Help identify

[derekshannon10241988]

Found in Ventura California. It's like an 800 pound rock with a soft form fossil that I can not find anything that looks like or even resembles it. Please help

 

 

[Kane]

I'd say very interesting banded stone with a neat design that has been tumbled by natural forces, but I cannot see a fossil in this piece. Judging by the foot in one of the photos, it is likely about 200 pounds at most, not 800.  

[SawTooth]

I would say skull if it did not have bands expanding to the edge of the rocks.

[val horn]

It is very pretty but does not appear to be a fossil

[HuckMucus]

If legal, I'd figure out a way to get that home, whatever it is.

[abyssunder]

Very nice symmetry! 

[Carl]

The symmetry is WAY to accurate for me to not believe that's a fossil. I am leaning strongly towards skull. Did you collect it or can you easily relocate it? I suggest showing photos of this to someone in a paleontology department in a nearby California museum. 

 

@Boesse

[FB003]

Admittedly, I would try to take this home too for my garden.  I'm of the belief its a rock with an interestingly bug shaped pattern.

[derekshannon10241988]

On 6/4/2022 at 5:07 PM, Kane said:

I'd say very interesting banded stone with a neat design that has been tumbled by natural forces, but I cannot see a fossil in this piece. Judging by the foot in one of the photos, it is likely about 200 pounds at most, not 800.  

The rock is only about 1/4 of the way out of the sand. Just fyi. Do you not see the red figure in the banded stone? 

 

[derekshannon10241988]

20 hours ago, Carl said:

The symmetry is WAY to accurate for me to not believe that's a fossil. I am leaning strongly towards skull. Did you collect it or can you easily relocate it? I suggest showing photos of this to someone in a paleontology department in a nearby California museum. 

 

@Boesse

Very difficult to collect and/or relocate. (Not saying it can't be done, just very difficult). And thank you for your input

[jpc]

I agree with Carl... this is very symmetrical, including the trabecular pattern inside the two circular 'holes' (nasal passages)... some sort of marine mammal skull.  The layered sediments are amazing. 

 

[Kane]

1 hour ago, derekshannon10241988 said:

The rock is only about 1/4 of the way out of the sand. Just fyi. Do you not see the red figure in the banded stone? 

 

I do, and that is what certainly makes it mysterious to me. The symmetry is a bit hard to ignore, so I am hoping some of our other members might be of assistance.

[fossilhunter21]

I agree, this definitely has to be a skull. I have never seen a fossil in such amazing layered sediments. It is an awesome find. 

 

-Micah

[Mahnmut]

I do agree that this is to symmetrical to be coincidence, looks like skull, no idea of what kind of vertebrate. Size speaks for a wale?

 

[Ludwigia]

I'm still not convinced that this is a skull. One strange thing about the patterns on this boulder is that the orange/red parts first appear to flatten out on the sides and then expand again towards the back (bottom from our perspective) of it.

[Carl]

3 hours ago, derekshannon10241988 said:

Very difficult to collect and/or relocate. (Not saying it can't be done, just very difficult). And thank you for your input

I would absolutely try to fetch this or at least bring it to the attention of the closest natural history museum.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

2 hours ago, jpc said:

I agree with Carl... this is very symmetrical, including the trabecular pattern inside the two circular 'holes' (nasal passages)... some sort of marine mammal skull.  The layered sediments are amazing.

 

After initially seeing just a red coloured intrusion into an otherwise rather consistently banded stone, I agree that I now also see some kind of hollow passages underneath two cavities with spongeous bone-like material. I've seen these shapes in ichthyosaur jaws a lot (see below for an example and diagram), and are also very reminiscent of the diagram of dolphin braincase cross-sections I came across after a quick search online. For me this is convincing evidence for piece being a skull, and I think it could be useful to ask @Shellseeker and maybe @Boesse for their opinions.

 

 

Cross-section through a rostrum of Ichthyosaurus communis from Lyme Regis (left) and diagram of a similar cross-section (right) (source)

 

 

 

Cross-sections of the skulls of Tursiops (a) and Ziphius (b; ironically known as "Cuvier's beaked whale") (fig. 5; Rommel et al., 2006)

[HuckMucus]

I usually get drawn to the fossil itself, but the surrounding matrix in this case catches my eye too.  I believe the scientific and technical term of art for this piece is "cool", though there might be some dispute in the community of experts.  Others might call it "awesome."

Edited June 7, 2022 by HuckMucus
spelling

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

4 minutes ago, HuckMucus said:

I usually get drawn to the fossil itself, but the surrounding matrix in this case catches my eye too.  I believe the scientific and technical term of art for this piece is "cool", though there might be some dispute in the community of experts.  Others might call it "awesome."

 

People who call this "cool" or "awesome" both don't know what they're talking about, aren't real experts. No, this is clearly a "jaw-dropping" specimen!

[Mahnmut]

Hello again,

I tried looking at different 3d scans of whale skulls to find a cut that resembles this one here.

Until now all the whale scans I found are optically made, that means scanned from the outside without internal detail. I hope to find a ct scan of a dolphin that would show the internal structure. But I think the cut of an Orca skull (nmml:1850) via morphosource) shows more or less the view your fossil does. Still wondering what the finely structured areas are, maybe even inner ear structures?

The way the sediment flowed (?) around the bone is fascinating also, or, to use a technical term I just learned, jaw-dropping.

 

[JohnJ]

Try this Digimorph Bottlenose dolphin entry.  Select the coronal or horizontal slice movie.

[Top Trilo]

If the red part is a fossil are you saying these parts are also part of the fossil? Because those areas aren't as symmetric.

 

[Fossildude19]

13 minutes ago, Top Trilo said:

If the red part is a fossil are you saying these parts are also part of the fossil? Because those areas aren't as symmetric.

 

 

I would expect this from a broken/eroded rock/bone cross section, though.

 

 

 

 

[HuckMucus]

5 minutes ago, Top Trilo said:

If the red part is a fossil are you saying these parts are also part of the fossil? Because those areas aren't as symmetric.

 

That is part of the interesting thing, when looking at a cross-sectional aspect with more erosion on one side than the other.  It takes more imagination than I have to visualize the "whole", especially with something so complex as a skull with nasal/sinus material.  Nevertheless, while not perfectly symmetrical, the portions you point out are nonetheless "there" on opposite sides, just at different levels.  I think.  MO. 

 

Imagine an MRI sliced through not at a perfect, perpendicular slice, but angled.

Edited June 7, 2022 by HuckMucus

[Top Trilo]

2 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

 

I would expect this from a broken/eroded rock/bone cross section, though.

That makes a lot of sense, thanks Tim. I'm curious to see where this thread goes.