Fossil foot bones 4 showing

[T R]

Hand sized rock ,( one side unworked)  crystalizdc matrix Schist ?  Fossil  bones  Looks like fat base toe , with 3 finer toes above, there is another fat toe visible on base and unworked back side....any Ideas on ID

 

 

 

[Kane]

Your images are not showing. Are you uploading directly? If they are not in jpg format, you will need to convert them. There are a number of online converters that will facilitate that, but here is one to try: https://image.online-convert.com/convert-to-jpg

[Fossildude19]

Not bone at all. Or fossilized bone. Or crystalized bone.

Looks like a carved out metamorphic rock. 

[T R]

I think  it looks like a metamorphosed bone. ( crystalized) ....a  fossilzed bone.....  mineralized as it were...i will  drill out the back side of the stone. later as I said there is a  fifth....what do you think it is a fossil of...what appendage and a fossil of what organism  

[Kane]

Unfortunately, it is not a fossil. It is indeed either a metamorphic or igneous rock, such as granite. There appears to be evidence of feldspar and possibly mica. If so, the rock would have formed well before the emergence of multicellular life.  

[T R]

Oh I see what you mean....Yes the matamorphosed bones  are present in a rock which looks to be metamorphosed bot different ...I think its schist which is tough but softer that the fossil Bone I have revealed....The stone itself  looked like a large  series of jointed toes bones within the other stone matrix.....you can see it on the back and underside surface of the surfaces I have not worked on yeat...   

[Kane]

I'm sorry, but there are no bones in your piece. Fossils simply do not occur in this material. 

[Fossildude19]

"Looks like"  is the key phrase here.

There are no bones of any kind in this rock.

[T R]

Kane  thanks.  say again.   what    ??     If i was showing you something that couldn t be a fossil i would  I be showing you a representation of Michael Jacksons shoes in granite... .......so you re e saying that this is a random form within the rock,  couldn t be a fossil !??.......or something that is either alien........or is nothing like a fossil...hey give me an example   show .  me a fossil bone in metamorphic .  which is a fossil....just so that i m clear...........  Hey Kane you seem so definitive  .......lets set a ground line here......so just for you Kane  .How old do you say the earth is ..is it more than say  6, 000 years  or is it older ?     come on play along

[T R]

Kane show me a fossil of a bone in matrix which is a fossil.......a fossil being a representation of an item that has persisted as bone, or a mineralsed representation or an impression

[Kane]

We have a fossil forum here with numerous images of actual fossil bones. I don't think I need to provide any examples when there are plenty right on this site. 

 

Rocks can take on myriad shapes and textures due to their formation and mineralization. At times, the shapes are very suggestive of resembling fossils, but it is purely a geologic and not biogenic process. You also have to consider where this was found, and why that context also speaks against fossilized bones. 

 

As for the age of the earth, the scientific consensus says it is about 4.5 billion years old. 

 

I'm not here to "play along," but to provide assistance to your identification query. 

[T R]

Yes I ve looked...that s why I am bemused.........sorry about the kiddiy questions..but I couldn t believe your  answers, t  he reasoning just seemed so dismissive and non sensical because of the implications..... .......i am not saying its a bone.....or bones...I think it is a fossilized representation of a related group of bones which looks like a foot or a hand......the kind of  I have watched  archaeologists  remove from rock for most  of my life.....hence my being  taken a back  at your response.....   If you think this representation is totally random..not linked. not relevant ..them its most likely that when I expose the rest of the object  , from below and the back side ...then there is just the same chance because its randon   that i will reveal  an impression of a toy matchbox car  or a house key    ...and be unrelated..because its random .....showing no morphology.... By just looking at the item you can see the two main types of rock   ..one the matrix and one denser the  Fossil representation of something made up of rock....read  Lucretius 

[Fin Lover]

You were given an honest opinion by two very knowledgeable people.  I understand that you are disappointed, but there is no need to take it out on the people trying to help you.

[Kane]

You asked for identification assistance, and I provided it, as did Tim. There was nothing dismissive about it. The facts of the matter seem fairly clear in ruling out bone, and that would be the nature of the rock itself and its age. That there may be some admixture of minerals in the rock is not at all uncommon. At present, you have a suggestive shape, but one could just as easily show examples of other igneous and metamorphic rocks that take on suggestive shapes due to whatever processes of erosion, tumbling, or fracture. That alone does not a fossil make.

 

I have read Lucretius a long time ago during my first degree, but I am not seeing the relevance here with respect to identifying your find. One need not reach so far back as the Roman natural philosophers to understand the geological nature of this rock. 

[Ludwigia]

All I'm seeing is a metamorphic rock, but if you think that it has bones in it, then just prove it to us instead of writing an essay that doesn't make very much scientific sense.

[Fossildude19]

"Fossils can't typically form in igneous rocks or metamorphic rocks because the ancient life would have to be buried and then heated up, which would often destroy the fossil. Whereas sedimentary rocks preserve the fossils instead of destroying them."

Quote from HERE.

 

This is a generally well known fact.  Shell fossils can survive metamorphoses into marble, but bones can't.

Unless you are digging in Australia, and finding opalized dinosaur bones. (Extremely rare - the fossils are usually shells and other invertebrate fossils.)

 

I see no bone morphology in your item, no bone texture, and totally the wrong kind of rock for bone fossils.

 

Obviously, we are not going to be able to change your mind. 

Why not take the item to a local museum or college/university geology department, and have them take a look at it?

 

 

[fossilhunter21]

Hi, I am sorry, but I have to agree that this is not a fossil. I can kind of see why you would think it is though. 

 

-Micah

[Brandy Cole]

@T R

I'm not sure how you're choosing what to 'drill out', but I think doing any kind of extensive drilling, boring, or carving to get to a fossil is a bad idea unless you know exactly what it is you're looking at and how to expose it by removing non-fossil 'matrix' without damaging the underlying fossil material.  That knowledge comes with years of training and experience. 

 

If you take a rock that looks interesting and start carving based on colors or relative hardness alone, you're running the risk of just cutting out something you think looks like a fossil instead of identifying and preserving an actual fossil.

 

The members with much more experience and geological knowledge than I have took a look at your rock and have determined it's not the type to hold fossils.

 

When they're talking about morphology, they're talking about essential shape and expected characteristics.

 

From my experience with fossil bones, I can say that nothing about what you're carving out here fits with what I expect to see in a fossil toe or finger bone shape.  With fossil toes, I would expect to see a little space at the joints and district shapes at the bends of the bone where one one toe bone would connect to another at a joint.  I don't see those type of connections in what you are carving out here.  I don't see any joints where they should be.

 

It's an interesting rock, but I agree with everyone above.