Dinosaur egg?

[jakob13]

Greetings! Specimen found in Coshocton county, Ohio on a steep bank about 3 feet deep in grey clay. Trying to figure out not only ID, but also era, as time-frames don't seem to fit. It's a somewhat mysterious find from this geographic location. What this appears to me to be is a dinosaur egg, halfed, with a pretty well formed embryo exposed. There is definitely an obvious shell around the rounded end of the half egg. I'm basically a complete beginner in the world of fossils. Thanks for your time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jpc]

we see a lot of "dinosaur eggs " here.  Most, like this one. are not. 

 

Have a look at this for some goo egg identification characteristics

 

[Fossildude19]

No dinosaur fossils found in Ohio - the area around Coshocton County has Mississippian to Pennsylvanian aged sediments exposed - much too old for dinosaurs.

 

 

 

Your item has no shell texture to it, so not an egg. Looks like it could be a chert cobble, possibly.

[jakob13]

While I agree with the fact that no dinosaur fossils are normally found here, I must present the argument that the presence of this "egg" , for lack of better descriptive term, clearly has a thin shell lining the outside of the rounded edge. A contact at the Museum of Natural History completely agrees that this is an egg, and it is definitely fossilized, but, as your map suggests, it could not be dinosaur. So, what, with the scientific data respected, and just saying it was a fossilized egg, kind of egg could it be? I apologize for my photographs not being clear enough to show the definition of the eggshell. I am familiar with chert and assure you it is not that. The density and weight are wrong for that. I do thank you for your answer, but feel it is off course. Again, I firmly believe, with bias, that this is a reptile egg, and it was found where I said, so, if you will, could you brainstorm with me, and make a possible suggestion as to what, if anything, could have laid an egg here that could have fossilized as this one has? I apologize for my bold declarations, but should you be able to hold and analyze this "egg", I feel no person would disagree on it's "eggness".   After doing much research, and getting thrown off by the time frame scenarios, I am extremely curious, and believe that this find may be the cause for looking again at the fossil records of this area. I knew that this would raise the eyebrow of many skeptics, and I'm glad it is. Thank you for your opinions. I appreciate good kniwledge. 

[jakob13]

I used the basic and advanced dinosaur egg guide that jpc suggested and my "egg" meets many of the criteria.

[Mahnmut]

Hello jakob13 and welcome to the forum.

This seems to be another case of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.

 

While you supplied many photos, including a measure, which is helpful, none of the photos is sharp enough to see the fine detail that could support your claim, let alone make an ID.

I think I can make out a slight color difference at the surface, which at this point looks to me like a weathering crust. And there seem to be some indentations on the broken surface that could or could not be some kind of fossil inclusion, I cannot tell from the photo.

I do agree its not chert, no conchoidal fractures visible to me, but some kind of quartzite it could be from what I see.

 

Assuming you found a fossil worth rewriting the geology of your region, two more photos could be worth the effort: one clear, in focus, well lit photo each of the spot where you most clearly see the tentative shell and of the possible inclusions. Ask a friend for a better camera if you have to, but really good lighting may also help a lot.

I do not think this is an egg, but without clear detailed pics, it could be anything.

Best regards,

J

[Ludwigia]

@jakob13 I'm curious to know if your contact at the Museum of Natural History (which one?) has seen your find in person or if he or she is just going by the photos. I would also be interested to know exactly what his or her profession is. I'm afraid that continuing this discussion just based on a few poorly focussed photos will turn out to be fruitless. Once again, have you taken this to show to an expert? Since I believe that this would be the best way to go in this case. If it really is something special as you are surmising, then the scientific community would certainly be excited to be able to study it.

[Tidgy's Dad]

The photos are poor, but this would appear to be a water rolled pebble broken in two. 

[Kane]

The shape and texture appear wrong for an egg of any sort. I am in agreement with water-worn cobble.

[Troodon]

Not everyone at a museum is a vertebrate paleontologist and that's who you need to properly assess your specimen.  However you don't have to go far to find one here in the forum and @jpc has already responded to you.   Go visit him at the Tate Museum in Wyoming and I'm sure he would be more than happy to show you around.   Other members are also equally skilled with decades of experience to properly identify your specimen.   So being "a complete beginner "  trust what you are receiving as feedback you are in good hands.  

[RJB]

Not an egg.

 

RB

[jpc]

Thanks for the kind words, troodon.

 

Jakob, let's continue the discussion by having you look at the 'shell' on you rock.  Eggshell is the same thickness all the way around, and it has a crystal pattern that runs perpendicular to the surface.  Have a look at yours and take some better pictures so we can have a look at these two characteristics.   

[digit]

12 hours ago, jakob13 said:

I apologize for my bold declarations, but should you be able to hold and analyze this "egg", I feel no person would disagree on it's "eggness".   After doing much research, and getting thrown off by the time frame scenarios, I am extremely curious, and believe that this find may be the cause for looking again at the fossil records of this area. I knew that this would raise the eyebrow of many skeptics, and I'm glad it is. Thank you for your opinions. I appreciate good kniwledge. 

I do hope that you appreciate good knowledge because we have a lot of specific knowledge on a great diversity of fossils here on the forum from very experienced amateur fossil hunters to many professional paleontologists.

 

We do not need to hold this "egg" in hand to be able to see what it is. We have seen many water-rounded chert cobbles in our experience. You have to understand that the reason you are perceiving this rock as an egg is due to an interesting phenomenon of our advanced pattern matching brains called pareidolia:

 

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

 

Consider the facts:

 

1) You have found a dinosaur egg with embryo in a place where the age of the rocks don't support such fossils being located.

 

2) In no way does the texture of your cobble match the eggshell texture in the fossil guide above that we have suggested you read. You have apparently read this guide but still you see eggshell despite it clearly not having that texture.

 

3) You have made an extraordinary claim knowing this would "raise the eyebrows of many skeptics" and are happy to challenge facts, physics, and a vast amount of accumulated knowledge of fossils. We hear this virtually every single time someone comes here with a "dino egg". Yes, there have been a steady stream of previous impossible claims and we are almost always told that we must "think outside the box" so that your impossible find makes sense. We will not abandon truth and logic as this is a science-based forum.

 

4) The final and most telling fact is that if you could imagine your rock for what it is (a non-fossil piece of chert) then the entire geological record of Ohio does not need to be rewritten. Additionally, all of our accumulated knowledge of all of the verified dinosaur eggs does not need to be tossed out to be able to include your shell-less rock as an example of a unique and novel type of dinosaur egg completely unknown to science till you picked it up.

 

Decide what is more likely--your rock is a common water-worn chert cobble and due to pareidolia and a lack of knowledge of how fossilized eggs are preserved has led you to mistake it for a fossil egg--or--facts, logic and the accumulated knowledge of fossils mean nothing because you wish your rock to be an egg and therefore it must be so.

 

 

We welcome new members here on a daily basis. Many come here because they have found something curious. Sometimes it is an interesting fossil and they are happy to learn what it is. Other times it is a curious rock and they come here to learn what it is. Sometimes those who bring not-fossil rocks here learn what they really have and accept that but sometimes people don't wish to accept the truth and struggle to argue why we are all wrong.

 

Nothing you can say or show us will change our minds. We can clearly see what you have and it is not a fossil egg (nor any sort of fossil). You are free to accept that and stay here on the forum to learn what types of actual fossils can be found in Ohio. Or, alternatively, you can stick to your guns and choose pareidolia over reason and say that we are all wrong while you are right in your initial assumption that this is an egg (though you have no proof). The choice is yours, we are happy to discuss fossils here on the forum (it's what we do) but we can only do that rationally using facts and science.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

 

 

[jakob13]

Thanks for all the comments. I am grateful that you all have taken your time to give me an explanation of my "egg". The first set of photos were horrible, and I apologize for that. Especially since it was misleading, at best. I am posting more photos that provide much better detail, and I feel, will support my initial statement. I'm slightly offended by the abrupt dismissal of my claims and I feel that some replies are filled with elitist tones, which, we're I a man of greater frailty, would definitely affect my desire to respect those points of view, even if they were correct. This is not a good thing, as it causes an alienation of sorts, which ultimately will manifest in a disdain for those in this field. I realize that this, and every other, dinosaur related forum is bombarded with uncountable amounts of "dinosaur egg" claims, especially in these trying times we all are experiencing presently, and I'm certain that this is probably a cause for some stress. I must say that while I respect the educations of all who comment on my post, I do not appreciate being made to feel inferior or as if I were an outsider in a clique of enlightened paleo-buddhas. That being said. Here are the better photos, I hope they help to support my initial claim. Final comment... One would think that kindness would be a better approach in a field that wanted items to go to science, rather than private collectors. When my "egg" has been proven to be more than just a psychological suggestion plaguing my frontal lobe, the last organization  I will want to share it with will be the elitist sect of the first church of paleontology and fossilization... Can I get an amen? Can I get a Hallelujah? 

[JohnJ]

The good news is that you have some fossils within your rock.  Kudos on your better images.  It still isn't an egg, but there is evidence of invertebrates...maybe similar to an Archimedes screw bryozoan.  

 

Generalizations about any individual are rarely accurate.  Context is important.  Stick around and share what you learn.

[Fossildude19]

I can definitely see (with the better photos - thanks) that there are some sort of fossil in the middle of the rock. Possibly bryozoan. Possibly plant.

I have to stand by my statement that it is not, however, an egg. Still not seeing any indication of egg shell.

 

I'm sorry to hear you are put off by some of the answers here.  Tone and intent can difficult to interpret here, in writing.    

However, we do have a lot of experience, collectively and individually, with rocks being mistaken for fossils.

 

 

[Ludwigia]

I agree with the statements in the previous 2 posts now that I've seen the new photos. @jakob13 You still haven't answered my question about the profession of your contact at the museum and whether or not you've taken it along to show it in person to a vertebrate paleontologist.

[digit]

2 hours ago, jakob13 said:

The first set of photos were horrible, and I apologize for that. Especially since it was misleading, at best. I am posting more photos that provide much better detail, and I feel, will support my initial statement. I'm slightly offended by the abrupt dismissal of my claims and I feel that some replies are filled with elitist tones, which, we're I a man of greater frailty, would definitely affect my desire to respect those points of view, even if they were correct. This is not a good thing, as it causes an alienation of sorts, which ultimately will manifest in a disdain for those in this field. I realize that this, and every other, dinosaur related forum is bombarded with uncountable amounts of "dinosaur egg" claims, especially in these trying times we all are experiencing presently, and I'm certain that this is probably a cause for some stress.

The latest photos are more clear and as stated might indicate some potential embedded fossil in the area indicated:

 

This does not however support your initial statement that this is an egg containing a dinosaur or any other embryo.

 

I am sorry that you feel offended at my previous refutation of your claims. My intent (and the intent of this forum) is to educate and not to belittle or offend. There are times when the object in question is very clearly not what the posted hopes/wishes it to be and the truth can be a let down--no way around that other than lying to you and letting you believe you have found a unique fossil (which you haven't).

 

I'm glad you realize that dinosaur egg claims are a dime a dozen on fossil forums because this is the reality of those new to fossils finding spherical rocks and jumping to the conclusion that they are dinosaur eggs. If you were to search this forum you would find dozens upon dozens of these pseudo-eggs. This is a science based forum and we must adhere to logic and fact. The fact is the geologic formations in your area do not support dinosaur fossils--they are entirely of the wrong age. If you had read our guide on identifying fossil eggs and how to distinguish rocks that are not eggs you would have noticed that fossil eggs have a particular texture and a fixed thickness. Your rounded cobble shows none of the telltale texture of fossil eggs and shows no shell thickness in cross section.

 

The suggestion of the highlighted area above indicating an Archimedes screw bryozoan is much more likely to be the case. Such things are appropriate for the age of rocks in your area.

 

2 hours ago, jakob13 said:

Final comment... One would think that kindness would be a better approach in a field that wanted items to go to science, rather than private collectors. When my "egg" has been proven to be more than just a psychological suggestion plaguing my frontal lobe, the last organization  I will want to share it with will be the elitist sect of the first church of paleontology and fossilization... Can I get an amen? Can I get a Hallelujah? 

 

I feel it is kindness to dissuade someone from a false and erroneous belief based on a lack of fossil information. We are attempting to provide you with a clue as to what your object may be and what it definitely is not. Our field (paleontology) does a very good job of engaging amateur collectors who find remarkable specimens that are scientifically important. We have a whole section dedicated to scientifically important specimens which have found their way into museum collections to be studied and often featured in papers. I think you would do well to browse this section before you accuse us of being unkind to members who bring legitimate specimens to science:

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/102935-fossil-contributions-to-paleontology-the-gallery/

 

Sadly, your "egg" will remain an egg only in your opinion if you do not choose to face the facts and analyze it critically. We are not an elitist organization but a diverse membership containing more fossil information in a depth and diversity than you will find nearly anyplace else. I'm sorry we were not able to confirm your impossible proclamation that this is an egg as it is not. At this point you seem unwilling to accept any of the input we are giving and you continue in your erroneous belief that you have found a dinosaur egg in Ohio which will overturn all of paleontology. You mentioned earlier on in this conversation that a contact at an unidentified Museum of Natural History has certified this to be an egg. My best wishes to you both on your upcoming publication on this specimen. I hope you will let us know when it is published as we are always eager to learn more about our favorite subject.

 

We may have differences of opinion on this forum in our struggle to obtain the truth but we choose to do it in a polite way respectful of the other members.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

 

 

[Bullsnake]

Just throwing this out there, but I'm seeing possibly conodont elements in a phosphatic(?) concretion.

[hadrosauridae]

5 hours ago, jakob13 said:

....

... One would think that kindness would be a better approach in a field that wanted items to go to science, rather than private collectors. When my "egg" has been proven to be more than just a psychological suggestion plaguing my frontal lobe, the last organization  I will want to share it with will be the elitist sect of the first church of paleontology and fossilization... Can I get an amen? Can I get a Hallelujah? 

 

Telling you a lie to make you feel good is not "kindness".    I find it interesting that your response to being told that your find is not what you want it to be, is to lash out and insult those whom you asked for help.

Edited December 20, 2022 by hadrosauridae

[Tidgy's Dad]

The photos are now much better, thank you for that.

But this would appear to be a water worn pebble broken in two.  

[Mahnmut]

Much better photos, thanks!

I did not read Jakobs13´s last comment as a lashout and insult, but as a politely if sharply phrased critique regarding what he read as elitist and derogatory, which I did not see either.

I appreciate this forum very much for its open and mostly friendly atmosphere and hope that atmosphere can be maintained here.

Fossil eggs are, as you correctly stated Jakob, a common topic of wishful thinking and much (often unfounded and heated) debate. Therefore comments as "not an egg" or "rock" are not to be seen as insult but as shorthand for a common situation.

Back to the find, I have no idea what it is, but it does indeed look like a fossil to me, and I can understand which parts may have been interpreted as perhaps a spine and skull of a vertebrate. I do not see Eggshell, but weathering crust on a nodule surrounding a fossil though, maybe bryozoan, maybe conodont (size?).

So I hope someone can find out what it really is, maybe it takes another expert to see it in hand.

Sorry if my writing sounds pompous, thats at least in part due to the fact that English is not my first language.

Best Regards,

J

 

[Ludwigia]

21 hours ago, jakob13 said:

When my "egg" has been proven to be more than just a psychological suggestion plaguing my frontal lobe, the last organization  I will want to share it with will be the elitist sect of the first church of paleontology and fossilization... Can I get an amen? Can I get a Hallelujah? 

And who is going to prove it for you?

[Ludwigia]

It sure is disappointing sometimes trying to help people, particularly the ones who confess from the start to being "basically a complete beginner in the world of fossils", who seemingly just don't want to pay any attention to you any more because they disagree with your expertise.