my first true bone?

[older the better]

Found this this weekend. It is heavy for its size and when I put a large hot needle to multiple areas it didn't even burn let alone smell. I think I found my first fossil bone. 

I know its not a lot to go on and I dont need a 100% id but id like an idea what it may be and I know you guys are crazy good at this stuff. it was found on a limestone bluff in southeast Kansas in Pennsylvanian age rock. in a later picture I show some fossils from the same area. there is a layer of shale mixed in. that's about all the helpful info I can give.

I dont understand why theres a limit on picture size but im going for quality so sorry about the multiple posts.

 

 

[older the better]

[older the better]

[older the better]

the small plain looking rock I believe is a segment of one of these. the black one is from the shale im guessing they are seeds but maybe scales. 

[Natalie81]

1 hour ago, older the better said:

the small plain looking rock I believe is a segment of one of these. the black one is from the shale im guessing they are seeds but maybe scales. 

Both orthocone nautiloid 

[LordTrilobite]

That first specimen does indeed look like a piece of bone.

[Natalie81]

I agree with LordTrilobite, it is bone. But I'm not sure if it is fossil, the age in combination with the other finds (marine) makes me doubt. Also it looks like there are cutting marks or am I wrong? You have to wait and see what others say

 

Natalie 

[Fossildude19]

1 hour ago, older the better said:

I dont understand why theres a limit on picture size but im going for quality so sorry about the multiple posts.

No need to be sorry about multiple posts.    

 

There is a 4 mb limit to images because we pay for the space we take up on the hosting server. 

4mb is plenty big to get some decent quality pictures posted. 

Be sure to crop your images to only include the fossils. This will help to lower the picture size. 

[older the better]

 There’s other recent bone in the area from a native trash midden. They are all tan. this bone was unusual from the start it was heavy and much more solid, and a different color. I did the burn test it didn’t even smoke let alone smell. The marks are Breaks in the bone almost like I’d was smushed. 

[older the better]

[ynot]

5 hours ago, older the better said:

when I put a large hot needle to multiple areas it didn't even burn let alone smell.

 

53 minutes ago, older the better said:

I did the burn test it didn’t even smoke let alone smell. 

A hot needle is not adequate for a "burn test", it will not hold enough heat to work.

You need an open flame (match or lighter) for the burn test.

Also, if a bone has lost it's calogen the burn test will not be accurate (no smell on recent bone).

I agree that the bone looks recent.

[older the better]

I’ll try open flame, I actually used a red hot nail because I read a needle might not do it. I tried to see if it even wiggled where it was broken, nothing I think it’s cemented 

[caldigger]

You state in your tabs this is Pennsylvanian.  Might it be plant material rather than bone?

[older the better]

Ok haha hope I’m not coming across argumentative, I’m just trying to be clear as I can be. I know it’s tough to id by pictures. Open flame about a minute a small amount of scorching no smell. here’s a picture of other bone I’ve found within feet, notice the true butcher marks on the deer rib. I’ve got a good date on my site from 1500-900 bc. So those are what old bones look like... I know not Pleistocene old but it’s what I got. I did one last test I weighed a similar shape and thickness bone it was .323 oz, the bone in question .479, and a limestone coral fossil from the same place .423 as close to the same size and shape I had

[ynot]

39 minutes ago, older the better said:

I did one last test I weighed a similar shape and thickness bone it was .323 oz, the bone in question .479, and a limestone coral fossil from the same place .423 as close to the same size and shape I had

Now You need to weigh them suspended in water to get the specific gravity. That will give a better idea of what it is mineral wise.

 

Can You post pictures of the ends of this piece?

[older the better]

Sure

[Peto Lithos]

Are there any more recent formations in the area? This bone doesn't look like it was ever encased in rock.

[older the better]

Maybe I’m doing something wrong I took a cup placed it on the scale and 0’d it then dipped each piece in suspended on a piece of thread. First time newer bone .190, bone in question.195, fossil coral .175, then I repeated and got .195, .195, .182, then I checked again 0-ing each time and the bones held steady and the coral kept going up until it hit .195 too 

[older the better]

1 minute ago, Peto Lithos said:

Are there any more recent formations in the area? This bone doesn't look like it was ever encased in rock.

This site is pretty much on top of the world around here. There’s a gentle slope away from the bluff that is dirt and a bit more limestone and that’s the high point of the area. The limestone crumbles off from underneath the bluff overhang, it’s not uncommon to find nearly clean fossils, look at the big brachiopod above that’s how I picked it out of the ruble. But you do make a good point I don’t see even a little chip of stone which is unusual. 

[older the better]

If we shelf the modern vs fossil question.

 

Assuming it is fossilized and from Pennsylvanian rock. Any thoughts of what kind of creature it may be. I don’t know if there’s any candidates that are common finds. To me I think you can eliminate skull fragments, ribs, and maybe vertebrae. Looks like long bone.