Petrified Creature found in Canyon Lake

[cindyhnewtofossils]

I found this petrified Creature in Canyon Lake, Texas next to the Guadalupe River, but on private property with the property owners permission. 

I was wondering if anyone knew what it is?

Edited November 7, 2018 by Kane
Topic moved from Member Intro to Fossil ID

[Kane]

I would say that this is an example of geology without biological origin. As tempting as the shape may be to say that it is a fossil, the resemblance is coincidental and not morphologically consistent. Welcome to the forum, by the way.  

[Walt]

That is pretty cool looking, but I think Kane is right.  A rock.  Put a few drops of vinegar on it and see if it fizzes.  If it does, then that is probably how it came to be so sculpted.  (not from vinegar, but from some other acidic media) 

[cindyhnewtofossils]

Wouldn't anything that's been in and around the river fizz? due to all of the lime build up on it.

 

[cindyhnewtofossils]

How would you test for biological origin?

 

 

[Walt]

1 minute ago, cindyhnewtofossils said:

Wouldn't anything that's been in and around the river fizz? due to all of the lime build up on it.

If it is lime, yes.  It will fizz.  I did not know it was limestone.  But limestone varies in hardness and it is probably a lot harder in areas that were not worn away.  (same way caves are formed)

 

[Kane]

Acetic acid may not be the best determinant on whether or not something is a fossil as several fossils that appear in limestone are also composed of calcium carbonate, which will react to acetic acid given that the fossil would have been replaced by it. 

 

In terms of biological origin, it is a good idea to first get information as to where it was found to obtain a faunal list. Second, to be on the lookout for telltale signs of symmetry (where applicable). Given that this specimen is presented as a vertebrate, this would strongly require morphological symmetry. Where that is not easily known, we look at features independently. Note where the "teeth" would be here and how they are not consistent with one another (occurring at odd angles) and seem to blend with what would be a "jawline." Teeth are distinct from the jawline, and would likely present enamel. 

[Aurelius]

Although it's a very strange shape, and the 'mouth' part does look a lot like some sort of creature, it doesn't show any indications of being a fossil. Fossils always have some form of distinguishing features, such as a difference between the 'fossil' and the surrounding matrix (e.g. colour), or bone texture. This has none, and it's apparent that the areas you're looking at just blend perfectly into the surrounding rock. 

 

If you put your finger over the 'eye', then the effect disappears. The brain is designed to pick out patterns (to be able to spot predators in undergrowth, or recognise faces for example), and sometimes this leads us down the garden path. Still, it would be a nice decorative garden rock, and if I'm judging the rock-to-thigh ratio correctly, quite a big one.

[cindyhnewtofossils]

Well it's been soaked in 9% Vinegar with 50% distilled water for about 10 days and most of the fizzing is gone. it still fizzes a little in some small areas, but for the most part most of the limestone has fizzed away.

[Kane]

It would seem that the consensus is that it is not a fossil. That being said, there are fossils in the Glen Rose Formation. Should you have another opportunity to collect from this location, you may be rewarded. 

 

The wiki explanation of the GR Formation.

 

A site on North Texas fossils including the GR Formation.

[Aurelius]

Have you posted this before?

[Raggedy Man]

Looks like chert  to me. 

[Herb]

not seeing a fossil there either, sorry

[RJB]

There goes that human imagination again.  Good luck though.  there are lots of real fossils im sure somewhere near you. 

 

RB

[cindyhnewtofossils]

Oh, I get it.... I'm not a guy, so I couldn't have possibly found a fossil. That's ok, I'll be back when I find out what it is, so I can prove you all wrong. Guess I'll have to find a female Paleontologist to look at it. By the way, my boyfriend really found it and everyone who has looked at it in person says it has to be something of biological origin and yes they were all fossil collecting men.

 

Thanks anyway! 

 

 

 

[JohnJ]

4 hours ago, cindyhnewtofossils said:

Oh, I get it.... I'm not a guy, so i couldn't have possibly found a fossil. That's ok, I'll be back when I find out what it is, so I can prove you all wrong. Guess I'll have to find a female Paleontologist to look at it. By the way, my boyfriend really found it and everyone who has looked at it in person says it has to be something of biological origin and yes they were all fossil collecting men.

Thanks anyway! 

 

@cindyhnewtofossils your defensiveness is misplaced here. The overwhelming majority of our members are not professionals in the paleontology field. However, many have decades of experience with a wide range of fossils, rocks and geologic formations.

 

Your photos do not show any evidence of a "petrified creature".  There is a suggestive shape to what looks like a piece of dolomitic Glen Rose Limestone.  It shows the expected "polish" that resulted from the vinegar bath.  Dolomite and dolomitic limestone is not as affected by acid, hence the lack of "fizzing".  

 

If you doubt opinions you read here, you could take it to the NPL @ UT in Austin...the women listed on the contact page are very helpful, knowledgeable professionals.

[hndmarshall]

My husband was working in Waco those limestone holy weird shaped rocks were all over from small ones to truck size, they can be very suggestive like yours...your first pic looks like a dolphin with his mouth open...cool formation but no fossil....I find lots of not fossil but looks like ones. Nature loves to tease. I have however found some real fossils among the look a likes which to me makes them even more valuable and interesting at least to me.

  

[Auspex]

4 hours ago, cindyhnewtofossils said:

Oh, I get it.... I'm not a guy, so I couldn't have possibly found a fossil.

Really? Where did that come from?

Please put away your attitude, and you might learn something.

[Fossildude19]

4 hours ago, cindyhnewtofossils said:

Oh, I get it.... I'm not a guy, so I couldn't have possibly found a fossil. That's ok, I'll be back when I find out what it is, so I can prove you all wrong. Guess I'll have to find a female Paleontologist to look at it. By the way, my boyfriend really found it and everyone who has looked at it in person says it has to be something of biological origin and yes they were all fossil collecting men.

Thanks anyway! 

 

 

Please watch your language.  This is a kid friendly forum, and we keep it G rated so schools and all ages can browse the Forums.  Thank you. 

Women find fossils all the time. It just so happens that this one is not a fossil. Gender doesn't come into play when determining if something is a fossil or not.  

 

I don't know where your attitude is coming from.  

People are giving their educated and honest opinions on your item.  We have no reason to lie about what we are seeing. 

You came to us, looking for answers. Just because you disagree or are disappointed with our answers, doesn't mean you have to get defensive.   

 

We look forward to you bringing your item to a paleontologist, and coming back to tell us what their verdict is. 

So few people do actually return to tell us what they actually found.   

Kind regards,

[dalmayshun]

read the post a few lines up from this on pareidolia. 

[hndmarshall]

8 hours ago, cindyhnewtofossils said:

Oh, I get it.... I'm not a guy, so I couldn't have possibly found a fossil. That's ok, I'll be back when I find out what it is, so I can prove you all wrong. Guess I'll have to find a female Paleontologist to look at it. By the way, my boyfriend really found it and everyone who has looked at it in person says it has to be something of biological origin and yes they were all fossil collecting men.

 

Thanks anyway! 

 

 

 

This statement saddens me. There are others here who value the opinion of those more in depth in Paleontology. I have seen several women on here quite knowledgeable I might add. Some of the more in depth people on this forum have also been taken in by natures little jokes, I have seen it. I have a bucket of not fossils as I call them. But there are a couple I have a feeling are something, I just set them aside and keep looking for answers and others I look at with the new facts in my head from my new friends here and I can see their point and wonder at natures oddities..... no one here brought up the fact you are a woman but you....I see no color here or sex just a bunch of knowledgeable people giving their time to help adjudicate others interested in a common field and they don't care how novice you are or for that matter I am on the subject as long as we are willing to learn. So pack away the attitude better yet turn it into determination to search for that very special fossil!

 

please excuse any spelling or grammar errors 

[Uncle Siphuncle]

For the record, my wife has found some pretty cool fossils.  Nature doesn't discriminate the finder of the good stuff by gender.  One of the pioneers of paleo as we know it was a very objectively minded woman by the name of Mary Anning in the Lyme Regis area of UK over 200 years ago.  Her work is highly respected to this day.  Experience helps us all to see specimens for what they are, based on objective analysis of diagnostic features, but we can't "will" a specimen to be anything other than what has already been dicated by nature. 

 

I've hunted the Glen Rose quite a bit in your area, and based on field and amateur research experience, I'd bet a paycheck that your specimen is of geological origin.  That said, I still take a shine to interesting rocks at times, and my flower beds willingly accept them.

 

A good next step would be to familiarize yourself with online images of the common echinoids, gastropods, bivalves, oysters, worm tubes, algae balls and crab claws that make up 99% of what you'll find in the Glen Rose of your area.

[jpc]

Wow... that reply came out of left field, and beyond.  I am a professional paleontologist, but I am a male, so I will not mention that this is a suggestive rock, and not a fossil.  

 

I imagine though, that the OPer has left us.  Guess we can't win 'em all.  

[Walt]

13 minutes ago, jpc said:

I imagine though, that the OPer has left us

 We'll make like Linus and sit here until the Great Canyon Lake Pumpkin comes back.... (I thought it looked like a squashed pumpkin...)

[JohnBrewer]

I collect icthyosaur material. The star of the show was a nineteenth century British woman called Mary Anning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Anning possibly the most important woman palaeontologist of that time. My heroine