The ugliest find of the day

[MWeber]

I hesitate to ask about this one because it's so strange and ugly...surely just an odd rock? I found the two pieces in front of my house on the creek bank about a foot apart. The pieces don't fit together perfectly, but I saw no other pieces around that looked the same, so I grabbed them both. I found a lot of fossils today and photographed even more that were impossible to move, but none as odd looking as this one.

I'm sorry that I don't yet know how to give a good description of where I am, formation wise. Glen Rose has been suggested. I am just a few miles north of Dripping Springs TX, west of Austin.

 

I did attempt to search for similar things but, to be honest, I couldn't think of a term to use to describe it. 

 

Any suggestions?

 

 

[Darktooth]

I am not positive, but I think this is a geological formation and not a fossil. It is interesting though. I could be wrong. Hopefully others will chime in.

[Darktooth]

By the way could you show some of your other finds?

[MWeber]

Thanks, Darktooth. I thought that was probable too, but then I figured it couldn't hurt to ask those smarter than I.

I didn't find anything super amazing today, but I do have a few photos uploaded that I can share. I haven't edited most down to fit the size requirements here yet. I think the first is a tylostoma and the second is maybe a partial trilobite. Just guessing.

 

 

[Darktooth]

I think the 2nd pic is a shell imprint, not a trilobite.

[FossilDudeCO]

Yup I agree with Dark. shell imprint, but still a cool find!

[MWeber]

Ah, okay. I saw quite a lot of those.

Others from today:

[MWeber]

Here are a few of the others, Darktooth.

I don't know what the first is (about 5 inches across). The second is a shell of some sort (about an inch long), and I'm guessing the third is a rudist. It was overhead in the cliff face and about the size of a softball. (I'm sorry for my super technical descriptions...I can give proper info if anyone is interested).

 

I passed over bucket loads of various shaped shell imprints, things that looked like small size rudist groups, beautifully shaped clamshell casts(?), and all kinds of other things that I couldn't even guess at what they might be. I hope I'm not leaving the good stuff behind!

 

[erose]

Based on location and fossils you are most definitely in the Glen Rose Formation. Lower Cretaceous.  I also think the first object is geologic. But the GR has a bunch of layers packed with rudists and they   are weird enough as is and when they weather out take on some odd forms. Look them up: rudists.  And as mentioned, absolutely no trilobites in those Cretaceous rocks.

 

The gastropods all appear to be the genus Tylostoma. There are several species in the Glen Rose.  The ribbed "scallop-like" fossils are Chlamys. The round "ball" could be several things. How big is it?

 

The Glen Rose Formation can produce a variety of neat fossils depending on what layer you are in. I'm sure you are familiar with the repeating stair-step topography it forms. Both the softer and harder layers can be good, but others will be barren. Keep poking around.

[LordTrilobite]

11 hours ago, MWeber said:

I hesitate to ask about this one because it's so strange and ugly...surely just an odd rock? I found the two pieces in front of my house on the creek bank about a foot apart. The pieces don't fit together perfectly, but I saw no other pieces around that looked the same, so I grabbed them both. I found a lot of fossils today and photographed even more that were impossible to move, but none as odd looking as this one.

I'm sorry that I don't yet know how to give a good description of where I am, formation wise. Glen Rose has been suggested. I am just a few miles north of Dripping Springs TX, west of Austin.

 

I did attempt to search for similar things but, to be honest, I couldn't think of a term to use to describe it. 

 

Any suggestions?

 

 

 

That is indeed a really strange object.

There are some details that look very skull-like. Jaw-like shapes (with teeth?) on the left and other weird shapes in on the right.

At the same time there seems to be no detail one would expect from bone. The surface seems very geologic in nature. But there seems to be a hint here and there that there might be something just under the top surface. I'm not saying this is actually a fossil. It has some interesting details that definitely should be looked at in more detail.

Possibly try making more closeup photos. Maybe also some photos of the cross section where it broke.

 

It might be a good idea to take this to a museum to see if someone there could help with an idea. This is really something that should be looked at from up close. Definitely don't throw it away though.

[MWeber]

1 hour ago, erose said:

Based on location and fossils you are most definitely in the Glen Rose Formation. Lower Cretaceous.  I also think the first object is geologic. But the GR has a bunch of layers packed with rudists and they   are weird enough as is and when they weather out take on some odd forms. Look them up: rudists.  And as mentioned, absolutely no trilobites in those Cretaceous rocks.

 

The gastropods all appear to be the genus Tylostoma. There are several species in the Glen Rose.  The ribbed "scallop-like" fossils are Chlamys. The round "ball" could be several things. How big is it?

 

The Glen Rose Formation can produce a variety of neat fossils depending on what layer you are in. I'm sure you are familiar with the repeating stair-step topography it forms. Both the softer and harder layers can be good, but others will be barren. Keep poking around.

 

Ok, so when talking about fossils I find here at home, is it sufficient to say "Glen Rose Formation, Lower Cretaceous" as the location descriptor? Or, is that still too broad of a term? 

I must of missed the 'no trilobites' comment somewhere before. Good to know, I'll take it off my 'guess list'.

Hadn't heard of Chlamys yet, I'll go read about them. There are so many that I don't even pick them up except for the one pictured.

The "ball" thing is in the cliff wall on the creek bank and I didn't have a ruler with me when I photographed it. Softball size is the best I can do at the moment, but I'm happy to go back down there today to measure it. It's only about 100 yards from my doorstep and I'm sure I can find it again.

 

Yes, I'm familiar with the stair-step topography. The elevation here ranges from about 900ft to 1035 or so and there are several steps/shelves. I was hunting on one of the higher shelves yesterday and found the Tylostoma, Chlamys, and a lot of clam shell things that I'm told are called 'deer hearts' around here. 

 

Thanks for all the info, much appreciated!

 

 

41 minutes ago, LordTrilobite said:

 

That is indeed a really strange object.

There are some details that look very skull-like. Jaw-like shapes (with teeth?) on the left and other weird shapes in on the right.

At the same time there seems to be no detail one would expect from bone. The surface seems very geologic in nature. But there seems to be a hint here and there that there might be something just under the top surface. I'm not saying this is actually a fossil. It has some interesting details that definitely should be looked at in more detail.

Possibly try making more closeup photos. Maybe also some photos of the cross section where it broke.

 

It might be a good idea to take this to a museum to see if someone there could help with an idea. This is really something that should be looked at from up close. Definitely don't throw it away though.

 

I actually had plans to haul it back down to the creek today. I agree it has some interesting details, but I'm way too much of a newbie to know how to look this thing over. If you want to look at it further, I don't mind taking more photos. It is definitely weird.

 

I wonder about this one...is it worth looking at further?  I'm certain it's not a feather, yet it seems vaguely feather-like. I honestly do try and look these things up for myself, but googling 'feather-like fossil' really doesn't help much. I am sorely lacking in the proper terminology area.

[fifbrindacier]

I agree with @LordTrilobite, the concretions are in a lined way where it is a little hollow, due to something inside it or just to accident or erosion.

[EMP]

14 hours ago, MWeber said:

I hesitate to ask about this one because it's so strange and ugly...surely just an odd rock? I found the two pieces in front of my house on the creek bank about a foot apart. The pieces don't fit together perfectly, but I saw no other pieces around that looked the same, so I grabbed them both. I found a lot of fossils today and photographed even more that were impossible to move, but none as odd looking as this one.

I'm sorry that I don't yet know how to give a good description of where I am, formation wise. Glen Rose has been suggested. I am just a few miles north of Dripping Springs TX, west of Austin.

 

I did attempt to search for similar things but, to be honest, I couldn't think of a term to use to describe it. 

 

Any suggestions?

 

This has got to be the weirdest thing I've seen in a while. Definitely don't throw it out yet because as some others have said it could be possible there's something just underneath the surface covered by matrix. 

 

I remember there was a find here a while back that if I saw it I would have thrown it away as just a rock, but it ended up being an impression of a dinosaur so who knows. 

 

Here it is:

 

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/newborn_dinosaur_discovered_in_maryland

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44578161/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/spiky-newborn-dinosaur-found-dc-beltway/#.WNU-Xm_yvcs

 

 

 

[MWeber]

For those of you that wanted a closer look:

I don't think this is one piece broken in half because the two pieces don't seem to fit right. Perhaps there is a third piece that belongs between the two. Either way, the first image is a shot of the ends that may or may not fit together.

The second is a shot of the squared off portion on the opposite end. The whole thing is coated in creek silt as you can well see in the second image.

The third image is another shot of the large piece in image #1, in different lighting.

The fourth image is a closer look at the raised strip profiled in image #1.

The fifth image is another angle of the raised strip in image #4.

The sixth image is of a small black dot imbedded in the...rock? It is hard, shiny and has a very slight iridescence.

The seventh image is the whole thing once again.

 

Apologies for the image quality. I used 3 different cameras and took photos indoors and out, trying for the best light.

 

[MWeber]

10 hours ago, erose said:

The gastropods all appear to be the genus Tylostoma. There are several species in the Glen Rose.  The ribbed "scallop-like" fossils are Chlamys. The round "ball" could be several things. How big is it?

 

I was off quite a bit on my softball estimate. It measures about 3" across.

[Rockwood]

21 hours ago, MWeber said:

I hesitate to ask about this one because it's so strange and ugly...surely just an odd rock? I found the two pieces in front of my house on the creek bank about a foot apart. The pieces don't fit together perfectly, but I saw no other pieces around that looked the same, so I grabbed them both. I found a lot of fossils today and photographed even more that were impossible to move, but none as odd looking as this one.

I'm sorry that I don't yet know how to give a good description of where I am, formation wise. Glen Rose has been suggested. I am just a few miles north of Dripping Springs TX, west of Austin.

 

I did attempt to search for similar things but, to be honest, I couldn't think of a term to use to describe it. 

 

Any suggestions?

 

 

That's a pterosaur. They are essentially endocasts of the skeleton.

[Ramo]

In the Greenhorn limestone we somewhat commonly find sections of trees with borings in them encased in limestone.  They are identifiable by the round in-filled borings, darker color, and crystalline structure.  That is what your "big-ugly" looks like to me.

[MWeber]

3 hours ago, Rockwood said:

That's a pterosaur. They are essentially endocasts of the skeleton.

 

You're kidding, right? I don't see it.

[MWeber]

51 minutes ago, Ramo said:

In the Greenhorn limestone we somewhat commonly find sections of trees with borings in them encased in limestone.  They are identifiable by the round in-filled borings, darker color, and crystalline structure.  That is what your "big-ugly" looks like to me.

I've thought some sort of tree or bush or root system was possible. In truth, I see something different every time I look at it. More than likely, it's simply a really odd blob of mud. 

[Rockwood]

7 hours ago, MWeber said:

 

You're kidding, right? I don't see it.

No. It would be an ugly preservation, but the smaller block is suggestive of crevical vertebra in a neck.

[MWeber]

5 hours ago, Rockwood said:

No. It would be an ugly preservation, but the smaller block is suggestive of crevical vertebra in a neck.

Interesting.

Assuming you are correct, or assuming others are correct in that there is possibly something under the surface (matrix?), would I want to attempt to break it open or dissolve it or ...something?

[Rockwood]

10 minutes ago, MWeber said:

Interesting.

Assuming you are correct, or assuming others are correct in that there is possibly something under the surface (matrix?), would I want to attempt to break it open or dissolve it or ...something?

Don't take me too seriously. I have no credentials to uphold. 

It just strikes me as being the ghost of something.

[LordTrilobite]

I would suggest taking it to a local museum and ask there before doing anything else. It looks like it could be something. But it's very hard to tell. Maybe it's a really cool fossil skull, maybe it's just a very interesting rock with weird shapes. So I think more information is needed. It certainly is a good mystery.

[JohnJ]

It is no pterosaur, or jaw of anything.  Those familiar with the Glen Rose Formation commonly see geologic boxwork-like rocks in separation layers between harder limestone and softer marls.  There are many septarian type rocks that also form in that formation.  Add to it the rudists, fossil burrows, borings and you can get a whole other level of "weird". 

 

@erose  @Uncle Siphuncle