Is my fossil fabricated?

[Ziregenesis]

So, I recently got, as a gift, a trilobite, but, upon researching further, I am not sure if it is legitimate. I read a guide on how to identify fake fossils (that didn't look SEO-spammy), and I'm still not totally confident, and, if not, if it's based on a cast of a real trilobite or what.

On the one hand, one of the thin legs in the air broke very easily and it was thin. More damningly, it misspelled the name (as Ceretarges). I believe it's the same thing being sold here [seller site removed] it lets you zoom in on an image and I'd assume if one thing being sold there is fake many of them are) I could see both of those being reasonable errors; if it really is from Morocco, it could be a Google Translate failure. (Specifically, Arabic doesn't write out vowels, so it's possible they wrote it correctly in Arabic, translated it to English, and the translation service inferred a different vowel; I ran it through Google Translate and it produced the even more egregious Sertargis).

Am I being too trusting, or too skeptical, or what?

(I'm sorry if this is posted in the wrong area.)

 

[Cicija]

Post pictures of your trilobite.

[Kane]

As per forum rules, please do not post anything such as links that would identify sellers.

 

The proper spelling would be Ceratarges

[Ziregenesis]

6 minutes ago, Kane said:

As per forum rules, please do not post anything such as links that would identify sellers.

 

The proper spelling would be Ceratarges

I'm aware of the proper spelling; I was showing how they misspelled it. And I'm sorry for posting the link, I did not know that rule. As for pictures (sorry for the poor quality), they're attached.

[Ludwigia]

Your photos are too blurry to be able to make out any diagnostic details. 

[Ziregenesis]

12 minutes ago, Ludwigia said:

Your photos are too blurry to be able to make out any diagnostic details. 

I'm aware; sorry, is this picture better? It's cropped more and in somewhat better lighting. (By the way, the one stumpy leg is my fault; it came with a proper leg)

Edited November 13 by Ziregenesis
I can't get it to scale right, it looks better at smaller resolutions. Let's see how this goes; one of the photos is smaller, one is larger.

[Isotelus2883]

The right genal and the bases of the occipital spines look suspicious but it otherwise appears to be a decent specimen.

[Ludwigia]

It certainly does have the general shape of a Ceratarges, however, it's still difficult to tell if the appendages are real or rebuilt.

[Kohler Palaeontology]

Can they be found like that with real appendages just like in those photos? I always thought they were added.

[Ludwigia]

3 hours ago, Kohler Palaeontology said:

Can they be found like that with real appendages just like in those photos? I always thought they were added.

Yes they can, but they often have to be dug out of extremely hard matrix by very expert preparators and even when they are preserved, they sometimes need to be glued back together or enhanced. Here's an example of a successful prep.

[Kohler Palaeontology]

1 hour ago, Ludwigia said:

Yes they can, but they often have to be dug out of extremely hard matrix by very expert preparators and even when they are preserved, they sometimes need to be glued back together or enhanced. Here's an example of a successful prep.

Wow!! I guess you learn something new every day!! I always thought all protrusions like that on trilobites were fake. Thanks for sharing the successful prep, it was very interesting!

 

[Sjfriend]

There are lots of trilobite species with longer spines. As in the prep video it takes a lot of work to get them out of the matrix. And most times they have to be repaired. Just way easier than trying to prep them whole.

[Kohler Palaeontology]

I knew that some trilobites had those spines, but thought they couldn't fossilize and were therefore added. I thought that only imprints of these were preserved.

 

I could imagine it'd be a nightmare to prep them out. I've only really prepped solid limestone, and that's a pain as it is.

Edited November 20 by Kohler Palaeontology

[Ludwigia]

2 hours ago, Kohler Palaeontology said:

I knew that some trilobites had those spines, but thought they couldn't fossilize and were therefore added. I thought that only imprints of these were preserved.

 

I could imagine it'd be a nightmare to prep them out. I've only really prepped solid limestone, and that's a pain as it is.

 

I'm sure it would interest you to peruse this topic in our preparation section on the subject.

[hadrosauridae]

On 11/19/2024 at 2:29 AM, Ludwigia said:

Yes they can, but they often have to be dug out of extremely hard matrix by very expert preparators and even when they are preserved, they sometimes need to be glued back together or enhanced. Here's an example of a successful prep.

 

They have to be repaired in likely 99% of specimens.  The only way to get them complete is break the rocks to find the cross section.  Then you know where to prep to and can glue to break back together.  To wait for nature to expose a trilo like this would be guaranteeing that some or many of the spines would be lost.