Guest Nicholas Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 This is awesome! FISH HEAD SOUP! Find the link HERE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest N.AL.hunter Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Man it looks so fake! New one on me.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nicholas Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 I think it will be discovered as a fake eventually, but It is a very interesting rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Stonefish. Someone at a museum actually authenticated this? "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Smells fishy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nicholas Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Smells fishy. I'll try to keep updated on this one, I'm thinking it is a carving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Stonefish. Someone at a museum actually authenticated this? Yes, I wondered when I saw that too. This was part of the article, "There's no doubt it's a fossil," said Ed Jarzembowski, keeper of natural history at the Maidstone Museum. Jarzembowski, who was the first to examine the stone, said that the type of fish the fossil represents isn't yet known. When I looked at that, I thought rock. Apparently there must be more to see in person. Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiezel Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Anyone who can recall the case of "Archaeoraptor" would know that it wouldn't be the first time that National Geographic jumped the gun on a story. I'll reserve my judgement of it until they publish more on the find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramo Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Figures!!! They finally put a picture in the story, when it probably isn't even a fossil!!!! For one species to mourn the death of another is a new thing under the sun. -Aldo Leopold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr heckle Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 looks like a chunk of very old weather worn garden ornament a heckle a day keeps the doctor away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I know Dr Jarzembowski personally and am quite sure, IF he said it is a fish, it is. This is fossilised in Flint, which is a hard cryptocrystaline form of Quartz, believed to come from the dissolved spicules of silicious sponges. All sorts of flint fossils have been found. KOF, Bill. Welcome to the forum, all new members www.ukfossils check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 ^^but, soft tissue preservation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 The flint nodules in Chalk are believed to be caused by gelatinous silica, filling voids, such as worm/lobster burrows, etc. Why not a void caused by the decaying fish head? As for soft tissue preservation, shark skin, dino skin, jellyfish, etc, spring to mind. Also, in one of my galleries, I have a 3 dimensional, fossilised beetle abdomen. Lower Weald Clay, Lower Cretaceous. KOF, Bill. Welcome to the forum, all new members www.ukfossils check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 The flint nodules in Chalk are believed to be caused by gelatinous silica, filling voids, such as worm/lobster burrows, etc. Why not a void caused by the decaying fish head? Void-fill could explain it. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 For soft tissue to be preserved, rapid burial is a prerequisite. Though, I know little of Britain's geology, I thought the Cretaceous chalks were deposits of diatoms, and forams, that were deposited in calm, and relatively deep, seas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Yes, as is the chalk of various other countries. As it is being deposited it forms an ooze, into which dead animals, etc, could sink. I should think that such fine sediment, at depth, would be pretty anaerobic. KOF, Bill. Welcome to the forum, all new members www.ukfossils check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaitlinAnn Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Hehe cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I should think that such fine sediment, at depth, would be pretty anaerobic. I didn't think of that. 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