Is this bone or rock? Also is this a fish armor plate or anything else?

[JohnJ]

20 hours ago, Rockwood said:

There aren't really identifiable bits, just mush. The mineral build up on the surface combined with the general texture make the ID fairly safe though I believe.

Seems a stretch, Dale.  The mineral build up and surface texture don't appear to be diagnostic to this rock being a shell hash.

 

21 hours ago, natwell19 said:

 

 

 

 

[ClearLake]

Ok, Ill give it one more shot and then I suggest you take it to a local museum or university for closer examination if you still believe it to be something significant..  If I understand your location correctly, you are probably in the Brentwood area or somewhere not too far away.  The bedrock in this area is Ordovician (could be slightly younger on the west side of the counties, but still distinctly Paleozoic) limestones and minor intermixed shales (I have collected fossils in the area) and often chalk full of all sorts of Paleozoic invertebrates.  Yes some Pleistocene remains have been found in cave or crevasse deposits eroded into the bedrock.  If you look at the roadcut from which you collected the rock, does the rock fit within the normal stratigraphy of the section or could it be part of some sort of younger erosional feature (think of a hole or crack eroded down into the rock and filled with other material)?  If it is part of the normal stratigraphy, you can dismiss all thoughts of a mammalian tarsal bone and go with other more logical conclusions.

 

I still think the conglomerate looks very odd for the rocks that I am familiar with in that area, but I'm no expert on all the rocks of the Nashville Dome, so I'm going with your assertion that it came from the formation.  I don't see an armored head plate at all, just some grainy slightly discolored limestone.  While the pebbles have some porous texture (not uncommon in rocks) I don't see a shape that says bone to me, not even a carpal/tarsal bone ( most mammalian bones like that have at least one distinct facet, perhaps less so in reptilian bones).  Again, look at where the rock came from, if its in the middle of Ordovician strata, that will narrow considerably what can be found in it.  The more exotic the assertion, the stronger the evidence needs to be to support it.

 

Keep looking, keep having fun with it!!

[natwell19]

Thanks so much everyone! I have a few things to do today(parent/teacher conference, and I'm taking dinner to someone), but I will be near the area where I have been collecting. If it's not raining too much I will get out and get pictures of the area so y'all can see what I mean about it changing from limestone to clay. I will also take some more pictures of the actual conglomerate. I have been doing this for the last 6 months or so and I have never had a hobby I love this much. I honestly don't get how everyone wouldn't want to look for treasures and history in the ground. It is real treasure hunting and it's amazing. 

 

  

[Rockwood]

9 hours ago, JohnJ said:

Seems a stretch, Dale.  The mineral build up and surface texture don't appear to be diagnostic to this rock being a shell hash.

 

 

In the gravel I search it would stand a good 9 for 10 chance on close examination. It would need a good going over with a lens however.

[Rockwood]

What ? You mean Maine isn't a microcosm of the world ?  

[natwell19]

OK. I have more pictures. There are pictures of where I have been hunting for fossils. I don't know if you can tell, but it starts out all limestone and then shifts to a much muddier/clay consistency. the rocks become lighter in color as well and change consistency as well. I also have the rock that looks like a conglomerate next to other rocks I got in the same section of the area I was looking for fossils. Also, I looked at a different geographical map that was much more precise and it showed that I was right where the geography changes from Ordovician to Mississippian.

 

  

 

 

These are pictures of wall formations. They move from more gray limestone to more clay. It was wet so things seem darker then they normally do. 

 

Next are rocks that can be found on the ground below the area with more clay. That's where I found the conglomerate looking rock. 

 

 

This is my conglomerate rock with what I think is bone.

 

 

These are other rocks that I picked up that look similar

 

 

Ok, I think that's everything.

 

 

FA6A9016-3257-4C39-A822-7DED6B76863A.heic

[Rockwood]

It isn't bone. A shell fragment in there ? I think maybe. 

[Earendil]

Congrats, you seem to have found an Ordovician (?) outcropping! This pic shows some obvious cross-sections of shells and even a complete brach! 

12 hours ago, natwell19 said:

 

That being said, the pictures you have shown do not point to an armored fish or any kind of bone. Google 'conglomerate rock' and you will see rocks that look just like yours. If you go fossil hunting with the image of a 'fossil fish' in your mind, your brain will start to see see lookalikes everywhere! You have a great invertebrate hunting site, focus on the brachiopods for now. The fish fossils will come with time and research. Good luck, and happy hunting!

Edited October 7, 2021 by yardrockpaleo