Help ID please

[3RZUL13]

Far West edge of San Antonio;

NOTE: this piece is not complete; there are still missing sections of it

this piece was loose (not embedded in stone) and was found together but already broken in two—those two sections have been glued back together and comprise the piece I’m holding in these photos but otherwise have not been modified apart from a light brushing and rinsing

[Fossildude19]

Looks like limestone, to me.
Not seeing any bone textures. 

 

[ClearLake]

Agree, not seeing anything but limestone here.  I'm not even seeing a shape that makes me imagine something organic.  Help me @3RZUL13, what do you think we are looking at?

[3RZUL13]

@ClearLake thank you very much for phrasing it that way— and to be honest with you I’m not certain but I believe they’re pieces of teeth…if I may ask your opinion, generally speaking, do you think that a hypothetical fossil of any kind which has been silicified or calcified, specifically from an area with primarily limestone and or shale type deposits—-what do you think would be the best way to clean up something like that to be able to show the most details and to get to the fossil itself without totally destroying it further? Would it be best to start with just water and then heavily diluted acid maybe on a brush but not submerging it fully? Or would possibly using like a soda blaster before taking any chemicals to it be better, in your opinion?… hypothetically speaking as a general question—as far as the specimen goes, I think I’m still going to need to work on pinning down a solid method of photographing and with some better hardware…I did what I could with what I have and attempted to get some more telling photos—here are 2–hopefully improved slightly—, but am still not really satisfied with what  I’m picking up vs what I’d like to be able to show towards the features which have me thinking that its from something previously living. 
 

in the one showing the smooth, presumably anterior face, along the edges there seems to be very faint but noticeable ridges which run lengthwise across the smooth portion. That would be my best shot at showing through photos why I think it’s something biological. Less noticeable ones would be the cellular (forgive me for the term, I know you guys aren’t feeling that it’s anything cellular, and I respect that, I just don’t have another word for what I’m referring to), arrangement which to me resembles a stalk, or a root, or a bone with its circular arrangement, which you may or may not be able to pick out on the rough ‘cross section’ side—I’ve got better pics which focus on that aspect but will need to turn them into jpg and get them added when I’m not working. 
 

again thank you for the feedback 

[Kane]

I see no teeth in this rock. I would think any effort to clean up the rock further will be fruitless. 

[Fin Lover]

Sorry, I'm not seeing anything fossil related either, so I also think further cleaning is unnecessary.

[ClearLake]

1 hour ago, 3RZUL13 said:

f I may ask your opinion, generally speaking, do you think that a hypothetical fossil of any kind which has been silicified or calcified, specifically from an area with primarily limestone and or shale type deposits—-what do you think would be the best way to clean up something like that to be able to show the most details and to get to the fossil itself without totally destroying it further? Would it be best to start with just water and then heavily diluted acid maybe on a brush but not submerging it fully? Or would possibly using like a soda blaster before taking any chemicals to it be better, in your opinion?… hypothetically speaking as a general question—as far as the specimen goes

In general, and certainly as a first pass, fossils in limestone handle a good scrubbing with water fairly well (assuming they are not some sort of fragile fossil).  Actual silicified fossils (composed of quartz based minerals)  can be etched out of limestone with acid, but this is a pretty particular set of circumstances.  If the fossil is still composed of some calcite mineral, as most of the ones in the Cretaceous of central Texas are, then any acid treatment will usually do just as much damage to the fossil as to the rock.  

 

One suggestion, if I may.  From several of your posts, it is obvious you are looking at rocks and seeing or trying to see shapes OF the rocks that remind you of something.  That is not generally how fossils are found, they are IN the rocks.  This is not some great universal fossil truth or anything, but particularly in your area, which does have a lot of fossils, the fossils are animal remains (shells and other hard parts) contained within the limestone rocks.  They will be distinguishable from the rock by color, texture, shape, etc, sometimes subtly, but usually apparent.  In the case of much of the Cretaceous limestones in your area, they are very susceptible to weathering from the mild acids in the rain and groundwater which gradually dissolve the rock into many very crazy and imaginative shapes.  I hope that makes sense.

 

As an example, here is a picture of a fossil within the rock (from:https://jurassicjames.com/hill-country-and-north-texas/) vs. a interestingly shaped rock that has a resemblance to an animal head (but is not).  

  

[3RZUL13]

Thanks for that information, I appreciate you taking the time. I’m going to try to find someone local perhaps who’ll agree to letting me send them some samples or ideally just peep some for a few minutes. While I can understand why the difference of opinion, I’m afraid that no amount of comparison with photos of the various funny looking shapes of limestone is going to sway me on this one. I’ve seen more limestone than I could ever attempt to quantify and have been in between and all up and down cliff faces and caves which had limestone faces and layers made of almost entirely embedded fossils just like the one in the first photo you shared. The photos I have posted aren’t supposed to be showing fossils within limestone. These pieces ARE the fossils. There is no matrix. That’s what’s so strange about this whole thing is that it’s not limestone—in fact it doesn’t seem to be sedimentary in this spot at all. These rocks are very very dense and just aren’t limestone despite looking somewhat like it.   That being said, there is a huge amount of rock which I can’t just pick out of the ground and haven’t attempted to separate pieces from which is fused altogether onto a very large very smooth sheet of stone which I’ve yet to locate all of the edges of. The “pile of rocks” which I posted a photo of a while back, is indeed a pile of rocks, but the majority of the rocks still sitting in the pile can’t be moved because they are fused together with one another. Very much like an osteoderm in nature and appearance. It’s definitely probable that limestone could very well be what’s holding those ones together but I’ve yet to attempt to carve any of it up—-and don’t really plan to…at this point I’m thinking that whatever it is, it’s going to serve me best by remaining as is and would make a convenient and sturdy natural shelf in the swimming pond it’s meant to be anyway.   Again though thank you for the feedback and the information I truly appreciate you taking the time to share your insight and I do take every bit of it into consideration.   <3

 

 

@ClearLake thank you very much for phrasing it that way— and to be honest with you I’m not certain but I believe they’re pieces of teeth…if I may ask your opinion, generally speaking, do you think that a hypothetical fossil of any kind which has been silicified or calcified, specifically from an area with primarily limestone and or shale type deposits—-what do you think would be the best way to clean up something like that to be able to show the most details and to get to the fossil itself without totally destroying it further? Would it be best to start with just water and then heavily diluted acid maybe on a brush but not submerging it fully? Or would possibly using like a soda blaster before taking any chemicals to it be better, in your opinion?… hypothetically speaking as a general question—as far as the specimen goes, I think I’m still going to need to work on pinning down a solid method of photographing and with some better hardware…I did what I could with what I have and attempted to get some more telling photos—here are 2–hopefully improved slightly—, but am still not really satisfied with what  I’m picking up vs what I’d like to be able to show towards the features which have me thinking that its from something previously living. 
 

in the one showing the smooth, presumably anterior face, along the edges there seems to be very faint but noticeable ridges which run lengthwise across the smooth portion. That would be my best shot at showing through photos why I think it’s something biological. Less noticeable ones would be the cellular (forgive me for the term, I know you guys aren’t feeling that it’s anything cellular, and I respect that, I just don’t have another word for what I’m referring to), arrangement which to me resembles a stalk, or a root, or a bone with its circular arrangement, which you may or may not be able to pick out on the rough ‘cross section’ side—I’ve got better pics which focus on that aspect but will need to turn them into jpg and get them added when I’m not working. 
 

again thank you for the feedback 

[Ludwigia]

No one is trying to sway you here, but rather just giving their opinion, and mine is also that these are just some kind of stone and not teeth or any kind of fossil. Yes, please do show them in person to a local expert at your nearest natural history museum or university geology department for their learned opinion. That would be the best solution for you under these circumstances in my opinion.

[Coco]

Hi,

 

I agree with the previous interventions. There are no fossils here, just rock that can make you think of fossils.

 

Just because a stone "looks like a fossil of..." does not mean it is a fossil! In your title you ask us for our help, which we do very willingly on this forum with scientific vocation and we don’t tell nonsense.

 

The people who answered before me have a great knowledge of geology and paleontology, two sciences necessary to understand fossils. We do not improvise paleontologist, it is a discipline that requires much learning, research in literature and on the ground, visiting museums etc...

 

This forum has an incalculable number of professional paleontologists as well as highly educated amateur paleontologists, often having 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years of experience! Personally I have been doing paleontology for at least 40 years.

 

We tried to answer you, but we have to accept that we don’t agree...

 

Coco

Edited November 7 by Coco

[doushantuo]

I took a unbiased view at your pieces and arrive at the preliminary conclusion ( pending the reception of further, slighthly more exhaustive, corroborative and more convincing data ) that there does not seem to be any fossil material in what you've shown the forum.

The only (vertebrate) fossils I can immediately think of that are not prima facie recognizable as such are Karoo therapsids, confined to very particular stratigraphic intervals,

with grain by grain textural replacement of bone.

 

Paleontology is a science, and as such is based on the amassing of convincing data, amenable to manipulation and  rigorous interpretation.

 

 

 

Edited November 7 by doushantuo

[Advantage]

In my non erudite view, you have glued some rocks together.

[jpc]

Hi RZUL...

I speak as a museum person who has seen and worked on tons of fossils of all kinds of all sorts of animals of all sizes.  I have to agree with the others that there are no fossils seen here.  There are no teeth known in the world of fossils that have teeth anything nearly the size of this piece.

 

If you do bring it to a museum, bring it to a museum that has a paleontologist on staff that is willing to look at it.  Not sure where the closest one is from San Antone.  And let them tell you what yo have, rather than telling them what you've found.  Be willing to accept that they may tell you something you don't want to hear.