T-Rex toenail?

[Dewbunny]

@Prey4Me I must of missed that you'd alrdy had it tested. Where/who and which test were done and what are the results? Do you have a print out or something?

[jpc]

I see my name was used in vain above.   I have to agree with the others, there is no bone texture to this rex toe bone.  Looks geological with a suggestive shape.  

[ynot]

5 hours ago, Prey4Me said:

On a hardness level, a wire wheel on a drill, turns sandstone onto a pile of sand as well as limestone. I mentioned already that the wire wheel polishes this material. I was looking for open minded scientific approach to solve a mystery.

There are a lot of different types of "sandstone". Some are very frail while others are quite stable. It depends on the mineral makeup of the "sand" and of the bonding mineral/method.

What type of metal "wire wheel" are You using? (brass, iron, other)

Your method to determine "hardness" is flawed and will not give any reliable results. Google "mohs hardness test" to learn about mineral hardness. This method is used for mineral specimens and does not work for most rock types because they are made of several minerals.

 

As others have said, this forum has a lot of experience with rock and fossil. Some pieces are easy for Us to identify because We have seen a lot of it. That does not mean We are not open minded, just experienced.

Check out this thread to see how "open minded scientific" The Fossil Forum can be.

 

Kind regards,

Tony

[Fossildude19]

So, Weatherford is in Parker County. 

 

County map of Texas: 

 

 

And geologic map of Texas : (Parker county highlighted )

 

 

The area appears to have outcroppings of Lower to Mid Cretaceous sediments.

 

 

A quick perusal of this PDF shows me that most of the fossils found in Parker county are marine invertebrates. 

 

2013-X-1157-RascoeElder.pdf

 

Regards,

[Aurelius]

If you want to know what your rocks are, I suggest taking them to a geology forum, because they aren't fossils.

[Prey4Me]

4 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

So, Weatherford is in Parker County. 

 

County map of Texas: 

And geologic map of Texas : (Parker county highlighted )

The area appears to have outcroppings of Lower to Mid Cretaceous sediments.

A quick perusal of this PDF shows me that most of the fossils found in Parker county are marine invertebrates. 

 

Yep, I find a few of those!

[Prey4Me]

Did I mention I have been collecting fossils for 40 years?

[Aurelius]

Those are some very nice ammonites. But I'm afraid these are still just rocks. Bone has a very definite shape and texture, and these don't have anything like that. I mean, what bones do you think they are? 

[Prey4Me]

1 hour ago, Aurelius said:

Those are some very nice ammonites. But I'm afraid these are still just rocks. Bone has a very definite shape and texture, and these don't have anything like that. I mean, what bones do you think they are? 

If it weren't a mystery I wouldn't have asked. I have other bones that look like this too. alot of them. They are weather beaten and oxidized. Unlike bones uncovered freshly

 

[Prey4Me]

Alright just forget about that, how about this?

[Rockwood]

Geologic. The first two look a bit like gypsum. Not bone or fossil. 

[bone2stone]

More "just rocks"

I have collected in Parker & Hood county all of my 60+ years.

Your ammonites are impressive and to some degree common.

You seem to be getting the picture of what we are trying to tell you.

But when we say it is a rock it is because that is what we see.

Most will try their best not to be insulting and provide you the best interpretation we can.

[Fossildude19]

Not seeing any bone structure or texture in the latest photos. 
More geologic items. 

Regards,

[Prey4Me]

2 hours ago, bone2stone said:

More "just rocks"

I have collected in Parker & Hood county all of my 60+ years.

Your ammonites are impressive and to some degree common.

You seem to be getting the picture of what we are trying to tell you.

But when we say it is a rock it is because that is what we see.

Most will try their best not to be insulting and provide you the best interpretation we can.

Ammonites over 80lbs are common? One of those in the first picture is 115 lbs

[Kane]

Just now, Prey4Me said:

Ammonites over 80lbs are common? One of those in the first picture is 115 lbs

There were some fairly large ammonite species. 

 

You may wish to provide a measurement scale with your images in the future to avoid any confusion.

[bone2stone]

6 minutes ago, Prey4Me said:

Ammonites over 80lbs are common? One of those in the first picture is 115 lbs

Left a lot of them down near Godley. Just could not pick them up.

(Some degree common)

[Prey4Me]

These? 

[Kane]

These are just more rocks. 

 

[GeschWhat]

The top photo in your last post looks like it could be an infilled burrow or steinkern of some sort. 

[Aurelius]

I thought it that one might be an infilled burrow too. Definitely not bones.

[RickNC]

[Boesse]

Wow, just saw this thread (I've been in the field all weekend here in SC - it's finally down into the 60s and comfortable outside!). Sorry I'm late to the party. Some various thoughts:

 

1) Folks who have answered above and failed to identify any anatomical features identifying this as a bone collectively have centuries of experience in avocational AND professional paleontology. I'm one of the professionals on here, have seen quite a lot of bones - and I see a rock.

 

2) What testing are you referring to? Hardness? Chemistry? These have nothing to do with vertebrate fossil identification and are completely spurious aspects of the physical properties of the object. You claim that nobody here is doing any testing, therefore casting doubt on the relevance of their opinions - but I ask - what relevant observations do you have?

 

3) As a followup to that, if you already have your mind made up, and don't want/care to hear what the good folks on this forum have to say, then why are you here asking us? Sorry to be so frank.

 

4) Lastly, I'll place the burden of proof back on you where it rightfully belongs (since it's your hypothesis you're trying to support). What proof do you have that this is bone? What specific anatomical features tell you it is bone? Does it have a marrow cavity? Does it have primary/secondary osteons? What kind of bone is it, histologically speaking? Where are the classic surficial features indicating that it is in fact a bone (e.g. pores, foramina, articular surfaces, sutural surfaces, etc.)? Which bone in the body is it? Which species does it represent? What synapomorphies are obvious that lend themselves to your identification? Please answer these questions carefully for us. A well-articulated, informative, and thoughtful presentation of this information is the best way to propose a hypothesis like yours.  We all look forward to your answers to #4 and I guarantee all of us will listen to you without prejudice.

[doushantuo]

"tuberculum extensorium (1):absent;(2) absent"

I think what we have here is a "a-prioriism":an unspoken assumption about the object under scrutiny.

 

[jpc]

I see more rocks in your later posts as well.  

 

I also think Bobby's answer should be a standard answer to many of these (and turtle eggs, etc) we see here.... except No 4 needs tweaking.  It is easy to lose non-professionals with words like 'synapormorphy'.  

[KimTexan]

On 11/20/2017 at 6:48 AM, Prey4Me said:

These? 

I think the first one could be a very weathered fragment of a piece of ammonite. I have something similar, but there is a groove running on the interior curved side and it doesn’t have the bumps on the outside edge.

This is the only pic I have of it on my phone. It’s about 10 inches long or more.

There another ammonite fragment of another species laying on top of it.