Tommy boy Posted June 25, 2022 Share Posted June 25, 2022 I found this interesting piece the other day and am looking for help determining what it is. To me it looks like a frog in the mouth of a snake. I appreciate any and all input on this. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
val horn Posted June 25, 2022 Share Posted June 25, 2022 It is a neat rock and an interesting sculpture but it is not a fossil. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsaacTheFossilMan Posted June 25, 2022 Share Posted June 25, 2022 2 minutes ago, val horn said: It is a neat rock and an interesting sculpture but it is not a fossil. Agreed, snakes and frogs (and any other soft-bodied organism) do not tend to fossilise so well. 1 ~ Isaac; www.isaactfm.com "Don't move! He can't see us if we don't move!" - Alan Grant Come to the spring that is The Fossil Forum, where the stream of warmth and knowledge never runs dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted June 25, 2022 Share Posted June 25, 2022 Online geologic maps like this one can be of great use in determining the age of the rocks at the surface in various locations around your state. https://wgnhs.wisc.edu/catalog/publication/000390/resource/m078paper When you know the age of the surface rocks (you'll have to zoom in on your area and be able to look up the colored region in the age map on the left. This will then let you know the age of the rocks and knowing that you can get an idea of what types of fossils might be found there. The oldest common ancestor of living snakes dates to around 100 million years ago. Knowing this you can be quite certain of not finding snake fossils if the rocks in your are date from before this time period. I agree with the others that any resemblance to snakes or frogs is the result of the phenomenon of pareidolia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia Cheers. -Ken 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsaacTheFossilMan Posted June 25, 2022 Share Posted June 25, 2022 3 minutes ago, digit said: Online geologic maps like this one can be of great use in determining the age of the rocks at the surface in various locations around your state. https://wgnhs.wisc.edu/catalog/publication/000390/resource/m078paper When you know the age of the surface rocks (you'll have to zoom in on your area and be able to look up the colored region in the age map on the left. This will then let you know the age of the rocks and knowing that you can get an idea of what types of fossils might be found there. The oldest common ancestor of living snakes dates to around 100 million years ago. Knowing this you can be quite certain of not finding snake fossils if the rocks in your are date from before this time period. I agree with the others that any resemblance to snakes or frogs is the result of the phenomenon of pareidolia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia Cheers. -Ken Indeed, Relative Dating is one of the most powerful tools we, without equipment, can carry out. ~ Isaac; www.isaactfm.com "Don't move! He can't see us if we don't move!" - Alan Grant Come to the spring that is The Fossil Forum, where the stream of warmth and knowledge never runs dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy boy Posted June 26, 2022 Author Share Posted June 26, 2022 Sorry, I forgot to mention that I found this item in a rock bed right outside of my apartment building. I live in River Falls WI and I would guess that most of the rocks came from a quarry of river rock. I will also add that I did take this piece to a local rock expert who confirmed that the detail side, or the side that I think is a frog, is in fact bone and not rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted June 26, 2022 Share Posted June 26, 2022 Bone texture can sometimes be very apparent and sometimes rather subtle and is best analyzed in hand rather than from photos. We can assume that your local rock expert is correct (and in some of the brighter photos there does appear to be evidence of the spongy cancellous bone found under the smoother outer cortext later) but I'm not recognizing this as any type of bone I'm familiar with. The third photo in the group really makes this look much more like a geologic formation devoid of any biological origin. This one may remain a mystery. If this (or parts of this) do indeed contain bone but bone that is too eroded to determine the specific element or species then it may get no more specific an ID than "fossilized bone". Still not entirely convinced that this might not be purely geologic in origin. Once thing is certain though and that is any "frog" or "snake" tendencies can be chalked up to a complex shape with lots of features and the phenomenon of pareidolia. Might be interesting to look for more examples similar to this. That might be helpful in determining its true nature. Cheers. -Ken 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted June 26, 2022 Share Posted June 26, 2022 If it is indeed bone that is quite interesting. But still not likely snake or frog. Those bones wouldn’t have a spongy texture that large. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minnbuckeye Posted June 26, 2022 Share Posted June 26, 2022 River Falls is an area I am familiar with. If fossils exist, they would likely be 480 million years old or likely older. Youngest rock formation is Ordovician Prairie Du Chien. This eliminates bone or frog or snake. Early primitive life was just beginning. No animals with bone existed. Look for Cambrian trilobites instead!!! Out of curiosity and the possibility I may know him/ her, who was the local rock expert?? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy boy Posted June 27, 2022 Author Share Posted June 27, 2022 I'm working on cleaning this item up more, but it's a slow process as I don't want to ruin anything that might be there. The cleaner it becomes, the more convinced I am that it is a fossil. The detail is just too convincing. I'm not convinced that it is a frog, but it's some kind of animal. I've added some updated pics and will add more as I clean it more. Anybody's thoughts on these new pics of welcome. \ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted June 27, 2022 Share Posted June 27, 2022 The yellow central part definitely looks geologic and not biologic. In the close-up images I'm not seeing anything that I recognize as bone texture. As @minnbuckeye mentioned the age of the formation that this likely came from would have massively predated bony land animals. We've been able to see this from a variety of angles and I'm pretty sure we are dealing with a geologic item with some interesting eroded textures but nothing to indicate anything of a fossil nature. Cheers. -Ken 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minnbuckeye Posted June 27, 2022 Share Posted June 27, 2022 IF it is a fossil, which I highly doubt, I would be thinking it is something on the line of a stromatolite, based on the age of rock in your area. Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted June 27, 2022 Share Posted June 27, 2022 Definitely not any animal. There weren't any in existence on land at that time, and those that lived in the sea bore no resemblance to your specimen. It's a pretty cool rock, but nothing more than that. 1 Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy boy Posted June 29, 2022 Author Share Posted June 29, 2022 I posted earlier pics of the piece in question and I realize that pics just don't do the item justice. I would, however, like to get feedback on these latest pics, which are the same item, just cleaned up a bit more. Maybe someone has a different opinion of this item now? As always, I welcome all feedback. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 Appears to be a differentially eroded rock. 1 Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 Topics merged. Update added to original topic. One topic is enough for this item. 1 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER 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 More sharing options...
Brandy Cole Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 The additional pictures still indicate some type of rock to me. It reminds me a little of ironstone. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 @Tommy boy what are you using to "clean" it? Do you have better images of the darker sides? The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 Good photos of specimens are often a challenge. I think the ones you've taken are good enough that we can pretty well see the texture on most sides. The darker material is the only stuff that looks even remotely like fossil bone in texture and color. I agree with John above that more photos of that side might be useful. At this point I'm still seeing a wonderfully textured geologic item and not evidence of fossils at all. Awaiting more photos of the dark rough textured side. It seems you are taking these photos with a smart phone resulting in the tall narrow images. It would be a good idea to position the item in the same orientation so more of it fills the frame instead of the foam rubber backing. Cheers. -Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy boy Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 Thank you for the tips. I will post some more pics of the dark side and a few updated pics of the other side. It seems that the more I clean it, the more detail starts to show through. When adding additional pics, should I use the same stream that I originally posted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 Yes. Add photos to replies below. How are you cleaning it? Acid? Dremel? Toothbrush? The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy boy Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 Here's a few more pics. I'm using vinegar, a few different types of brush and a Dremel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy boy Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 If you look closely you can see what looks like a bone broke off. Also, the main focal point for me has been what looks like a joint with leg and foot coming down from that joint. If that's not what that is, can you give me an idea of what that is? I first thought it looked like a frog in a snakes mouth, but now it looks more like a bird of some sort and unsure about what I thought was a snake head. It sure looks like something has it's mouth open to eat dinner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 In places where you have iron rich rocks, groundwater helps create remarkable formations. I think your rock is an example of iron concretions that form in your local geologic formations. Although you can imagine it looks like a snake, frog, or bird, it truly is not. This type of rock can be notoriously porous due to how it was formed. This also causes the harder and softer areas in your piece. Some areas can be more silicified and others more silty. Read more about your local geology here. Also from the University of Wisconsin - Madison: Quote PIERCE COUNTY: Limonite occurs as beds, nodules and concretions with variable intermixtures of clay, sand and chert fragments on top of the Shakopee dolostone at several spots near Spring Valley. These were locally and briefly mined in the early 1900’s at the Gilman Deposit, west of Spring Valley (SW sec. 1 T.27N. R.16W.) and at the Cady Deposit (SW NE SW sec. 14 T.27N. R.15W.) (Allen, 1909, Van Hise and Leith, 1911, Rosenberg, 1991). 2 2 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy boy Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 I realize that all you have to go on is the pics that I have posted and pics just don't do it justice. Normally I would just let this go at this point having all of your expert opinions and advice, but I just can't let this go yet. When I found this item, fossil hunting was not even on my mind. I was simply looking for interesting rocks, and as a matter of fact, I was gonna toss this one before I even got started, but for some reason I started cleaning it up a bit and with every cleaning the detail just keeps getting better. I agree that rocks can make some very wild and interesting formations, but I'm not convinced that a formation could form such a detailed subject with hard and soft dirt in the exact positions that it would form what I'm looking at. I'm gonna post a few more pics and then I think I'm gonna have to find a local expert to look at this thing in person. I do appreciate everyone's input though. I've made little notes on this next set of pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now