I am new to this forum and would like to learn more about fossil identification (3)

[jameserasmus]

This is another one we found.

[Coco]

Hi,

 

Size ? Location ? Formation ?

 

Coco

[Mahnmut]

Hello again and welcome to the forum.

 

because you phrased your question like you did, I feel free to point out some advice:

The quality of your photos is fine, its hard to get a shape like this completely into focus.

here are some more tipps to get better chances for an ID:

http://www.thefossilforum.com/topic/84320-how-to-get-your-item-idd-new-members-please-read/

 

That said, I think this is a coincidential shape produced by the breaking of the rock.

Most kind of fossils have quite characteristical textures, like Bone, tooth, shell, wood, coral... do an image search to see what are typical fossil of your region.

Backwards searches like "lens" etc do not work well on possible fossils, they give you " looks like a rock, looks somewhat like a bone, must be T-Rex, because T-Rex got the most google hits.)

Often with damaged pieces its the texture and not the shape that tells you if its a fossil.

When you encounter numerous pieces with unusual shapes, but no special texture and only few of them resemble eg.  bone in shape, they probably are not bones. Happens often with concretions, chert nodules, karst rocks... those are notorious "fakers". Look those up as well if you like.

http://www.thefossilforum.com/topic/90731-pseudofossils-pareidolia-and-other-rorschachery/

 

Best Regards,

J

 

[Ludwigia]

I would agree with Mahnmut's assessment and would simplify it by stating that this is a rock and not a fossil. And please don't give different topics the same title, since that is somewhat confusing.

[Rockwood]

This makes me think of a broken spot weld. The weld would actually be a concretion which formed on a bedding plane, in the process forming a bond that resulted in this shape upon fracture. 

Edited August 31 by Rockwood
punctuation