Real or fake: Insect from Wyoming

[FrostbyteFossils]

This small 'insect' was purchased from a thought-to-be trusted seller at a shop close to where I live. I have been a little sceptical and was wondering what an expert's opinion may tell me. Is it a fabrication? Is it real, just badly preserved?

[Tidgy's Dad]

Looks painted to me, but i'll be happy if others disagree. 

[Ludwigia]

It's shaped like an insect at any rate, but I understand why you have your doubts. I don't see any structure on it which would confirm that this is an insect.

[FrostbyteFossils]

1 minute ago, Ludwigia said:

It's shaped like an insect at any rate, but I understand why you have your doubts. I don't see any structure on it which would confirm that this is an insect.

So would you agree with Tidgy's Dad that it is painted?

[Ludwigia]

1 minute ago, FrostbyteFossils said:

So would you agree with Tidgy's Dad that it is painted?

I'm not so sure and Adam just wrote that it LOOKS painted. It may also be a coincidentally formed mineral stain.

[FrostbyteFossils]

2 minutes ago, Ludwigia said:

I'm not so sure and Adam just wrote that it LOOKS painted. It may also be a coincidentally formed mineral stain.

Okay... sorry

 

One last question: Is it possible to get fossil insects/small arthropods with poor detail and preservation like this? I apologize for being paranoid. Its just, it cost money.

[caldigger]

I think it is/was an insect that is not complete ( only partial left on slab), that has had the rest of it painted in to complete the creature.

[caldigger]

3 minutes ago, FrostbyteFossils said:

Okay... sorry

 

One last question: Is it possible to get fossil insects/small arthropods with poor detail and preservation like this? I apologize for being paranoid. Its just, it cost money.

There might be more bits of this little guy on the "other" part of the shale this came from.

[FrostbyteFossils]

9 minutes ago, caldigger said:

I think it is/was an insect that is not complete ( only partial left on slab), that has had the rest of it painted in to complete the creature.

So would you say the 'abdomen' and 'wings' are real and the 'thorax' and 'head' are the painted parts? (Using quotes incase it isn't actually an insect)

 

Oh actually I see that its right wing appears more painted, as well as a small section of the abdomen.

[Tidgy's Dad]

1 minute ago, caldigger said:

There might be more bits of this little guy on the "other" part of the shale this came from.

And the paintbrush, perhaps. 

[FrostbyteFossils]

1 minute ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

And the paintbrush, perhaps. 

XD

[Ludwigia]

7 minutes ago, FrostbyteFossils said:

Okay... sorry

 

One last question: Is it possible to get fossil insects/small arthropods with poor detail and preservation like this? I apologize for being paranoid. Its just, it cost money.

Yes it is, but there should at least be some kind of evidence to prove it. Why don't you take it back to the seller and ask him to convince you that it is what he said it is?

[caldigger]

If I thought for a second I could figure out how to do outlines on my stinking phone, I would show my take on this is the real dark brown part of the abdomen, 2/3 of the upper wing and partial thorax "was" the item. The lighter coloring is courtesy of watercolor paint.

[FrostbyteFossils]

3 minutes ago, caldigger said:

If I thought for a second I could figure out how to do outlines on my stinking phone, I would show my take on this is the real dark brown part of the abdomen, 2/3 of the upper wing and partial thorax "was" the item. The lighter coloring is courtesy of watercolor paint.

Thank you for your evaluation. I cant figure out a lot of my phone either haha.

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

In my opinion, natural mineral structures here have been used to paint an entire insect around the natural protrusions of the rock. I also do not see morphological structures that can support a fossil insect here.

 

 

Apparently, there is an artisan industry working to make insects on the rocks of the Green River Formation:

 

 

To better illustrate what I am trying to say, I give as an example this insect (Protapiocera megista), which is currently deposited in my private collection. Note that all morphological structures are perfectly visible, even without the help of a magnifying glass:

 

 

Late Jurassic, approximately 150 million years - Yixian Formation, Huangbangi Valley, Beipiao, Liaoning Province, China.

 

Note: There are actually true fossil insects in Green River Formation, but definitely the "insect" of this post is not one of them.

[SailingAlongToo]

Definitely looks painted on to me. The matrix in/under the paint is the same as outside the paint, even the bumps and discolorations are still in the paint marks.

[FrostbyteFossils]

Well thats a shame. Most of the products this seller has seem pretty good. If this is truely a fake then it worries me. I have purchased many products from there and they seem ok.

Top: pterosaur tooth

Bottom: Pleuroceras ammonite

[FrostbyteFossils]

Top: opalized bivalve

Bottom: amber with small insect inclusion

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

7 minutes ago, FrostbyteFossils said:

Well thats a shame. Most of the products this seller has seem pretty good. If this is truely a fake then it worries me. I have purchased many products from there and they seem ok.

Top: pterosaur tooth

Bottom: Pleuroceras ammonite

 

Sorry, but I do not think this tooth could be from a Pterosaur. But in any case, better photos are needed.

[FrostbyteFossils]

6 minutes ago, Seguidora-de-Isis said:

 

Sorry, but I do not think this tooth could be from a Pterosaur. But in any case, better photos are needed.

 

[FrostbyteFossils]

Its the best i can do with my camera

[caldigger]

Yes, now that I see the "suspected insect" enlarged, the whole thing looks painted on. 

[FrostbyteFossils]

Man, at this point it'd be worth listing every fossil I have.

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

9 minutes ago, FrostbyteFossils said:

Its the best i can do with my camera

 

The angle of the previous photo was not the best. But do not worry. Now that I've seen the new photos, it's definitely a  tooth of Pterosaur. And it's a beautiful tooth! 

[FrostbyteFossils]

5 minutes ago, Seguidora-de-Isis said:

 

The angle of the previous photo was not the best. But do not worry. Now that I've seen the new photos, it's definitely a  tooth of Pterosaur. And it's a beautiful tooth! 

Thank goodness! Haha! Sorry bout me bad camera. Thanks. Phew.