Jump to content

Mystery item

Barasingha

By Barasingha
in Fossil ID

 Share

Recommended Posts

Rockwood Regular Member

Rockwood

Posted
Posted

Looks like some sort of bone. There seems to be a good chance that someone will recognize the banding pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fossildude19 Regular Member

Fossildude19

Posted
Posted

Miocene from where? 

    Tim    -  VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  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
EMP Regular Member

EMP

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Barasingha said:

Miocene unknown item.  It is 15/16" long.  Any help would be appreciated.

 

Looks like a water worn bone chip from all the little pores (holes) in it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harry Pristis Regular Member

Harry Pristis

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

Miocene from where? 

 

I think this should be the first clarifying question -- WHERE? -- when we get ID queries that provide such limited locality information.  "Miocene" is a ~20 Ma time span, and not a locality.  "A place where a lot of shark teeth are found" is ridiculously vague.  I think there is a pinned thread that provides guidance.

http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page

 

What seest thou else

In the dark backward and abysm of time?

---Shakespeare, The Tempest

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rockwood Regular Member

Rockwood

Posted
Posted

I hope I can say this without being too disrespectful.

If it really maters where, wouldn't it be easier to give the possibilities for each location ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fifbrindacier Regular Member

fifbrindacier

Posted
Posted

I might be wrong and i'm not expert, but for me those tiny holes seems too regular for a bone.

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
ynot Regular Member

ynot

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Rockwood said:

If it really maters where, wouldn't it be easier to give the possibilities for each location ? 

For which of the hundreds of miocene location exposures around America?

Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys."

Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough."

 

My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection

My favorite thread on TFF.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rockwood Regular Member

Rockwood

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, ynot said:

For which of the hundreds of miocene location exposures around America?

Any which you think you recognize this fossil from. 

Is that such a daunting number ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMP Regular Member

EMP

Posted
Posted
On 3/27/2017 at 9:46 PM, Barasingha said:

Miocene unknown item.  It is 15/16" long.  Any help would be appreciated.

 

Could be a coral

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rockwood Regular Member

Rockwood

Posted
Posted

There is a similarity to the tentative turtle (turtles are that way you know :)) in mystery 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fifbrindacier Regular Member

fifbrindacier

Posted
Posted
On ‎29‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 0:46 PM, Rockwood said:

Any which you think you recognize this fossil from. 

Is that such a daunting number ?

To me it could be something hazardous. See, here, in France, you're not sure to find the same fossils in the miocene of Aquitania or of the Parisian basin, without speaking of the miocene of other areas, and those are "only" at about 600 kilometers one from each other.

In the USA, the Texas alone is bigger than France and the Kansas, where @Barasingha comes from (if the informations that give North Fork Solomon river in Kansas are right), is the third of France.

We can reasonably suppose that Barasingha is speaking about a miocene of Kansas, but without any further information we only can do suppositions.

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
fifbrindacier Regular Member

fifbrindacier

Posted
Posted
On ‎29‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 1:27 PM, EMP said:

 

Could be a coral

I agree a coral is a good possibility.

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
Rockwood Regular Member

Rockwood

Posted
Posted

Without recognition all you ever have is supposition. Does knowing your guess has been found in that spot before really mean anything ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BobWill Regular Member

BobWill

Posted
Posted
On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 5:46 AM, Rockwood said:

Any which you think you recognize this fossil from. 

Is that such a daunting number ?

I think the value of knowing a location comes when there is a good fauna/flora list of fossils that have been found there to help narrow the possibilities. Especially when the fossil is worn or incomplete it can help someone with experience collecting in that area recognize what it is with much less to go on than would be the case otherwise. That collector, experienced at working a particular site, is the one you hope to attract to help identify an incomplete item and adding that site information to the title tags is the best way to attract their attention. With less information to go on it is certainly a daunting number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rockwood Regular Member

Rockwood

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, BobWill said:

I think the value of knowing a location comes when there is a good fauna/flora list of fossils that have been found there to help narrow the possibilities. Especially when the fossil is worn or incomplete it can help someone with experience collecting in that area recognize what it is with much less to go on than would be the case otherwise. That collector, experienced at working a particular site, is the one you hope to attract to help identify an incomplete item and adding that site information to the title tags is the best way to attract their attention. With less information to go on it is certainly a daunting number.

So perhaps it has more to do with the way the human mind works.

That would certainly inhibit my appreciation of the concept. A liability perhaps.

Thanks Bob, coming from you somehow it makes a little bit more sense. 

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...