features.

 

What is not difficult to know for sure is that this is simply a rock and does not represent a dinosaur or any fossil. Your inexperience with fossils and active imagination have combined to mislead you into thinking this is something that it is not. Hopefully, our guidance here and some personal internet research as to what dinosaur fossils actually look like will close the information gap so that you will clearly understand what your rocks actually are. Rest assured this is not what you initially believed it to be--knowing what something isn't is part of the process of knowing what it is.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Redbearded812]

3 minutes ago, Troodon said:

No, I can tell you what its not, a fossil, but I'm not a mineral guy

What about this???

[Redbearded812]

4 minutes ago, digit said:

If the areas that are projecting out of the main mass of this rock are connected internally (impossibly to know without sectioning the rock) then it could represent some sort of crack or fissure that had been infilled with a material that wears less readily and thus may protrude from both ends. Alternatively, the entire rock may have been a concretion which was covered by an outer layer that has mostly worn away except for these two spots. Difficult to know for sure what resulted in these features.

 

What is not difficult to know for sure is that this is simply a rock and does not represent a dinosaur or any fossil. Your inexperience with fossils and active imagination have combined to mislead you into thinking this is something that it is not. Hopefully, our guidance here and some personal internet research as to what dinosaur fossils actually look like will close the information gap so that you will clearly understand what your rocks actually are. Rest assured this is not what you initially believed it to be--knowing what something isn't is part of the process of knowing what it is.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

Thank u for ur information..r there any rocks like this one that could contain dinosaur fossils??

[Tidgy's Dad]

This last rock seems to be limestone. 

It does seem to contain fossil fragments and molds but they are not preserved well enough for a defnitve id. Maybe some are fragments of bivalves or brachiopods. 

[digit]

2 minutes ago, Redbearded812 said:

Thank u for ur information..r there any rocks like this one that could contain dinosaur fossils??

The rocks would have to be of the correct age to have been formed when dinosaurs walked the planet. Do an internet search for 'geological map XXXX' where 'XXXX' represents the US state where you found these rocks. You will be able to see in the color coded map the age of the surface rocks where your finds come from. Then you can do internet searches to see what types of fossils might be found in rocks of this age. Florida, for example, was underwater during the entire time range of the dinosaurs (oldest rocks only 50 Ma) and so the dinosaurs were no more (died out 66 Ma) long before Florida was dry land. This means zero chances of finding dinosaur fossils (outside of museums or personal collections). The age of the rocks will dictate the types of fossils possible.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Troodon]

5 minutes ago, Redbearded812 said:

Thank u for ur information..r there any rocks like this one that could contain dinosaur fossils??

You have to examine the Geology of the area.  Indiana's predates the Mesozoic period by quite a bit.  So no  

[Troodon]

I also will add these points have all been covered in prior topics that you've seen.  Is there a lack of understanding or belief of what these topics have said.  You seem to be asking the same questions over and over.  Go visit a local museum and find out what fossils look like.

 

Like this one

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/122536-ive-heard-paleontologist-say-there-will-never-be-a-dinosaur-fossil-found-in-indiana/

[Redbearded812]

17 minutes ago, Troodon said:

You have to examine the Geology of the area.  Indiana's predates the Mesozoic period by quite a bit.  So no  

Idk it's all very confusing to me. Is there such a thing as a fossil making it's own matrix?? So Indiana predates the mesozoic period meaning it was already Formed when dinosaurs came ??? What about glacial migration could it have brought fossils here during the younger driads?? Idk If I spelled that right i appreciate u responding to my questions

[digit]

3 minutes ago, Redbearded812 said:

Is there such a thing as a fossil making it's own matrix??

Not usually. Some concretions like those from Mazon Creek form in sediment which the carbon dioxide produced by decomposition combined with iron in the groundwater to produce a more weather-resistent siderite which encased the fossils. This is an uncommon method of preservation and would not apply to your rock.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazon_Creek_fossil_beds#Geology

 

8 minutes ago, Redbearded812 said:

What about glacial migration could it have brought fossils here during the younger driads?? Idk If I spelled that right i appreciate u responding to my questions

It's Younger Dryas (close):

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazon_Creek_fossil_beds#Geology

 

It is possible for glaciers to bring in younger material but I don't believe you have any nearby materials from the age of dinosaurs--the Mesozoic from 252 Ma to 66 Ma.

 

You seem to want to be constructing more and more implausible scenarios to explain how your rock could possibly be a dinosaur fossil. We have mentioned that your rock shows zero signs of any type of fossil material and that your area likely precludes any chance of there being dinosaur fossils but yet you still seem to be holding out hope for your initial thought that you have found a dinosaur fossil. Many folks who come here with rocks assumed to be fossils show this same inability to drop your initial assumption and understand what your find represents. They often tell us they want to be 100.000% sure that they are not wrong before considering any other possible explanation. Persistence is quite useful in the advancement of science but stubbornness for its own sake serves no purpose in the spread of knowledge.

 

If you could mention what county or what nearby city/town your rock was found we could examine a geologic map and determine the age of the rocks exposed in your area. That would provide a good idea as to the types of fossils that are possible and easily exclude those that are simply not possible.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken 

[Fossildude19]

 

From HERE.

[jdp]

49 minutes ago, Redbearded812 said:

Idk it's all very confusing to me. Is there such a thing as a fossil making it's own matrix?? So Indiana predates the mesozoic period meaning it was already Formed when dinosaurs came ??? What about glacial migration could it have brought fossils here during the younger driads?? Idk If I spelled that right i appreciate u responding to my questions

 

There were (probably) rocks deposited in Indiana during the age of the dinosaurs, but they would have been deposited on top of the rocks that you see now. It is a general rule of geology that younger rocks are always laid down on top of older rocks. You wouldn't find dinosaurs deep under the current rocks of Indiana because the rocks in Indiana are all at least 50-100 million years older than the oldest dinosaur. Dinosaur-aged rocks were scraped off the top during the ice ages; the glacial ice sheets acted like giant bulldozers and just removed hundreds of meters of rock, leaving the great lakes and a lot of fine rock powder. Sometimes you can find fossils of mammoths and other ice aged mammals in those Ice Age sediments, but that is not what you have found here.