Fossil, Fossil Doogie or Doggone?

[InfoHungryMom]

There are all kinds of dangers at the Ocean-  rip currents, beach lice, Portuguese man ‘o war...

 

There is also the danger of looking for “beach bling”, learning about fossils, and the inexperience that renders it difficult to differentiate fossils from Fidos....

 

Of course, there is always the possibility of a fabulous fossil find...  what do you think?

 

@GeschWhat.   @Carl  Thank you! 

[InfoHungryMom]

[Raggedy Man]

They look like concretions to me. I'd love to say what the 2nd one looks likebut children do come and read these. 

[caldigger]

Me thinks this be a tumbled water worn piece of fossiliforus stone.

 

Is this not embedded shell?

[Raggedy Man]

3 minutes ago, caldigger said:

Me thinks this be a tumbled water worn piece of fossiliforus stone.

 

Is this not embedded shell?

Nice catch

[InfoHungryMom]

It is embedded shell, indeed!  I have been frustrated that our new iPhone, despite 12(?) megapixels, is not capturing fossil images that are clear “in person”.

 

I have, unfortunately, found “newer stuff”... old enough to have bryozoa but still not exactly stone!

 

As for the children, I kinda thought “doogie”, “doggone”, and “Fidos” “sufficiently sophonsified” the PC (politically correct) PG suggested verbiage!

[ynot]

I agree with shell laden sandstone.

Not something that came out of the south end of a northbound dog.

[daves64]

8 minutes ago, ynot said:

I agree with shell laden sandstone.

Not something that came out of the south end of a northbound dog.

Maybe it came from a Fidosaurus Rex? 

[ynot]

1 minute ago, daves64 said:

Maybe it came from a Fidosaurus Rex? 

Only if it liked to eat oysters with the whole shell (and lots of sand).

[InfoHungryMom]

4 hours ago, ynot said:

Only if it liked to eat oysters with the whole shell (and lots of sand).

Karen’s Tall Tale:  How The “Remnants” of a Dog, lots of Sand, and Oysters Became One 

 

Once upon a time, a dogfish and a sand shark were partying to Blue Öyster Cult when they were stunned by the cry for “more cowbells”.  Worried they had wandered into “fresh water cowbell (trolling) territory”, they  accidentally crashed, flew out of the water, landing close to Rockefeller Center and SNL (Where there was also an unexplainable “land shark” offering “candy grams”).....,,      

 

SNL skit “More Cowbell”  

[InfoHungryMom]

[Ludwigia]

Well, I wouldn't necessarily call the find fabulous, but there certainly is enough shell substance in it to make it interesting.

[Bobby Rico]

6 hours ago, InfoHungryMom said:

frustrated that our new iPhone, despite 12(?) megapixels, is not capturing fossil images that are clear “in person”.

I did a post with some tips on getting the most out of your camera phone . It may help you . Cheers Bobby 

 

[InfoHungryMom]

Thank you Bobby!  I am asking my hubby to get me a lens today.  Please know, however, that you unknowingly “opened a Pandora’s box” that I have been waiting to publicly voice in, and for a relevant opportunity to do so.

 

I was ECSTATIC that @caldigger saw the shells in my specimen- I KNEW it was BEYOND LOADED with shells and fossils-  so jam-packed that the fossils are seemingly held together with a tiny bit of coprolite. The ENTIRE STONE is 12mm wide x 28mm long and a mere 3 mm thick!   

 

Despite initial encouragement, I have increasingly experienced what feels like a “Fossil Hierarchy”. @Ludwigia, please know I appreciate your comment because it is representative of what is unsaid by others.  @Coco recommended I get a 10x loupe, which I have.  Others have said, “they see nothing” because THEY SEE NOTHING!  I was about to buy a microscopic camera because of my personal frustration.  

 

For example, I have a rock that I am almost certain has an ammonite inside of it.  ****I SEE THE SHAPE AND RIDGES**** but you will not.  @Fossildude19 has helped me tremendously, but even he doesn’t realize that while I initially needed assistance with identification, I have been increasingly requesting his assistance in determining whether my photography was successful or not!

 

@Cris  @Kane

 

 

 This IS YOUR SITE.  I am certain I am not the first in this situation.  You are completely entitled to do whatever you want to with this site, including removing this post.  I am seeing the world of fossils in a different way than most here do.

 

I don’t know if the fossils “from water” are desired in this Forum, or welcome but not as desirable, and THAT IS OKAY, but I do want to know.

 

An appropriate analogy is the “Show us your plastic dinosaur” topic.  When it was initially posted, there were SCREAMS not to do so- that it was neither about fossils, nor was it scientific.  However, it is one of your most, if not your most, popular and beloved topic.  

 

My father passed away last year, and he had a 1960s Sinclair dinosaur bank on his counter, filled to the brim with coins, my entire life.  FYI, there is no way to remove the coins, other than through the original opening, without cutting the bank.  After my posting the 1960’s gas station incentive, and with the encouragement of members of the Forum (and a shiny silver coin peeking through the top of the bank), I decided to carefully remove the coins.  The contents were primarily pennies, including a “hefty helping” of wheat pennies.  However, there were nine silver coins, including the pictured 1936 Liberty Dime.  Some members were excited about the bank.  Others were asking me to please tell them what coins I found inside.  NEITHER of the topics are the straight-up, scientific, actual specimen fossils and related identifying information you have made clear you want featured in this Forum, lest it should appear “like a garage sale”.  However, you will definitely have a challenge if you decide to remove “the plastic dinosaur” area!  

 

Before I try to excise a fossil from a rock, I would like to know if it would even be a welcome, fascinating specimen for this Forum.  Are my conjecture and hypothesis appropriately positioned here?

 

Thank you-

 

Karen

 

 

[InfoHungryMom]

[InfoHungryMom]

“Do you see what I see?

Do you WANT to see what I see?”

[Bobby Rico]

Is this message for me because I was only commenting on the use of the IPhone as a photography tool and not on your post ID. In fact just trying to help you.

As for the plastic dinosaur post I was unaware of any problems regarding it and I would have removed if so. 

[Kane]

7 minutes ago, InfoHungryMom said:

 

 

Despite initial encouragement, I have increasingly experienced what feels like a “Fossil Hierarchy”. @Ludwigia, please know I appreciate your comment because it is representative of what is unsaid by others.  @Coco recommended I get a 10x loupe, which I have.  Others have said, “they see nothing” because THEY SEE NOTHING!  I was about to buy a microscopic camera because of my personal frustration.  

 

Not sure how you are inferring this "hierarchy." We have members who span a wide spectrum of knowledge and experience, some highly specialized, some more generalized. We pride ourselves as a place where passionate amateur collectors and professionals can share that passion. Those with more knowledge and experience (formal or informal) help out and encourage members. 

 

Fossil identification relying solely on images is always a bit of challenge, although some more than others. If we can't always make out what we're seeing, then it makes it more a speculative exercise than a forensic one.

11 minutes ago, InfoHungryMom said:

 

I don’t know if the fossils “from water” are desired in this Forum, or welcome but not as desirable, and THAT IS OKAY, but I do want to know.

 

An appropriate analogy is the “Show us your plastic dinosaur” topic.  When it was initially posted, there were SCREAMS not to do so- that it was neither about fossils, nor was it scientific.  However, it is one of your most, if not your most, popular and beloved topic.  

 

 

Fossils from anywhere are invited. A perusal through our almost 300,000 posts in Fossil ID strongly indicates that people find fossils from a variety of contexts: by splitting layers, surface collecting, river sediments, and water-worn finds that are deposited erratics, etc. Our diversity means we have members who can pursue their own fossil preferences: some are almost entirely jazzed about shark teeth, others more about Hell Creek dinos, others about amber inclusions, or Paleozoic inverts. I don't see a pecking order in that. Some people purchase, some people solely collect, and others are a mix of the two. Again, no pecking order.  

 

Everything in its right place. We do have a number of sub-fora that are more tangentially related to an appreciation of fossils, such as the plastic dino thread, our members news and diversions, what's for supper, the jazz thread, contests, etc. Sometimes conversations wander off a bit, but as long as it doesn't distract from the main purpose of the topic, or it can return there, it is fine. I am not aware of any "screams" about the plastic dino thread; I'd have to take a look. 

[FossilDAWG]

1 hour ago, InfoHungryMom said:

 

The "Fossil Ammonite" label is remarkable for the density of blatantly incorrect information.  Ammonites were not sea reptiles, they did not breath air, they are related to but not ancestors of the octopus and squid, they did not first appear in the Permian, and no paleontologist subscribes to a theory that their extinction was due to "changes in geography".  Sheesh! 

 

Don

[Kane]

4 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said:

The "Fossil Ammonite" label is remarkable for the density of blatantly incorrect information.  Ammonites were not sea reptiles, they did not breath air, they are related to but not anceters of the octopus and squid, they did not first appear in the Permian, and no paleontologist subscribes to an theory that their extinction was due to "changes in geography".  Sheesh! 

 

Don

Ha! I missed that entirely as I didn't read the card description in the photo. Must be one of those "alternative" etymologies of ammonite: "spineless, geography-sensitive sea reptile"  

[Pagurus]

43 minutes ago, InfoHungryMom said:

“Do you see what I see?

Do you WANT to see what I see?”

 

 

I do want to understand what you are seeing. If I understand what it looks like to you, I might see it in a new light myself. I might decide that I agree with your interpretation, or I might decide that I don't agree. Sometimes I can be convinced, sometimes I can't. I try to be open-minded, as nearly all of our forum members are. We really are an open-minded bunch of folks here, at least regarding our common interest in fossils. We're all here to share, and to learn from each other, and each other's new finds. I think we all WANT to see something new to us, and we all enjoy thinking, "Oh! I didn't know that! Fascinating!" However, our members are a critical lot as well. Critical in a good way. We try to be supportive of one another, and I think we pride ourselves in our respect for each other's opinions, but we also pride ourselves on our collective desire to uncover the reality of what we are seeing. I always WANT to find an interesting fossil, but it often turns out to be an interesting rock, with its own fascinating history, instead.

[FossilDAWG]

1 hour ago, InfoHungryMom said:

“Do you see what I see?

Do you WANT to see what I see?”

Paleontology is a science.  I want to see what is actually there.  If you also want to see what is there, then I suppose we both want to see the same thing.  However, we may both see the same object and disagree about the ID, in which case we could discuss the pros and cons of various possibilities.  Of course in that case experience and education would have a large influence on the final decision.

 

In the case of your photo, I see no evidence of anything fossil.  It looks to me to be a water-rounded metamorphic rock.  

 

Don

[Fossildude19]

Karen, 

 

I'm sorry if you feel like your posts are somehow less important around here, or unappreciated.    

 

Some of us seasoned fossil collectors do tend to become picky about what we would collect, as we only have so much room to display our finds.   

We tend to keep only excellent, complete, or well preserved examples of the fossils we love. Anything more is overkill. We often will gift lesser quality items to make room for better quality specimens.

So while we might appear to be unimpressed by things you find fascinating, that doesn't mean that your posts are any less valued here: We enjoy your posts for your enthusiasm with the things you are finding. If it leads to better understanding of fossils, then we are happy to provide that.

As far as photography goes, yours does need some work. Using a phone only goes so far. Many inexpensive point and shoots have excellent macro capabilities. 

Or one of the clip on lenses can help. Have you checked the quality settings on the camera? Usually they are set quite low, by default. Or in my case, by bumbling fingers. 

Also, do not discount photo editing software. Simply cropping and taking pictures in daylight can help. 

 

Seeing things in rocks, and seeing actual fossils in rocks are two different things. 

Some people get stuck on what they see that looks like a fossil, rather than finding out the geology of an area, figuring out what fossils could be there, and knowing about morphology, taphonomy, stratigraphy, and geology, as well as a basic understanding of paleontology. 

 

I don't see ammonites in the rock you've posted.

 

But, keep in mind, the above disciplines that will help to guide you in your fossil journey.

 

 

[ynot]

When I look at this picture I see an area (red) that could be an ammonite half buried in the matrix and a shell bit (yellow) that is not identifiable.

 

But the area of interest is out of focus- so it is hard to be sure what it is.

It would also help if We could see the side view of the area circled in red.

 

 

PS The only hierarchy on this site (as far as I can tell) is set by experience and knowledge. The more You have the higher up in the pecking order You reach.

I think that most here try hard to be supportive of those that are new to the hobby. (without making false claims on the authenticity of a piece.)

Many who are unfamiliar with rocks and fossils will misinterpret what they have found (there are around 10 posts a week asking if a concretion or river rock is some type of an egg.)

So please do not be discouraged if We do not see a fossil where You think there is one.

 

[InfoHungryMom]

THANK YOU FOR NOTICING THE CARD! 

THAT IS "THE QUALITY" OF INFORMATION I RELIED ON BEFORE DISCOVERING THIS SITE.

 

1.  I apologize... rough day, overly emphasized importance of everything.

2.  It is beyond frustrating to do everything you can to take a photograph and it STILL isn't clear.

3.  Everything I work on will be almost microscopic, and many items will be interesting but not fossils. 

     I want to make sure there is interest and assistance or else I have to revert to ammonites as "sea reptiles"

 

THIS IS MY SCIENCE CLASS.  THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME COMPLAIN... it was unacceptable...

I really wanted to address a few things that did not relate to the entire group.