New Mexico fossil

[Leesaa]

Here is a different coral I found where the hard parts are preserved. Here I believe is looking up from the bottom.  This is from Rio Rancho NM.

 

 

[Leesaa]

Here is a side view of this second more obvious coral. 

 

I realized that what is on the side of this coral looks to similar to the round part of the other coral. I know I may just be making it fit in my mind so you can tell if anyone else sees this.

[Leesaa]

Here is the second coral cut in half

 

 

[digit]

12 hours ago, Leesaa said:

I know I won't be the first person seeing what they believe................I am absolutely sure I am NOT sure of what it is.   I have had fun reading more about it.

Glad you are approaching this with imagination but also with an open mind to education.

 

Two inches in diameter would be huge for any colonial coral (modern or fossil). That being said, there were ancient solitary rugose corals known as 'horn corals' that have a tapered ice cream cone sort of shape to them which can grow larger than the polyps of colonial corals in your diagram above. I have one from the Devonian that is probably about 2 inches in diameter but it is also several inches long and tapered as are all rugose corals. As the polyp grows it expands in diameter while adding new calcium carbonate to the base resulting in the cone structure.

 

Your sliced object shows an inclusion of a blob of darker material in lighter matrix coincidentally somewhere near the middle. A coral calyx (the hard limestone skeleton) would show internal structure created by the polyp and there is none of that visible in your cross section. Except for cases of rare preservation soft parts do not fossilize well (if at all). Folks new to fossils often assume that organisms often fossilize in three dimensions with all of their soft tissues intact (usually to support an object that looks like a mushroom, heart or other internal organ, skull complete with flesh and eyes, or more commonly a dinosaur embryo). These misunderstandings are usually the result of a naivete of the fossilization process combined with the fascinating phenomenon of pareidolia which allows us to perceive recognizable shapes in ambiguous visual patterns. It's what allows us to see shapes in clouds or faces in rock formations.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

 

Glad you are finding our input informative--that is a fundamental purpose for this forum (the sharing of fossil knowledge). So far your pieces seem to be very interesting geological examples but none seem to be of biological origin. New Mexico is a state with good fossil resources and searches here on the forum should provide some ideas on what can be found in your area if you are interested.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[GeschWhat]

Sorry, I'm late to play. Reading the posts, it looks like you all didn't need me after all. New Mexico coprolites are some of my favorites, but I'm only familiar with those from the Bull Canyon Formation (and they stick if you touch them to the tip of your tongue). This one intrigues me. It almost looks like the cell structure in bone.

 

[Leesaa]

Does anyone have a good reference for identifying bone? Not big identifiable bones. But bones that have been worn down to look more rock like?

 

I still see life remnants in both of my posted pics in spite of what some of you are seeing, and can not see them as "just geologic rocks". It is hard to capture the texture in a photo.

 

Thank you for the word pareidolia. Yes I am sure I have had that many times!

 

I have been looking at lot of bone pics and wow to the gembones facebook group pics. But I am still pretty clueless about identifying actual bone I may have found.

 

I I thought the second was coral due to it's round shape and texture. Especially with a magnifying glass. The idea of "bone" makes me wonder....... I can take different pics if it would help anyone be more sure on identifying any of this.

 

It all makes me wonder and appreciate nature  and all of you that take the time to reply.