Help with identification of specimen

[jack roundtop]

Specimen found in Kentucky, USA.  Appears to be of winged vertebrate.  

[Harry Pristis]

I don't see it.  Looks to me like a cobble of mudstone(?) with trace fossils.  Sorry, Jack . . . google "pareidolia."

[jack roundtop]

It's interesting how you're quick to use pareidolia, yet seem to be confused on whether you have the rock type identified correctly. You make a claim that you see trace fossils yet make no specific identifications. 

[Kane]

Limestone. Much of Kentucky has Ordovician marine sediments, and there are a number of burrowing organisms in that environment, such as worms, that may be the origin of the ichnofossils.

[jack roundtop]

Yes Kane you are correct it is limestone.  I'm not opposed to an identification of ichnofossils though this a very general identification. I think making an identification claim would be more valid if the identification was more specific.  

[Kane]

It is not always possible to make a further determination on ichnofossils given their trace nature or fragmentary preservation. Some are more identifiable than others on the basis of pattern (such as Phycodes or Rusophycus, for example). In other cases, we sometimes have to content ourselves with a higher level and generic assignment.

[Fossildude19]

I personally am not seeing any ichnofossils.   

Could just be differential weathering.

 

[JohnJ]

34 minutes ago, jack roundtop said:

It's interesting how you're quick to use pareidolia, yet seem to be confused on whether you have the rock type identified correctly. You make a claim that you see trace fossils yet make no specific identifications. 

 

17 minutes ago, jack roundtop said:

Yes Kane you are correct it is limestone.  I'm not opposed to an identification of ichnofossils though this a very general identification. I think making an identification claim would be more valid if the identification was more specific.  

 

Jack, you are probably very proficient and knowledgeable about several things that others are much less adept at initially understanding.  Your skills and experience allow you to make accurate, general assessments.  The same is true for many of us regarding fossils.  There is nothing personal in these identifications.  The responses you've received come from decades of fossil observations.

 

Please explain why you think this is a "winged vertebrate".

[jack roundtop]

I should add Kentucky had a diverse survey, including the Quaternary period.  There are also documented trace fossils of quadrupedal footprints with presence of claw and tail marks in McCreary County where this specimen was collected.  

[JohnJ]

Have you determined the source geologic formation of this limestone?

[Fossildude19]

According to this geologic map, McCreary County has rocks of Pennsylvanian and Mississippian age outcropping.

Too old, for any winged vertebrates. 

 

[Ludwigia]

1 hour ago, jack roundtop said:

I think making an identification claim would be more valid if the identification was more specific.  

I agree with you. So please support your claim that your find appears to be a winged vertebrate with more specific evidence. As yet I'm not at all convinced, particularly after seeing the above post.

[ClearLake]

1 hour ago, jack roundtop said:

I think making an identification claim would be more valid if the identification was more specific.  

I don't believe this is really true.  I can say with virtual certainty that you are holding a rock (very general).  I can say with pretty reasonable certainty that it is a sedimentary rock (a bit more specific) because of features I see in the picture.  I can take a stab that it is limestone (even more specific) but can't be certain because I'm just looking at a couple of pictures and can't test the rocks properties.  So on and so on.  

 

We work with what we have (a couple of pictures, very little other information) and make a judgement based on our experience with seeing other fossils or fossil like items.  The more information we are provided and the more definitive the specimen, the more specific we can be in an identification.  Your rock looks like a rock to me, maybe some identifiable ichnofossils, maybe just random bioturbation, maybe just weathering phenomena, I'm not really certain.  What I do not see is a winged vertebrate or a body fossil of any type.  I might be missing it in the pictures provided, but I don't think so.

[jack roundtop]

Thank you for your responses.  Continued cleaning and brushing have revealed more characteristics for your review.  When acquiring this specimen, a top portion of the piece broke away.  This allowed me to see objects within the matrix I attribute to bone. I have included a picture that reveals a hollow bone.  I understand this may resemble a trace fossil, but closer examination can show this structure is different than matrix.  I am leaning away from limestone as further brushing has shown the piece to contain more clastic particles and less limestone.  As the sediment is brushed away, a harder darker surface is revealed.  I have included a picture where thin black bones resembling feather bones are becoming more visible.  I have included some photos of back of specimen..  This piece will need more cleaning to reveal more of what I am able to see through magnification. Back of specimen has a leather/hide like texture?  The exact location of specimen was collected from an area in eastern Kentucky that has Quaternary geological features as indicated on survey map.  While location can be helpful, it's impossible to prove this specimen is indeed from this area due to a few different factors. I will include more as I progress.  

[doushantuo]

The evidence for this being (part of) a vertebrate fossil is, shall we say, equivocal, at best?

I'm the kind of guy who likes to put things mildly, BTW.

[Randyw]

7 hours ago, doushantuo said:

The evidence for this being (part of) a vertebrate fossil is, shall we say, equivocal, at best?

I'm the kind of guy who likes to put things mildly, BTW.

Translation: it’s a rock. … me? I’m more blunt.. i’m also just seeing a rock. But as you are convinced it’s a fossil and are not believing us i would recommend taking it to your local museum with a paleontologist on staff….

[Ludwigia]

Sorry, but I see nothing in the new photos to convince me of your opinion. Please take this thing to your nearest vertebrate paleontologist for detailed scrutiny. I fear we won't be able to help you much more here.