Can Anyone Identify This Fossil?

[MaryE.T.]

Hello, I have had a few conflicting opinions about what this fossil might be, ranging from some sort of prehistoric "lizard" to a prehistoric "sponge". It was found in an area that is rich with fossils, seemingly of various eras; Fragments of Adena (Indian) pottery, prehistoric shells of various sorts, ect., have also been found in the area.

The entire fossil is less than 3 inches square, so consider that features of any one area are truly minute. Some of the attached photos were taken with a digital camera. Some were take with a cell phone, have been magnified, and are under various lightings.

At this point in time, I suspect that this may be two life forms, in whole or in part, that were fused together. It appears to be more mummified or petrified than fossilized, at least to me. The closer it is magnified, the softer or more subtle and natural the features appear, which they seem quite detailed, especially given the size of the fossil.

I know that fossils of other prehistoric amphibians have been found around the area, so that it is not impossible that this is amphibious. I have seen their photos on the internet. What I am reluctant to believe, is that "elements" could have sculpted such minute, yet perfectly life-like features of some sort of amphibious head / face.

However, I do welcome all opinions, and friendly debate. Thanks in advance, to anyone who will please help to identify this fossil. Note: Digital photos were too large to upload, sorry.

[Roz]

I am afraid your images are too blurry to see..

[lissa318]

They are for me too. Try cropping some of your digital ones smaller. Sometimes cutting out some excess from the outside is enough to make is small enough to upload! And welcome to the forum!

[Fossildude19]

Not an amphibian head.

What it is, I can't be certain from the poor quality of photos.

Where was this found? (State, county city) Location info, along with better pics, would greatly improve our ability help you figure this out.

Regards,

[Wrangellian]

Blurry photos are often the result of taking pics too close to the camera. If you take them a little further away an then crop the image as Lissa suggests it should be big and clear enough for us to see and still small enough to upload. (Save the jpg at 90% quality and it will be a much smaller file without noticeable degradation in visual quality)

[Auspex]

Please get much more light on the subject, while you are taking new (sharper) pictures.

[MaryE.T.]

Thank you, everyone (so far). The pics were older ones already on my computer. I also have the digital photos, but will have to wait for help to crop and post them. A friend who said he served with COSI had told my husband that, whatever it was, he would not have wanted to have been bitten by it. He had based that from one of the (above) cell phone pics. He also suggested a drop of tap water in its "eye" and the changes that occurred supposedly suggest the eye was real, not a piece of sand, ect. Of course, sand does not have a bulging eye lid, anyway. My doctor seemed to believe the eye was real enough. Two understudies at a local museum had seemed to believe it was some sort of "lizard". Other than that, I have had responses that the (above) photos were too blurry, and one suggestion that it was an "ancient sponge", (with a face?, I wondered). The above images were purposely magnified when taken, so are far larger than the actual specimen. Sorry that the digital pics would not upload. I will try to post some in the future, once I can get assistance to do it.

[Auspex]

We can't even speculate without sharp, bright pictures, and location info, but we'll be here when you can provide them.

Don't get your hopes up about that feature being a 'petrified eye', though; fossilization does not work that way.

[MaryE.T.]

I have read that fossilization does not occur in such a way as to leave soft tissue in tact. That is why I question possible mummification or petrification. Though I don't have hopes either way, merely enjoy the fossil (and others I've collected), I believe that historically, there have been exceptions in nature and that, maybe this could be one of them??? The understudies at the museum had suggested that it might have washed down from Canada or Pennsylvania during the ice age. They had seemed most impressed by the appearance of patterned, hide-like material on the top of its 'head' and down the back of its 'neck'. To my memory, it was a sort of raised (bumpy) circular pattern, but the bumps, or circles were not of uniform size or shape. They were lighter at the base, or bottom of each bump, and blackish at the top. The color of the fossil varies from light orange to dark-rust orange with blackish areas, in natural light.

I forgot to add to my last post . . . This was found in southern Ohio, in Adams County. We have a good mixture of rock colors in this particular area of Adams County. There is an area I hunt after a good rain, which seems to continue to surprise me with new finds, mostly Adena pottery pieces, or tools, but also with a variety of shells and ancient life forms that are unknown to me, and colorful crystal. So I was told, the field beyond had even yielded some nice arrowheads. It is not so far from the ancient Adena site known as Serpent Mound. I hope that helps you somewhat at least.

Meanwhile, I see what I am able to do about the digital pics I have on file, as soon as possible. They are of good quality, or so I was told. There is a fellow staying with my family who is computer savvy, where I am not. He just doesn't happen to be home right now.

[Fossildude19]

How to resize photos.

According to this Geologic Bedrock Map of Ohio, the area you hunt is comprised of Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, and Mississippian sediments, with the area near Serpent Mound being primarily Silurian in age.

Hopefully the new pics will shed more light on the item.

Regards,

[MaryE.T.]

Thanks for the link, Tim. I had read about the different prehistoric eras, but never memorized then by name. I believe, but am not certain, that the museum understudies had mention the Devonian period based on the color of the specimen. But would local sediment layers be as relevent if it had washed into Ohio from Canada or Pennsylvania? What I have read, (today, and probably before), is that ice or cold can play a role on mummification. So can saline water, which science says Ohio was once covered in ocean, I believe, with southern Ohio being a sort of bay area to northern Kentucky. There had been a massive explosion, volcanic-like in nature, that had caused lands to buckle and shift in and around Kentucky, or so I read - and norhteastern Kentucky boasts a sizable fault line yet today. Too, it is common knowledge here, that Adams County had been hit by a massive meteorite. Limestone and sandstone are abundant where I found the specimen. More, I just re-read that naturally mummified creatures, (even ancient humans), are not all that uncommon world-wide, while some factors that play into mummification are still poorly understood. Beyond that, I do not believe that this specimen compares with examples of pseudofossils I have looked at on websites. Again, I believe it is a huge leap to credit "elements" with such minute but life-like details as it has.

[JohnJ]

.... Beyond that, I do not believe that this specimen compares with examples of pseudofossils I have looked at on websites. Again, I believe it is a huge leap to credit "elements" with such minute but life-like details as it has.

On the contrary, Mary. Most pseudofossils are unique, so comparisons with others will not provide any matches. I suspect that hundreds of pseudofossils are found every year. We have seen extraordinary examples through the years on this forum; but they were not the remains of ancient life. Unfortunately, some people persist in their beliefs about their find vs. the science involved in understanding their find. Go into any publicly guided cave in the country and you can find exquisite forms shaped by the "elements" that look surprising like life forms past and present.

The bedrock in your area will not contain mummified remains, but don't let that stifle the search for the real fossils near you.

[Fossildude19]

For comparison:

Amphibian Fossils.

I see no resemblance between your piece, and the pictures in the link.

See also: pareidolia.

Again, better pics will allow us to see what you actually have.

Regards,

Edited July 9, 2013 by Fossildude19

[MaryE.T.]

Tim, I have not found anything quite like it either. But I do believe there is always room for enlightenment in science. For example: When my husband was a youth growing up in Sabina, Ohio the Litllleton''s Funeral Home used to display a deceased soul, whom they had named "Eugene". He was fairly modern for the time, had some gold teeth. What was unique about Eugene, is that he was found along the railroad track that ran behind my husband's birth home, and was mummified, or petrified, with eyes in tact and open, as my husband recalls seeing the poor soul. Littletons had hoped that a relative might come claim Eugene, but none ever did. Instead, local college students kept stealing him, so they finally gave him a respectable burial. My husband believes Eugene had "turned to stone" by the time he witnessed him. Because I read it on a science-type website here on the internet, and because of Eugene, I believe science is still in need of a much better understanding of the mummification / petrification process. Eugene was found on top of the ground, so does bedrock, or a lack of it, absolutely have to do with the process of fossilization, mummification, ect.? Could someone have thrown Eugene from the train, (so to speak)? I believe the suspicion was that he might have been attempting to board the train when he perished. Either way, the question of where he came from and how he mummified that quickly still remains. It would be narrow minded of science to ignore Eugene's case in favor of a singlized theory. He is a case-in-point to such possible exceptions to the general scientific belief about naturally preserved remains of former life on this planet. I believe my own find MIGHT be another such case, whether or not it is ever recognized as legitimate. I had noticed quite a bit of limestone still on it, though it had been washed about by flooding waters.

[Roz]

Mary, can you take some clear pictures of your find?

[Fossildude19]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Or, at the very least, some clear pictures.

There are always exceptions to the rule. I enjoy seeing them. I love to root for the underdog. However,... experience tells me it isn't what you think it is.

But I can only hazard a SWAG as to what your item is with the blurry pics provided.

I have seen plant fossils with dimples that look like the "eye" of your creature.

I have seen erosion of fossils to where they are unrecognizable from their previous state.

Water, and tumbling in sandy, wet environments make for all manner of neat looking rocks.

If you had a petrified amphibian, I would expect an x-ray or CAT scan, or MRI to be able to reveal some internal structure. Bones, etc.

Maybe that should be the next step, after uploading decent pictures.

I have yet to be convinced that it is indeed even a fossil.

For now, in my opinion, you have an interesting looking rock.

Regards,

[Auspex]

Apocryphal tales can become urban legend pretty quickly, which is why the scientific method is based on testable proof.

Here is "Eugene's" story, published by the Sabina Historical Society, wherein nothing is mentioned about mummification, petrifaction, or anything of the sort (he was embalmed, after being found dead, in the normal fashion). <LINK> to story.

[JohnJ]

Apocryphal tales can become urban legend pretty quickly, which is why the scientific method is based on testable proof.

Here is "Eugene's" story, published by the Sabina Historical Society, wherein nothing is mentioned about mummification, petrifaction, or anything of the sort (he was embalmed, after being found dead, in the normal fashion). <LINK> to story.

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true and reason is a tool we can use to help us understand the difference. Hence, the need to understand the facts and, in this case, the geologic science regarding how fossils are formed.

[Auspex]

...A friend who said he served with COSI had told my husband that, whatever it was, he would not have wanted to have been bitten by it.... He also suggested a drop of tap water in its "eye" and the changes that occurred supposedly suggest the eye was real...

...My doctor seemed to believe the eye was real enough...

...Two understudies at a local museum had seemed to believe it was some sort of "lizard"....

My suggestion is that you make an appointment to take this to an actual Paleontologist.

If you are near Columbus, contact:

Orton Hall

The Ohio State University

Building 060

155 S. Oval Mall

Columbus, OH 43210

614-292-6896

[Aurelius]

Doesn't look like a fossil to me, and I don't think the people you've spoken to have a clue what they're talking about. Sorry!

It's human nature to detect patterns in things, and many rocks can be interpreted as resembling faces (animal or human). Soft tissues are sometimes preserved, but not like this.

[MaryE.T.]

My friend returned, and was kind enough to crop these couple of digital photos for now, but says he is tired. He has just helped a relative move. I have not yet read the most recent posts, but thank everyone for their participation in my thread.

I do stand corrected on some of my input about 'Eugene', was repeating my husband's childhood memory. But information about him is on the internet. Simply search: Sabina, Ohio: Eugene mummy. He had been kept in a building for 30-some years and became a tourist attraction.

Yes, I agree that I should take this specimen to be examined by a professional, and possibly to be x-rayed. Poor health has prevented that thus far, but for my effort at the museum. Mostly I just wanted to share my find with others here, and get their opinions. Seems it is at least a good conversation piece.

[Herb]

This appears to be a mineral structure and not a fossil. There are no known turtle fossils in Ohio, too recent.

[MaryE.T.]

It had been suggested that the specimen had been a lizard, but not suggested that it had been a turtle. However, I agree that it appears to look similar to a turtle head / face. Also, I'm gathering that the collective belief here is that it is mineral formation. Perhaps photos do not do it justice, whereas actually holding it in hand has left most who have done so with the impression that it had once been a living creature. I do not recall whether turtles were among the internet photos I had seen of amphibian fossils discovered in Ohio. Lizards and frogs were, to my memory.

[JohnJ]

Mary, I've adjusted the brightness and contrast of your find. As much as anyone can imagine that this rock looks like an amphibian, or reptile, or a duck, it still doesn't make it one. Your belief that this is anything other than a very cool rock seems to be solely based on how it looks. In paleontology, that isn't enough. The processes involved in forming a fossil are not something we can choose a la carte; the geology of your area determines that. If you want further confirmation, then maybe a friend or family member could take your find to the paleontologist suggested by Auspex.

Nature forms many rocks that look like fossils and that is the basis of the concept: pseudofossil. Please understand that if it was a fossil, there would be a steady stream of kudos and congratulations.

[Uncle Siphuncle]

no. just no.