silica sand rapid burial, ca newts buried alive in silica sand while in the act of newt mating ball

[palo69]

please dont be so fast to identify this specimen. open each image and look closely. look at the back foot the bone that supports both back legs and runs under the body of the newt can clearly be seen. also the last image is taken from the opposite side. look at the image of the new grown foot of the orange belly newt after just growing back from being bitten off. Newts grow pads on the bottom of their hind feet just weeks before mating season, this allows them to grip the female while mounted and swimming under water. it also causes the toes to become fat and short. once a newt has his foot severed and the new limb grows back, it is no longer capable of growing these mating season  pads on the bottom of their feet. notice the image just before the last , open it and compare the foot with mating season pads as its a live image of a male newt mounted on a female with the back foot and mating season pads gripping the female. then open the last image, notice the orange belly newts newly grown limb.  compare it to the image on its right its taken from this same specimen only from the opposite side, you can see the useless limb with out pads hanging down behind the bottom mounted newt. i understand that your learned paleontology lessons always teach that this type of fossil is ALMOST unheard of.  if your not one who studies the fossils of rapid burial, in silica sand, then i urge you to spend a few minutes on this subject before you type pareidolia, because, just as sure as i am sitting here breathing, these images are showing one of the best detailed, silica sand, soft tissue preserved fossils in 3D ever discovered.  

[DPS Ammonite]

Welcome to the Forum. 
 

You forgot to give us vital information needed for every post: where was it found, what formation and what age?

 

Newt fossils typically have bone present; can you show us up close photos of bone? Unusual preservation might show the skin; any photos of the details of the skin or scales?

[palo69]

open this image the bone can be seen above the leg. the arrow is pointing to it. this was found at the river mouth in san diego  Ca. at cardiff beach where the fresh water from the mountains meets the ocean at the river mouth.  if you know about ca newts, how they ball up together when more than one male at a time is trying to get the female to use him to fertilize her eggs.  there are actually three newts in this fossil, they are in the matting ball act as two males try and rub noses with one female to be chosen. one always mounts on top, the others grab on from different notice the second image it shows two images, one on the left, of 3 newts balled up in the mating ball act. the other image on the right,  from the same angle shows the third newt in this fossil as the underside of his neck and chin can be see. compare both images closely.  you have to open each image to compare. 

[Rockwood]

Sorry. This doesn't look like soft tissue preservation to me.  

[val horn]

Take it to a museum  if you are right it is an important  find  snd if not the expert will be able to see exactly what you are seeing and explain  what he sees.  I dont see zip but take it where it can be properly evalated.  I have done this a couple of times  sometimes gettin answers i wanted and sometimes my find wasnt what i wanted it to be  either way i learned more.

[palo69]

Rockwood, you mean that this doesnt look like soft tissue preservation? the first image, on top is a newt/salamander, and the image underneath it

doesnt look like the complete preservation of the image of the live newt above it. seems to be an identical replication of the actual newt, soft tissue, skin, leg foot even the slots where the eyes were are visible, then under UV light as in the second image it becomes even more visible as the back leg and foot are completely visible, compare the foot in the third image, the top shows a male newt mounted on top of a female, look at the foot then look at the image of the fossil below it. open the images and compare.  

[Coco]

Hi,

 

54 minutes ago, palo69 said:

An animal does not fossilize in volume. Where are the traces of skin (which are rarely found in paleontology), bones? It’s not a fossil.

You’re in the I.D part of this forum. If you don’t believe our answers, take it to a professional paleontologist and come back and tell us what it is. But 99% of the time people don’t come back and tell us the answers they’ve had...

 

In this photo the tail is almost as thick as the body, but this is not the case in reality. It’s not because it looks that’s what it looks like.

 

Coco

Edited May 27 by Coco

[Rockwood]

If the body had been preserved in true form, I would expect to see the texture of skin. I do not see such a texture.

[Al Dente]

Why are you showing us a photo of a lizard’s foot when discussing newts? Newts don’t have scales or claws.

 

 

[Fossildude19]

Things can look like other things all the time - it doesn't make them those things.

While the rock of yours may resemble a newt, it isn't one.

While you are pointing out what may appear to be a foot, it isn't one. 

There are no individual bones present.  And why would the foot be bones, but not the body of the "newt" ?

 

Things do not fossilize in this way.  I am unconvinced that this is a fossil newt, unfortunately. 

 

 

[Mahnmut]

Hi and welcome to the forum.

Despite the spicy newt references, I do agree this is no fossil newt, just a nice lookalike.

I wonder if it is still a fossil though, thinking bivalve. Especially the pic you posted next to the lizard foot looks somewhat like that.

Its often said people are 70% water, for humans thats only true on average. Newborns are above 90%, Somewhat dehydrated senior citizens may fall to 50.

Newts on the other hand are 90% water, so their chances to be preserved in 3d like that are similar to those of jellyfish.

They do fossilize, but not often and not like that.

Being buried in silica sand is not a good way to be preserved by the way. Silica- rich soils tend to be acidic, so even human remains vanish after few years, while its high pH (limestone)environmments where bones are well preserved. Bog bodies are sometimes preserved without bones in acidic environments, but you may know what they look like, nothing as perfectly lifelike as you imagine.

Still curious to hear what experts say after inspecting your find closeup.

Best regards,

J

[Rockwood]

Silica and sand are common elements in the petrification of wood. Unlike bones and flesh, acidic conditions tend to favor the preservation of plant material, however. 

[Sagebrush Steve]

1 hour ago, Mahnmut said:

 

Its often said people are 70% water, for humans thats only true on average. Newborns are above 90%, Somewhat dehydrated senior citizens may fall to 50.

And people wonder why we replace the missing 20% with alcohol…

[digit]

10 hours ago, palo69 said:

if your not one who studies the fossils of rapid burial, in silica sand, then i urge you to spend a few minutes on this subject before you type pareidolia, because, just as sure as i am sitting here breathing,

I work every day with fossils that have been rapidly buried in silica sand in what was an old river bed. Now can I type the word 'pareidolia'? I am happy that you are familiar with the concept of pareidolia since this is a perfect example of it. I can with 100% certainty state that your rock is not a fossil newt with the soft tissues preserved in 3D life form. What is making you believe you are correct and we are all not seeing what you are seeing is in fact pareidolia. New members who come here with one of Mother Nature's spectacular pseudofossils tend to refuse to accept the opinions to the contrary. This is often countered with many more photos of the same rock to try to convince us merely by volume. We can clearly see this is a nice example of a pseudofossil. We enjoy these pseudofossils and have devoted a topic to the many that we find (and keep) while searching for the real thing:

 

Your pseudofossil would be a welcome addition to this decade-long topic showcasing the many oddities we've found over the years.

 

You are, of course, welcome to take this rock to any local natural history museum and show it to a paleontologist (if you can find one). They will give the same opinion as you are getting here. Soft tissue simply does not preserve like this (unless it is entombed in amber). You have what appears to be either a worn concretion or a water worn cobble that has formed the rounded shape. There does appear to be a deposit of a silica-based mineral (the lighter material) but this rock is not in any way newt related. Sorry.

 

This is a science based forum and we enjoy identifying and discussing fossils. We have seen lots of different ways that fossils can be preserved and we understand what is possible (and what is not). You are very welcome to remain a member of this forum and learn about fossils by reading the archive of many conversations or by starting a new topic of conversation. However, most new members who don't get confirmation of their pseudofossil choose not to stay stating that we 'cannot think outside the box'. The choice is yours entirely.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Mahnmut]

Here I stand corrected, seems that the caustic properties of silica soil I learned about in forensics apply mainly to medium moisture, not to anoxic underwater conditions nor desert dry ones.

The argument holds, I think.

Best regards,

J

[palo69]

RE: ken, digit 

 i am not posting this reply to try and go against your professional opinion, the image is to show the reaction to uv light, as this question has not been addressed.  i have a question that i was hoping you could answer? see below thanks. . 

 Could you please explain to me why this piece seems to have such a high reaction to uv light, but only where the actual part of the piece that is presumed to be pareidolia. the reaction is very strong and suggests very high content of carbon present to cause such a reaction.  knowing that during the fossilization process as decomposition takes place the carbon is left behind, thats why fossils almost always react to uv light, its been years since i completed my major in geology and i did not really pursue the field, still, i cant seem to recall any minerals of this type being uv light reactive. unless it has biological origin.  just curious if you can shine some light on the reason for the reaction especially seeing it only occur where the pareidolia is present? also i agree with you 100% that taking this to a museum would get the same reply as yours. that it could not be a fossilized newt. so, could you suggest where it could be taken where it could be analyzed in a lab, and tested to prove that it is not a fossil?  there must be a way to physically test the piece. im willing to take it to any lab.  then if the lab confirms that it is not a fossil, you can use it as an excellent examples of pareidolia. thank you for your time and understanding 

 

 

[palo69]

 

rockwood,

re: Silica and sand are common elements in the petrification of wood. Unlike bones and flesh, acidic conditions tend to favor the preservation of plant material, however.

while i do agree with you, your explanation does not agree with silica sand that is found underwater, as the case would have been if this was a fossil of newts, as the newt would have been underwater when the sand happened to bury them, that type of silica sand is not acidic at all, as for the skin, well i see the skin clear as day in the images under uv light and the image of the piece posted in regular light just below the image of the solo salamander. so as to not cayr the discussion further, as i have your opinions, and its been recommended that i take this to a museum, i dont see any different   opinion being received from any paleontologists there, so i ask you this, where can i take this to have it lab tested? there must be some test to perform that would positively identify this as either a fossilized newt, or just a rock? yes no? please let me know so i can have it tested then return with the results from the recommended lab...

thank you much appreciated

cheers 

 

[Fossildude19]

 

@palo69

 

Why not see if you can get it x-rayed somewhere?

There aren't any tests I am aware of that a lab could perform that would prove this is what you believe it to be.

 

If this was a fossil, I would expect it to have recognizable bones that should react to X-rays. 

 

 

 

[Tidgy's Dad]

It is quite an interesting rock, though!

[palo69]

fossildude19, thanks thats a good idea. have it x-ray. where do they analyze fossils, as i always read these reports of finding dna inside fossil bone that had trace soft tissue inside, if this is actual trace blood, then there should be dna able to be extracted. plus the part that i see as bone above the part i see as a foot, when looking closely with my loop, and touching that part where the arrow suggest bone, when i hook it with my dental tool has a hook on the end, if i tug lightly, it actually gives just a fraction, while putting a bright light against it, its got a couple millimeters of translucence everywhere around that part,  except directly on  that part there, its  100% opaque. would Berkeley university, or scripps institute in san diego have the ability to test for dna or to x-ray the piece. if you think maybe, then what department should i contact there are so many different departments, i dont know who to contact at either location. please open the image and see the parts im pointing to. 

again, thanks for your assistance, this should be all the info i need so i wont further this discussion any more un less i get solid confirmation in writing from a reputible source

cheers 

[Randyw]

2 hours ago, palo69 said:

Could you please explain to me why this piece seems to have such a high reaction to uv light

 

2 hours ago, palo69 said:

cant seem to recall any minerals of this type being uv light reactive. unless it has biological origin. 

There are actually about 150 or so of non biological origin minerals that can flouresce under u.v. Light. Thats one of the first things I learned in high school geology….

sorry but I’m with the others this is a rock composed of a couple of different minerals some of wich flouresce. 

[Ludwigia]

I must honestly say that in my opinion, this discussion is becoming rather redundant. I would suggest to the OP that he take his find to the nearest paleontological expert for his opinion on all of the matters which he has brought up here, particularly since some of his claims are not quite right scientifically speaking. I don't think that there's much more that we can suggest to him as has already been done.

[Coco]

2 hours ago, palo69 said:

knowing that during the fossilization process as decomposition takes place the carbon is left behind, thats why fossils almost always react to uv light...

No, not all fossils react under UV light. Some minerals react strongly (especially radioactive minerals), others a little and others still not at all.

 

For example calcite often reacts to UV but not all ! A calcite fossil may have a highly visible UV reacton, but other fossils of the same mineral may not react.

 

I’m not sure that carbon always reacts to UV. And for example in calcite or quartz there is no carbon (noted in chemistry "C").

 

Coco

Edited May 27 by Coco

[Randyw]

2 hours ago, palo69 said:

and its been recommended that i take this to a museum, i dont see any different   opinion being received from any paleontologists there

@Ludwigia Unfortunatly the O.P. Has already stated he won’t believe a paleontologist. Thats why he wants it x-rayed or dna tested…  I agree this is going to have to be one of those where we and the O.P have to agree to disagree and move on 

Edited May 27 by Randyw

[Ludwigia]

5 minutes ago, Randyw said:

@Ludwigia Unfortunatly the O.P. Has already stated he won’t believe a paleontologist. Thats why he wants it x-rayed or dna tested…  I agree this is going to have to be one of those where we and the O.P have to agree to disagree and move on 

Oh. I didn't notice that amongst all of the new subjects he has raised each time someone tried to point something out to him. To each his own I suppose, but that's not a very scientific approach isn't it?