Can we make an ID from an eye? (and a little more) Mazon creek

[TheRocksWillShoutHisGlory]

I found this already open (both faces exposed) and covered with dirt and lichen in the essex fauna of pit 11. After some some cleaning I think there are some things to see. Unfortunately it looks like there is some weathering, especially on the positive side, but I am hoping we can still ID this.

[TheRocksWillShoutHisGlory]

Positive side

[TheRocksWillShoutHisGlory]

Side Comparison

[Raggedy Man]

I'm sorry, but I can't see enough detail to even make an educated guess. I do see the Greek letter omega...lol.

Best regards,

Paul

[TheRocksWillShoutHisGlory]

Ya know, an amphibian head has roughly the same shape as an omega.

[Auspex]

What is there, if anything just didn't preserve well.

It happens a lot...

[Raggedy Man]

What is there, if anything just didn't preserve well.

It happens a lot...

Auspex is completely correct. I've popped what seems like thousands of these concretions. Sometimes there's a fossil and other times it's completely empty with just a smuge. Those dots could just be mineral staining.

Best regards,

Paul

[RCFossils]

I would agree that it is just mineral staining.
It also appears to me that the Concretion is not the type that typically preserves fossils.
There are a lot of large odd shaped concretions laying around the Mazonia Braidwood Wildlife Area. Unfortunately, I have never seen one that contains a fossil. They typically have a coarser graining and irregular shape.

[TheRocksWillShoutHisGlory]

I am aware of blank nods. I'm new to the forum, not collecting. A discolored circular splotch along an indented parabolic arch, I find suspicious, especially when there is a lighter similar area in a roughly symetrical place along the other side of the arch. I also understand the skepticism, lots of proof needed and the larger the claim the more proof to accept it, and when it's a 1 in 500,000 find you need to be very sure before acknowledging it.

I however am in a position where I don't even want to touch the rock and am nervous to try to clean it any further, until I am disproved for certain. I don't play the lottery but you hang on to your ticket until you know it doesn't match right? So, I just ask that you know that's where any stubbornness may come from. It's not that I don't respect your view points, I just want to be very sure before dismissing anything here, before further cleaning or eventually disregarding.

[TheRocksWillShoutHisGlory]

labeled negative, sorry some of the lines are faint.

[Auspex]

You are proposing Amphibamus, I believe, and the features you point out are suggestive. Compare:

The coarse-grained composition of the matrix makes it a really tough call, and it has been mentioned that such concretions are usually unfossiliferous. It would be an extraordinary occurrence, but would require extraordinary evidence to prove. It may take in-hand scrutiny by an experienced specialist.

[TheRocksWillShoutHisGlory]

Thanks for the next step suggestion, genuine interpretation, and honest observation. That's really what I'm looking for out of this. It's a nice forum.

And yes, if I was forced to suggest a species I'd say Amphibamus from what I see as a squamosal embayment.

[TheRocksWillShoutHisGlory]

Sorry I've been sitting on this news for some time, life gets in the way sometimes, but I contacted a few people at the Field Museum who tentatively agree on a tetrapod identification.  I need to find a time to get over there and let them take an in person look.  Does anyone have experience with that?