Help me id three different possible dino eggs...

[dert72544]

These were all found in the old mountains of North Arkansas in the US. 

One is small but has what appears to be an embryonic skull with partial skin and bone exposed.

The other two are both partially crushed with shell fragments and one has what appears to be nest material also attached. 

They are all from completely different animals, but found in the same general area.

[Fin Lover]

I'm sorry, but I don't see any evidence that these are eggs. They look like concretions to me.

 

This might help:

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2024 by Fin Lover
Added link

[dert72544]

5 minutes ago, Fin Lover said:

I'm sorry, but I don't see any evidence that these are eggs. They look like concretions to me.

 

This might help:

 

 

 

I do appreciate your reply, however holding this thing in my hand there is no doubt that it is either a crushed egg or a really really hard donut that somebody smashed on accident! There are fragmented eggshell pieces all around this fossil it is avoid but flattened where the mud bank or whatever began the fossilization process on this item started. Pictures just do not do it justice it does not pick up the nuances of the textures of the shell surface itself and using some of the minute detail examinations there are pores that line up between fragments as well as a uniform crush that just cannot be explained by any natural or mechanical means. I wish you could hold this in your hand. 

I would love to take multiple pictures and show them but my camera is not that great and it's just not doing it any justice.

[Sagebrush Steve]

Not eggs, concretions.  Check this out to learn how to ID eggs:

 

 

 

[dert72544]

I do understand everyone's reticence to validate these finds. However, please explain exactly how a concretion occurs that has definitive shell fragments and is by all examination identical to what happens when a modern egg is partially crushed? Unless this was molten and had a hardened crust, it could not have just been so perfectly reproduced - even in the wild world of nature. Is there a way to upload a video? I am stymied by the inability to show the nuances I can plainly see.

[Mahnmut]

Hi and welcome to the forum.

Video will not help as much as sharp, in focus pics.

If you want forum members to comment on pores or similar detail, microscopic or at least magnified high resolution pics would be necessary.

I am sorry to say I agree these are not eggs.

I think I see what you mean when you talk about an embryo in your third pic. Its a nice resemblance with a smiling face, but none of the details fit actual anatomy. Like elvis on toast, its a nice thing to see, but not the King himself.

As to your question how that resemblance to crushed egshell can occur:

many concretions are built up in layers, and sometimes the outer layers are more brittle that the inner ones. They do not have to be molten inside for that to happen.

So I´d say the wild world of nature has multiple ways of faking its own wonders, andd many of us have found things that turned out to be something else after closer inspection.

I hope this answer helps, even if its not what you hoped for.

best regards,

J

[patelinho7]

Concretions form in layers, like an onion. Sometimes the outer layers of a concretion crumble off in thin layers just like the outer skin of an onion. These pieces, especially if they have inclusions or other geologic features on their surface, look a lot like eggshell. However, if you know what concretions look like and how they form, you can tell that they don’t have the characteristics of actual eggshell (take a look at the thread @Fin Lover posted), and the inner contents of the item do not match the characteristics of eggs either.

 

edit: sorry @Mahnmut I did not see you post right before me, mine is redundant  but I’m sure OP gets the idea now

Edited July 6, 2024 by patelinho7

[Mahnmut]

Nothing to be sorry about

[dert72544]

To all, thank you for the explanations. Of course, I will have these examined by a paleontologist as soon as I can. The crushed aspect is what has me adamant. I've been wrong before and I can promise I will be wrong many more times in my life, but I hope against hope that this time, stubbornness will prevail! 

 

[Mahnmut]

I wish you luck and hope you will let us know the result either way!

I would love to be wrong here.

Best regards,

J

[dert72544]

7 minutes ago, Mahnmut said:

Hi and welcome to the forum.

Video will not help as much as sharp, in focus pics.

If you want forum members to comment on pores or similar detail, microscopic or at least magnified high resolution pics would be necessary.

I am sorry to say I agree these are not eggs.

I think I see what you mean when you talk about an embryo in your third pic. Its a nice resemblance with a smiling face, but none of the details fit actual anatomy. Like elvis on toast, its a nice thing to see, but not the King himself.

As to your question how that resemblance to crushed egshell can occur:

many concretions are built up in layers, and sometimes the outer layers are more brittle that the inner ones. They do not have to be molten inside for that to happen.

So I´d say the wild world of nature has multiple ways of faking its own wonders, andd many of us have found things that turned out to be something else after closer inspection.

I hope this answer helps, even if its not what you hoped for.

best regards,

J

Lol I did not see a smiley face! I was thinking more like half skin half bone of the top of a maybe head.

[Mahnmut]

So maybe what I saw was not what you meant at all.

Human brains are great at face recognition, even where there are no faces.

Good night, its late here.

J

[Fin Lover]

Also, here is some information on the history and the rarity of dinosaur fossils in Arkansas:

 

https://onlyinark.com/homegrown/dinosaurs-in-arkansas/

 

[Mark Kmiecik]

Consider the thickness of the proposed shell on these specimens. If the hatchling would need a jackhammer or explosives to break out, then it's not an egg.

[dert72544]

10 hours ago, Mark Kmiecik said:

Consider the thickness of the proposed shell on these specimens. If the hatchling would need a jackhammer or explosives to break out, then it's not an egg.

No, it appears about what I would expect in thickness. One of them I am as close to certain as I can be with my non-professional experience level about what it is. 

[Coco]

Hi,

 

I agree with the others, it is a concretion.

 

3 hours ago, dert72544 said:

I am as close to certain as I can be with my non-professional experience level about what it is. 

You said it all ! We are a scientific forum with many professional experts, and other non-professionals but very enlightened amateurs with 30, 40 or even 50 years of experience !

 

Coco

 

 

Edited July 8, 2024 by Coco

[Ludwigia]

I've just checked out a geologic map of Arkansas and see that the geology of northern Arkansas is pretty complicated. A few small areas on the eastern edge of the Ozarks are Cretaceous, which would allow for the possibility of dinosaur remains, but otherwise the rest of the areas are much older, which would basically rule them out, since dinosaurs did not yet exist in the paleozoic. As Fin Lover has pointed out with help of the link, dinosaur remains in Arkansas are extremely rare, the only few discoveries having been made in the south of the Ouachita mountain region. You yourself must know exactly where you found these objects, so you could check out the local geology in order to either confirm or negate your suspicion.

[JBkansas]

In order to confirm dino egg, you need to look for the shell which should be ~1 mm in thickness and have a repeating pattern on its surface on close examination: