Search the Community

I have found smaller ones like it about the size of the tip of my thumb.. but they were solid. VID_20231018_003140598.mp4

I found this while looking around at some dug up rocks in olney Illinois, and to me and my mother it looks like a fossil. I would like some help identifying it

Found this really weird fossil the other day while hunting for brachiopods. It comes from Permian limestone marine/coastal deposits in Dona Ana County, NM near Hatch. The area is a brecciated limestone field. I've collected coral, brachiopods, crinoids, gastropods, and echinoderm fossils from here before, but they aren't always the best preserved. This rock contains fusulinids, she'll fragments, crinoid bits, and echinoderm spines but I have no idea what the large... interesting looking.... fossil is. It appears to have some enamel left on bits of it, so I think it is a shelled organism of some variety. Any help appreciated!

Need help identifying this. Im pretty sure its a dinosaur egg. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Need help identifying what I'm guessing is a Fossilized Crustacean or turtle that I found this week on Yellowstone River. Any help would be highly appreciated.

hey all, sorry i'm new and didn't search topics to find similar ones cause i dont have time.. i think i have a fossil whitch someone has taken it and i'm hurry to know is it a real one or not! i'm kinda loosing it!! please help me to indentify is it a fossil or not, and if so, what kind? or what animal!! thanks a lot sorry for not being formal!

I live in Maine. I was walking by a small river and saw something that looked like a bone. So I picked it up. It was heavier than rock should be. There was also a larger rock that was up river and it had odd indentations on it. The larger rock was probly 2x2 feet . It almost looked like someone might have used it to ground grains of some sort on it.I wish I had gotten pictures of the larger rock. I am wondering if I did find a petrified bone and if maybe it was used as a tool to hammer or grind things many later on?

The following data taken from Nowak's classic paper shows the difficulty of relying on size to identify fossils. Summary upper carnassial tooth length of canids: LP4 Canis dirus: 28.7 - 35.5 Canis lupus 22.2 - 30.5 Canis latrans 17.6 - 22.8 Canis familiaris 14.4 - 22.7 Canis armbrusteri 26.6 - 29.5 Canis edwardi 24.0 Canis lepophagus 19.0 - 20.7 In some cases (the fossils) the sample is small. In others, (lupus and latrans) it is more than 100 skulls. Coyotes overlap with wolves, and wolves overlap with Dire Wolves, but in each case, a significant portion of the individuals can be allocated to the correct taxon by size alone. Domestic dogs are a mess, as they overlap with both coyotes and wolves. When you throw in the remaining fossil canids, size ends up being pretty useless as the sole determiner of identity. Usually some knowledge of the geologic context can help eliminate some of the fossil taxa. This is an old data set, and I'll run a similar analysis of Tedford and Wang's data and post that later.