Is this a fish?

[lasercats]

Hey everyone! This is my first post.

I found this in Connecticut. On the "front" the rock seems to resemble a defined imprint of a fish. On the "back" it seems as if there is also an imprint, except not as defined, the "fin" on the back imprint is on the other hand.

Now this might not be a fish, I am just assuming it is. I guess you could call me a beginner, I've collected fossils since a young age (I am still I kid), but I've only acquired basic etiquette, on collecting and identifying fossils.

If this piece turns out to be a fish (or multiple), then I would really appreciate it if someone could provide me with some more information about it.

Thanks! 

[Fossildude19]

Welcome to the Forum.  

 

Sorry to disappoint you, but it isn't a fish. 

Fish fossils in Connecticut are found in the black and gray shales of the Hartford Basin. 

They are typically black in color, and pretty distinct. 

 

                      

 

Your stone is red sandstone, and just showing some erosion or wear marks. 

 

Regards,

[lasercats]

1 minute ago, Fossildude19 said:

Welcome to the Forum.  

 

Sorry to disappoint you, but it isn't a fish. 

Fish fossils in Connecticut are found in the black and gray shales of the Hartford Basin. 

They are typically black in color, and pretty distinct. 

 

                      

 

Your stone is red sandstone, and just showing some erosion or wear marks. 

 

Regards,

 

Thanks!

 

Okay bummer, thanks for the info! 

[lasercats]

33 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

Welcome to the Forum.  

 

Sorry to disappoint you, but it isn't a fish. 

Fish fossils in Connecticut are found in the black and gray shales of the Hartford Basin. 

They are typically black in color, and pretty distinct. 

 

                      

 

Your stone is red sandstone, and just showing some erosion or wear marks. 

 

Regards,

Also, this might not help my case, but I just realized that it was in a pile of most likely dumped rocks. There is a chance they weren't from Connecticut, but I honestly have no idea. Lastly, I was wondering if fish imprints show up as regularly as fish fossils?

[DNF]

It has a plow scar on it, which is evidence of agriculture.

It may not be a fossil, but it's not just any old rock . If I had found this on an archaeological site it would have told me a lot about how the land had been used.

 

Welcome to the forum. Keep looking down, there are tons of fossils (and artifacts) waiting to be found 

[lasercats]

3 minutes ago, DNF said:

It has a plow scar on it, which is evidence of agriculture.

It may not be a fossil, but it's not just any old rock . If I had found this on an archaeological site it would have told me a lot about how the land had been used.

 

Welcome to the forum. Keep looking down, there are tons of fossils (and artifacts) waiting to be found 

Cool! I didn't notice that thanks!

[Fossildude19]

9 hours ago, lasercats said:

Also, this might not help my case, but I just realized that it was in a pile of most likely dumped rocks. There is a chance they weren't from Connecticut, but I honestly have no idea. Lastly, I was wondering if fish imprints show up as regularly as fish fossils?

 

Fish fossils do show up as imprints, from time to time. The ones I have found are usually left from weathering, or they are the counterpart to other fossils. 

 

 

Again,... usually more detail, even in imprints.  

Regards, 

 

 

[lasercats]

Okay! Thanks Tim