You want a fight? This better be coprolite....

[Rockwood]

I'm not sure if this will help, or confuse.

These are from Purse State Park in MD. Paleocene fossils.

[Kane]

Generally, but not in all cases, for something to be considered a fossil requires that there is mineral replacement of biologic tissue. There are several borderline cases (such as in sub-fossils: those that are less than, say, 50,000 years old). These borderline cases can also encompass those remains that are preserved in permafrost, such as mammoths, that will still have their original tissue. 

[ynot]

1 hour ago, InfoHungryMom said:

way the ridges have smoothed out on both sides, the color, etc.  mean it is considered fossilized,

Those are not indicators of something (even shell) being fossilized.

[abyssunder]

I could consider the specimen in question a bioeroded hard substrate, although an ancient boomerang will be good for fight, but I never heard one made of stone.

[Carl]

14 hours ago, Kane said:

Generally, but not in all cases, for something to be considered a fossil requires that there is mineral replacement of biologic tissue. There are several borderline cases (such as in sub-fossils: those that are less than, say, 50,000 years old). These borderline cases can also encompass those remains that are preserved in permafrost, such as mammoths, that will still have their original tissue. 

I definitely favor an age-based definition over a preservation-based one for fossils. The definition of fossils as "any non-living evidence of life from a previous geologic time period" covers everything most people consider fossils and excludes many that most wouldn't. Insects in amber, permafrost mummies, and un-remineralized mollusk shells from the Mesozoic are almost universally considered fossils and are protected under this definition yet their tissues are not replaced with minerals. Similarly, a mold of a Jurassic bivalve is a fossil but the biologic tissue is entirely gone and all that remains is a negative impression of its surface. And this all works well with the origin of the word "paleontology" itself: it is the "study of ancient living things."

[Kane]

23 minutes ago, Carl said:

I definitely favor an age-based definition over a preservation-based one for fossils. The definition of fossils as "any non-living evidence of life from a previous geologic time period" covers everything most people consider fossils and excludes many that most wouldn't. Insects in amber, permafrost mummies, and un-remineralized mollusk shells from the Mesozoic are almost universally considered fossils and are protected under this definition yet their tissues are not replaced with minerals. Similarly, a mold of a Jurassic bivalve is a fossil but the biologic tissue is entirely gone and all that remains is a negative impression of its surface. And this all works well with the origin of the word "paleontology" itself: it is the "study of ancient living things."

I do as well, if only because it can bypass the various exceptions to a composition-based definition of what constitutes a fossil. Where to make that clean break on the basis of age is, of course, liable to some debate, but you have to cut the cake somewhere!  And just so long as there is some degree of broad consensus, what we refer to can be fairly understood.

[GeschWhat]

Sorry, I'm not seeing coprolite either.   For info on coprolite identification, you might want to start here. 

 

[Darktooth]

20 hours ago, InfoHungryMom said:

TNC- I was just trying to make a point!  This shell is from Assateague, MD/Chincoteague, VA.  I am quite certain this shell is younger than me.  However, the way the ridges have smoothed out on both sides, the color, etc.  mean it is considered fossilized, but that is COMPLETELY different than the fossils found on this site!

 

i am a TOTAL NEWBIE here.... though I can probably tell you more about sea glass and “new” seashells from the mid-Atlantic than you can imagine!  I actually do educate families about what is on and around the beach-  why riptides are a huge issue because of sand-replenishment, why plastic is deadly especially to mammals, what is alive and what isn’t, that horseshoe crabs are wonderful and precious and save human lives and are completely harmless.... even about the “slipper shells” and “devils’ toenails” that live on the horseshoe crabs even if the crab is dead.

 

This is a new world for me and everyone has been wonderful!

 

 

Stick around and don't be a fly by night member and I assure you that youwill learn a lot on this forum. We have many knowledgable members who are more than willing to help those who seek information. 

[fifbrindacier]

I'm not seeing coprolite here either. As to the fossil definition, i agree with the one given by @Carl : the closest fossil place where i go offers marine fossil shells and mammals from the miocene, their tissues are not replaced by mineral but as there is no longer ocean there, they are considered as fossils.

[InfoHungryMom]

Thank you all!  Truth is my life is “bonkers busy” and “this is my happy thing”-  I can all but guarantee I won’t use scientific language despite understanding it- my family pretty much mastered most of the sciences...  but I look-up almost every term used, and I appreciate the details that makes terminology necessary.  

 

One thing that definitely has me smiling is that if I magnify a rock/mineral enough, I find SOMETHING.  Most notably the items from Israel are LOADED with “ancient stuff”.  I have SO MANY items that I don’t know what to post first!  

 

Thank you all for the lessons and for taking the time to REALLY look, and even then re-examine the items in my posts!