are these sand stone also

[kdlando]

[Fossildude19]

Definitely not bone. 

Could be weathered limestone. 

[Ludwigia]

Mudstone is another possibility.

[Kane]

1 hour ago, kdlando said:

Is this coming from the same batch as your other topic?: 

 

[kdlando]

yes they are from the exact same spot, they all look the same from the side if i wash the sand off   I didn't know if i should scrub the sand off because it looks like skin and tendon is attached to some pieces. this is what the spot looks like and its not at the beach, some of the pieces were laying together like a skeleton. There are many pieces, ts  like a grave yard. if you would like to see more pictures please tell me what part you want to see

 

 

 

 

[Kane]

I think you would be safe to scrub these at will as there does not seem to be any fossilized skin or tendon tissues present in these stones. They are quite interestingly shaped, though, and might make for some very unique landscaping decor.  

[abyssunder]

Just came back from my favorite Miocene site two days ago, and I was amazed by the large amount of fossil burrows I've seen there in sandstone. I can extrapolate, seeing your specimens as burrows (e.g. Thalassinoides igen).

[Kane]

30 minutes ago, abyssunder said:

Just came back from my favorite Miocene site two days ago, and I was amazed by the large amount of fossil burrows I've seen there in sandstone. I can extrapolate, seeing your specimens as burrows (e.g. Thalassinoides igen).

But do they get that large? These are part of group of pieces the OP had posted elsewhere that were over 66 cm in length, and seemed fairly large in circumference:

 

[kdlando]

i have been trying to identify what they are so far it's been concretions, sand stone , they didn't resemble any kind of bone, they are fake etc etc when all i ask is if they resemble any bone or part of a animal they have seen before. I really don' t care if they will make good yard art. I will send a pic of what looks like mummified skin and tendon  i haven't put a pic of that yet . Where I live  there is the Cabrillo museum, I took them there, they said they are bones, or were bones now rock. they didn't know what from, but they recognized the whale fossils I found in the exact same spot that are fossilized the same way.  So how do, so many things look just like bones in one spot and they all lay together at the same level . in the sand. but not at the beach, sand dunes away from the shore. i don't see how sand stone can form in these shapes unless it filled up what it was shaped like.

[abyssunder]

On 8/12/2018 at 2:53 AM, Kane said:

But do they get that large? These are part of group of pieces the OP had posted elsewhere that were over 66 cm in length, and seemed fairly large in circumference:

 

They could be large, but not so large (in diameter) that you mentioned. The picture you posted resembles limestone / sandstone concretion / nodule, in my thinking.

Specimens of the very first picture might resemble burrows, like the one from the Miocene of Romania (own find). (I adjusted the proper colors for the OP / first specimen)

 

 

 

[Kane]

26 minutes ago, kdlando said:

i have been trying to identify what they are so far it's been concretions, sand stone , they didn't resemble any kind of bone, they are fake etc etc when all i ask is if they resemble any bone or part of a animal they have seen before. I really don' t care if they will make good yard art. I will send a pic of what looks like mummified skin and tendon  i haven't put a pic of that yet . Where I live  there is the Cabrillo museum, I took them there, they said they are bones, or were bones now rock. they didn't know what from, but they recognized the whale fossils I found in the exact same spot that are fossilized the same way.  So how do, so many things look just like bones in one spot and they all lay together at the same level . in the sand. but not at the beach, sand dunes away from the shore. i don't see how sand stone can form in these shapes unless it filled up what it was shaped like.

Interesting. How did they make that determination when there is no bone texture? Was it a paleontologist who told you this?

 

In terms of how these shapes can form, shorelines change radically over time. I am far inland now, but 400 million years ago where I am was below the equator and part of an extensive ocean. 

 

I would say that if they resemble whale bones, they do so entirely superficially in terms of shapes. But many rocks can resemble fossils, just as clouds can resemble animals.

 

I’ll call on two bone experts with several decades of experience to make their call. @Troodon @Harry Pristis

[Kane]

And I would be curious to see the mummified skin and tendon pieces. Are you aware of the specific conditions by which organic tissue mummifies? How does that match with the geologic history of your area? But, yes, some clear pictures of those would definitely be of interest!  

[Harry Pristis]

I get the impression of a preserved invertebrate burrow or a preserved root channel, a root encapsulated  with a mineral like calcium carbonate, then buried.  Not bone.  My guess.

[KimTexan]

The first pic looks like a chert filled nodule.  

Per Wikipedia for “chert”

“Chert is usually of biologic origin, being the petrified remains of Siliceous ooze, the biogenic sediment that covers large areas of the deep ocean floor.”

Remains of an animal could have fallen to the ocean floor and got preserved as chert, but kind of partly melded with some of the other silicious ooze.

I will say that I (this is my own personal opinion) tend to believe some rocks shaped as these are, could be the remains of some animal, but due to how they were  preserved they lost the characteristics that permit identification. So we end up calling them things like concretions or nodules, because they don’t have the distinct characteristics we associate with fossilized bone. Such as uniquely distinct bone characteristics like joint ends and porosity representative of osteoclasts. The long structures may look like bone, but when you get to the end you never actually see a joint. You don’t usually see scapula, ribs, pelvis, vertebra or sacral or feet bones.

[Troodon]

Like others have said I dont see bone

[kdlando]

On 8/12/2018 at 6:46 PM, Kane said:

Interesting. How did they make that determination when there is no bone texture? Was it a paleontologist who told you this?

 

In terms of how these shapes can form, shorelines change radically over time. I am far inland now, but 400 million years ago where I am was below the equator and part of an extensive ocean. 

 

I would say that if they resemble whale bones, they do so entirely superficially in terms of shapes. But many rocks can resemble fossils, just as clouds can resemble animals.

 

I’ll call on two bone experts with several decades of experience to make their call. @Troodon @Harry Pristis

I cut the end off one of the larger pieces with my slab saw the other piece is what looke like veins , or tendon and skin like a tsunami buried these or something And I dont know if he was a paleontologist or not, i didn't want to grill him on his education when i was asking him about something.

[Ludwigia]

That has the typical concentric layer build-up of stalactic-shaped concretions. The "skin" is the typical darker outer layer. Whoever that was at the museum was certainly not a vertebrate expert and probably not a paleontologist.

[Kane]

The slice does confirm that this is a sandstone (or similar) concretion, but not bone or any kind of preserved organic tissue.

[Ludwigia]

@kdlando Check out these 2 links, which should be able to help you understand what we are trying to tell you:

 

http://www.uky.edu/KGS/fossils/fossilbones.htm

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/bone-vs-stone-how-to-tell-the-difference-62895060/

 

 

[kdlando]

stalactic-shaped concretions.  they look exactly like my photos

[kdlando]

they look more like this sand stone

[Ludwigia]

I'd suggest you enroll in an advanced course on geology, then you'll find the answers to your many questions. I think I've done enough explaining for the time being.

[Fossildude19]

This topic is now locked, as the OP obviously does not actually need or want our assistance.  

 

Since we cannot agree to disagree, we will part ways at this point.

We hope he is able to figure out what he has by bringing his rocks to a nearby geologist or paleontologist. 

Universities and Museums are the places to take your rocks to have them looked at.  

Best of luck to you, @kdlando   

Kind regards,

 

 

EDIT: It appears that the only "museum" in Cabrillo is an Aquarium. What that has to do with fossils, I have no idea. 

However, the people there are likely not paleontologists, so I would choose a different "museum" that specializes in geology and or paleontology.