Stone packed with bone fragments

[LiamL]

Saw this awesome item online and won the auction. Very interesting rock from the Whitby area in Yorkshire. i'm wondering what the bones are.

I know the ammonite is a Oxynoticeras. 

 

I was guessing Ichthyosaur but maybe someone can give me a better ID? Maybe it's Gyrosteus fish bones

[Auspex]

I'm no help on identifying the inclusions, but am enamored of this specimen's coincidental resemblance to a T-rex head, with an ammonite for an eye!

[RJB]

Very interestng for sure! 

 

RB

[Auspex]

The more I look, the more I am struck by the coarseness of the trabeculae...

Turtle bone comes to mind.

[Mike from North Queensland]

Marine reptile may be the safest description of the bone.

Having said that I think they are ichthyosaur based on the last photo showing cross sections of what look to be ichthyosaur vertebrae in the bottom left section.

one sliced horizontal down through the vertebrae and three vertical. But would need to see in the hand.

 

Mike D

[LiamL]

Thanks guys! I'll say it's Ichthyosaur!

[Tidgy's Dad]

1 hour ago, LiamL said:

Thanks guys! I'll say it's Ichthyosaur!

It's a possibility, even a likelihood in that area, but can't be certain. 

[indominus rex]

I have seen a lot of rock pieces like this for sale. And yes it is most likely Icthyosaurus. But I don't think we can guarantee the species.

[Miocene_Mason]

On 3/8/2018 at 2:34 PM, Tidgy's Dad said:

It's a possibility, even a likelihood in that area, but can't be certain. 

Typically in sciences, including paleontology usually, unless something is falsifiable it is not considered correct. Unless proof is brought forth that it either is an icthyosaur, or it cannot be anything else, then one must call it a chunkosaurus. Though you may say it is a probable ichthyosaur if you like, it cannot be definitively said.

[Tidgy's Dad]

46 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

Typically in sciences, including paleontology usually, unless something is falsifiable it is not considered correct. Unless proof is brought forth that it either is an icthyosaur, or it cannot be anything else, then one must call it a chunkosaurus. Though you may say it is a probable ichthyosaur if you like, it cannot be definitively said.

Indeed, it can't be proven, which is why I said "possibility" and "can't be certain."

Secondly, I don't think "chunkosaurus" is a scientific term anyway. You cannot say we "must" call it chunkosaurus. 

Next, "unless something is falsifiable it is not considered correct" is a nonsense sentence. 

Furthermore, many theories and ideas are put forward in science and later disproved to be true,very little is set in stone, so to speak. 

The idea is not "proof is brought forth that it is an icthyosaur" but that evidence supports it being one until the idea is proven invalid. (not that there's any evidence here) 

Palaeontology, perhaps more than any other science has quite a lot of guesswork and supposition involved. Without a certain amount of imagination and creativity, much of what we think is true would be nothing. Look at how our perception of dinosaurs has changed over the last few years, their colour, feathers, parental care, posture etc. But we're still only guessing in most cases, based on current knowledge and supposition. Times will change and so will our vision of what things looked like in the past. It would be lovely if palaeontology was a certain thing and we could say this is certainly true, but this is very rarely the case.  

[Miocene_Mason]

@Tidgy's DadI was not trying to dispute your answer, rather to support it. Falsifiability is one of the pillars on which science stands, and seperate it from pseudoscience and plain fiction. Oh and “chunkosaurus” refers to an unidentifiable bone chunk, just quicker to type.

21 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Furthermore, many theories and ideas are put forward in science and later disproved to be true,very little is set in stone, so to speak. 

Tis the beauty of falsifiability (testability). Because theories can be proven wrong they are scientific. Was the universe created yesterday and all the major events simply created to look like they happened before then? There is no way to prove this wrong, therefore it is unscientific. There is no way of proving the bone isn’t ichthyosaur, therefore we cannot make the guess that it is. This was the point I was trying to make, perhaps unsuccessful (things tend to sound better in my head)

 

25 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Palaeontology, perhaps more than any other science has quite a lot of guesswork and supposition involved. Without a certain amount of imagination and creativity, much of what we think is true would be nothing. Look at how our perception of dinosaurs has changed over the last few years, their colour, feathers, parental care, posture etc. But we're still only guessing in most cases, based on current knowledge and supposition. Times will change and so will our vision of what things looked like in the past. It would be lovely if palaeontology was a certain thing and we could say this is certainly true, but this is very rarely the case.  

Again all these things are falsifiable, we can tell that a T. rex does not have feathers by finding skin preserved without it. In much the same way we can say if we found associated feathers with a T. rex then it was a feathered creature. Usually in science, though less so paleontology, Occam’s razor is employed; the theory with the least assumptions is held to be true until it is disproven. 

 

I know now this may be off topic, but I often see a chunk of bone or a shard of a tooth attempt to be identified. Though it is a valiant effort, it is simply futile in some cases to say “it’s probably this” or “it could be that” for no one can be anywhere near sure. I have been guilty of this, and so have many others. It’s simply something to keep in mind.

[Tidgy's Dad]

4 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

@Tidgy's DadI was not trying to dispute your answer, rather to support it. Falsifiability is one of the pillars on which science stands, and seperate it from pseudoscience and plain fiction. Oh and “chunkosaurus” refers to an unidentifiable bone chunk, just quicker to type.

Tis the beauty of falsifiability (testability). Because theories can be proven wrong they are scientific. Was the universe created yesterday and all the major events simply created to look like they happened before then? There is no way to prove this wrong, therefore it is unscientific. There is no way of proving the bone isn’t ichthyosaur, therefore we cannot make the guess that it is. This was the point I was trying to make, perhaps unsuccessful (things tend to sound better in my head)

 

Again all these things are falsifiable, we can tell that a T. rex does not have feathers by finding skin preserved without it. In much the same way we can say if we found associated feathers with a T. rex then it was a feathered creature. Usually in science, though less so paleontology, Occam’s razor is employed; the theory with the least assumptions is held to be true until it is disproven. 

 

I know now this may be off topic, but I often see a chunk of bone or a shard of a tooth attempt to be identified. Though it is a valiant effort, it is simply futile in some cases to say “it’s probably this” or “it could be that” for no one can be anywhere near sure. I have been guilty of this, and so have many others. It’s simply something to keep in mind.

One does keep it in mind. 

So to say "it is an ichthyosaur" would not be a good idea. 

But to say "it is a bone, possibly from an ichthyosaur" is not a criminal offence. 

[Miocene_Mason]

Just now, Tidgy's Dad said:

One does keep it in mind. 

So to say "it is an ichthyosaur" would not be a good idea. 

But to say "it is a bone, possibly from an ichthyosaur" is not a criminal offence. 

No it is not, and I believe that you would be correct in saying it’s a possibility! Again, I am not disputing your answer (or any others who have said similar), I just wanted to keep it in every ones mind. Anyway, I know little about this site or ichthyosaurs, so I couldn’t say any one was wrong even if I wanted to. Sorry if I came off in a condescending tone, as I did not mean to. Emotion doesn’t always flow through text; at least not when I’m writing!

[Tidgy's Dad]

1 minute ago, WhodamanHD said:

No it is not, and I believe that you would be correct in saying it’s a possibility! Again, I am not disputing your answer (or any others who have said similar), I just wanted to keep it in every ones mind. Anyway, I know little about this site or ichthyosaurs, so I couldn’t say any one was wrong even if I wanted to. Sorry if I came off in a condescending tone, as I did not mean to. Emotion doesn’t always flow through text; at least not when I’m writing!

Not a problem, my friend, gentle discussion is also part of science.