dinosaur man Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 Is this ankylosaur skin it matches the euoplcephalus skin above found in dinosaur provincial park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 Looks geologic, not a fossil. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 Sorry dinosaur man. I'm not seeing any similarity. Yours is a sandstone cobble. 1 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinosaur man Posted August 20, 2019 Author Share Posted August 20, 2019 I thought it was fossilized skin because beside it where bone fragments and a toe bone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinosaur man Posted August 21, 2019 Author Share Posted August 21, 2019 If it is geologic what can cause the rings in the sandstone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 Not a geologist so the precise mechanism from which causes the rings and shapes is unknown to me but it's probably wind and rain. Just can say it's not a fossil. @ynot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 Looks like a iron concretion in sandstone. The typical nature of iron concretions is to be layered and often circular. 2 Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 If you compare to the other photo you posted you have to ask what happened to the other features evident in that photograph. Judging by the amount of wear in your specimen there should be much more of those features evident. Also, if the circular feature at the right edge of your specimen is part of the fossil, why is the impression so deep? This is inconsistent with the way this matrix would erode/wear. I don't think that the skin would have varied that much in thickness as evidenced by this specimen either. 1 Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now