Jump to content

Help identify Wisconsin fossil


Tommy boy

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Tommy boy said:

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.

 

Nature is capable of making an amazing diversity of interesting shapes. Add to this the advanced pattern matching capabilities of our brains and the phenomenon of pareidolia can create remarkable images that appear as something familiar--especially faces which we are acutely tuned to recognizing.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=pareidolia&tbm=isch

 

None of us have seen the perceived bones that you are seeing. Pareidolia is very specific to the experiences of individuals. Those of us who have seen more than our share of fossilized bones have a more finely tuned search image for what fossilized bones actually look like. Those who are new to fossils don't have the accumulated background of working with lots of fossils so they are willing to accept vague shapes for what they believe various bones might look like.

 

30 minutes ago, Tommy boy said:

 

Polish_20220630_155631200.png

I've seen lots of femurs which articulate with the twin bones of the lower leg (tibia & fibula) and down to the many tarsal, metatarsal and phalanges of the foot. None of the actual details of what leg bones look like (fossilized or modern) are displayed where you have it highlighted above. There are no individual bones, no articulations, just a section of rock that is more narrow in the middle and has thicker ends including a more rounded (and a bit polished) end which you are interpreting as something like the femoral head where it articulates with the pelvis (hip bone). A lack of experience with actual bones and what they look like when fossilized allows your pareidolia to suggest comparisons to perceived leg bones but in reality this is nothing more than interestingly shaped rock and vague interesting shapes are the perfect inputs to allow pareidolia to operate on and suggest possibilities. Clouds are another commonly encountered object that have a variety of interesting shapes and it is no wonder we often see fantastic shapes in clouds. Nobody would suggest that a dragon shaped cloud represents an actual dragon.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

 

Please feel free to seek out someone locally who you might get to look at this in person. Their conclusion will be the same as ours. We see a large number of oddly shaped rocks from new members. Searching this forum for 'pareidolia' on this forum will turn up many many past conversations that play out in the same manner as this one is doing. Once you understand the phenomenon of pareidolia you'll see how it can allow you to see shapes of things that are not there and you'll understand how we've learned to compensate for this phenomenon and look more closely at the details of what actually make fossilized bone. The porous looking texture and perceived "breaks" in this "bone" are really just broken bits of this possibly ironstone concretion and nothing more.

 

It's not that we have any wish to rain on your parade or have any agenda to discount unusual fossils--we just have seen lots of rocks and have encountered many unusually shaped ones. We even have a running topic highlighting some humorous pseudofossils.

 

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

 

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

3 hours ago, JohnJ said:

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:

 

I think this is a very good explanation for your piece. 

 

You have a good eye to notice things that are commonly found in fossils! The porous nature is one of the first and most noticeable things that can tell us something might be a broken fossil bone, so you're right to notice that. 

 

Unfortunately there are some rocks, like sandstone and iron concretions, that are pretty good mimics for that porous nature that we associate with bone.  It takes time and practice to tell the difference, and I think most of us have been fooled before when we're hunting.  Here, the orange color on your piece and overall rough looking texture are common in iron rich rocks, so that's one of the things I noticed.

 

You also have a good eye to notice differences in shape and texture.  That can be a really good way to tell if a bone is stuck in some other rock or material.  But here, as @digit pointed out, it doesn't have the right anatomical shape to be a large bone chunk, and the small pieces you pointed out don't have the right shape for smaller bones. Instead, that combination of rough orange spots along with darker/shiny smoother textures is something that I've learned to expect in iron rich rocks.

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

Hi, i agree that you have here an odd weathered ironstone. Sorry.

You should make contact with a local geology and paleontology club. The experience it's members will share with you is a gift and you'll learn a lot.:)

theme-celtique.png.bbc4d5765974b5daba0607d157eecfed.png.7c09081f292875c94595c562a862958c.png

"On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry)

"We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes."

 

In memory of Doren

photo-thumb-12286.jpg.878620deab804c0e4e53f3eab4625b4c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your feedback and tips. I really wish I could get some better pics to post. As I mentioned previously, I thought that this was just a weird looking piece of rock, but the more I clean it, the more detail pops out and it just seems to draw itself. Also, the more I clean it, the more convinced I am that this is the skeletal remains of some small animal, I'm guessing a bird. I realize that I'm new at this and may wind up eating crow when I'm done with this item, but for now, I'm gonna continue to clean it and reveal the true nature of this thing. 

By the way, I'm currently using vinegar, a Dremel and a variety of brushes to clean this. I want you to pretend anyway, that what I'm cleaning is a fossil, what is the best way to clean all of the excess dirt away from it? 

Thank you 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. I'll just pretend that what you're cleaning is a fossil, even though all of my colleagues here have told you otherwise and suggested that you take it to a museum for analysis. In my opinion, the tools you are using are sufficient for cleaning off all of the excess dirt, although a pneumatic stylus and an air abrader would also do a good job. The thing is, since you have admitted that you are new to this, how are you determining what is "excess dirt" and what is "fossil"?

  • I Agree 2

 

Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger

http://www.steinkern.de/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ludwigia said:

The thing is, since you have admitted that you are new to this, how are you determining what is "excess dirt" and what is "fossil"?

@Tommy boy

Roger's question is fundamental to your conundrum.  Quite frankly, there is no situation in preparation where a fossil "just seems to draw itself".  'Exploratory cleaning' with a Dremel is a poor choice.  It may be a therapeutic exercise, but you are 'blindly' carving, likely based on the hardness of the matrix.  The result will be more artful than accurate.

 

We've all had "crow" at some point, and we're just trying to help you dodge this serving.  

  • I Agree 1

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks to me like a speleogen, a karstic feature of dissolution, something close to boxwork.

" 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

You've decided this is a fossil and nothing will change your mind. Many folks who know actual fossils have stated decidedly that this is nothing but an unusually textured rock showing absolutely zero features found on fossils. You can continue to envision various animals (snakes, frogs, birds) that you believe you are seeing but nobody else is seeing it.

 

20 hours ago, Tommy boy said:

Thank you all for your feedback

And yet you seem to discount anything we tell you and continue to search for the "true identity" of this rock. Not much more that I can say on this topic other than enjoy cleaning it and hope you find more fossil information on this forum. There is lots to be learned if you keep an open mind.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

  • I Agree 1
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...