Kimberella fossils?

[Lucky1]

On 2/28/2022 at 4:48 PM, Top Trilo said:

Welcome from Colorado.

 

I have no idea what Kimberella fossils look like, and know very little about Pre-Cambrian fossils so I can't be positive but I'm not so sure your finds are fossils. Fossils or not, Nevada has some cool geology and I welcome you to the forum.

I dont know if the ones in the photo is kimberella. The imprints and such that I am finding look exactly like kimberella. I need to find more clear examples for photographing but I for sure will be able to provide them eventually if not very soon. They could be other mollusks. Also I am not exactly where I said I am. If I am finding what I think I am finding I would imagine I would have many trespassers. I want my finds in the scientific community when they are ready.  Here is an edited photo. Im not great at it but it helps see more of the markings on the side and back "flaps", as well as the shell or chitin like covering on its body. Kind of like a turtle. I am 100 percent certain it is a creature. The ID is to be determined. 

Thank you every one for the welcomes! I will work hard today on my photography skills in hopes to show you all what I see. 

 

Original introduction post.

 

[Fossildude19]

Not seeing any fossils in the photos presented, thus far. 

[Lucky1]

42 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

Not seeing any fossils in the photos presented, thus far. 

How about now?

Its the best I have so far.

[Fossildude19]

Unfortunately, no. 

I see conglomerate, quartz, and some metamorphic rocks.

[Lucky1]

7 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

Unfortunately, no. 

I see conglomerate, quartz, and some metamorphic rocks.

I am certain they are not. I know with further due diligence on my part I will be able to convince you as well. Might not be with my current finds, but soon!

Here is a closer image zoomed in from the "glob" Its a large ball of worm like footballs, most likely kimberella.  Some of the white rounds of quartz are either showing the mouth or they are dicksonia. I am working on trying to get some light tricks on it to show the edges better. 

[Fossildude19]

Not seeing it.

It is vaguely Kimberella shaped.

But I am not seeing any convincing details.

 

 

Your item as compared to actual Kimberella fossils.

 

[fossilhunter21]

Unfortunately I do not see any fossils either. 

[Lucky1]

On 3/1/2022 at 7:04 PM, Fossildude19 said:

Not seeing it.

It is vaguely Kimberella shaped.

But I am not seeing any convincing details.

 

 

Your item as compared to actual Kimberella fossils.

 

 

I am getting closer! 

If you notice the picture I am now posting and compare it with the first photo of the quartz "snail" It has the same heart shape and clover club head. This is is appearing to be present in most of the finds I see so far, as well as the three finger chicken hand/ sting ray shaped top.  When following the zig zag quartz trail it shows  that it is in fact the front. 

I m still not sure of its purpose. It also has a constant quartz triangle in the center as well as a ring around it. I cant tell if its an anchor point to secure it to the ground, if its a mouth, or if it is what its eating such as a stomatolite colony. 

I will have my answers in the months to come. I am ordering a sand blaster and a air pen as well. I know I am convinced but that's not enough. If I can't get enough to show mostly every one it wont count!  Hopefully this helps, even vaguely, to see the kimberella that I see. 

Please everyone excuse my lack of terminology as I am just learning. I will polish my vocabulary as I do my findings. 

  

[Fossildude19]

Nope. Still not seeing it.  Sorry.

 

In the area you are not disclosing, (but is "mapped as Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian") - have any other ediacarian fossils been found?

It is a very special set of circumstances that are required to produce soft bodied fossils/exceptional preservation.

These rocks do not look like the types of rocks I would associate with lagerstatte preservation. 

 

I know you have convinced yourself, but you would do better to check with a museum or local university in your area to check with a paleontologist to see what has been found in your area previously.

No one here is seeing what you are seeing.

 

I personally can make out some sort of pirate or figure.

 

 

But, that is just my pareidolia at play. 

 

 

[Lucky1]

1 hour ago, Fossildude19 said:

Nope. Still not seeing it.  Sorry.

 

In the area you are not disclosing, (but is "mapped as Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian") - have any other ediacarian fossils been found?

It is a very special set of circumstances that are required to produce soft bodied fossils/exceptional preservation.

These rocks do not look like the types of rocks I would associate with lagerstatte preservation. 

 

I know you have convinced yourself, but you would do better to check with a museum or local university in your area to check with a paleontologist to see what has been found in your area previously.

No one here is seeing what you are seeing.

 

I personally can make out some sort of pirate or figure.

 

 

But, that is just my pareidolia at play. 

 

 

Its totally fine and I completely understand. I ordered my jack hammer pen and the sand blaster. I will make it clear one way or the other. 

If they are indeed what I think they are I am very much so aware of how special the find is and how extremely lucky the circumstances of this preservation is. 

Also yes other fossils from this time period have been found north and west of me in different states. 

I have contacted some one close to my area who is a professor of this paleo period and will for sure let every one know what they say as well. Until then I will work on finding the clearer example as well a flash light that wont make my camera flicker so much! 

Thanks for your insight, patients, and nah says to drive me harder!  


 

[Crusty_Crab]

On 3/1/2022 at 7:04 AM, Lucky1 said:

How about now?

Its the best I have so far.

Is it just me or am I the only person seeing different rocks being presented with the hope that 1 will be confirmed as a fossil? I see multiple different rocks:

Rock 1: Picture 1,

Rock 2: Pictures 2 and 3,

Rock 3: Picture 4,

Rock 4 (maybe same rock as Rock 3??) Pictures 5, 6, 7 and

Rock 5: Pictures 8 and 9.

 

Are they in fact different rocks? Are you claiming all are Kimberella sp.? I can't even begin to evaluate your ID without even establishing what we're even supposed to look at in the first place.

 

Please clarify if we are looking at different rocks, and clearly indicate different views of the same rock. 

[Lucky1]

15 hours ago, Crusty_Crab said:

Is it just me or am I the only person seeing different rocks being presented with the hope that 1 will be confirmed as a fossil? I see multiple different rocks:

Rock 1: Picture 1,

Rock 2: Pictures 2 and 3,

Rock 3: Picture 4,

Rock 4 (maybe same rock as Rock 3??) Pictures 5, 6, 7 and

Rock 5: Pictures 8 and 9.

 

Are they in fact different rocks? Are you claiming all are Kimberella sp.? I can't even begin to evaluate your ID without even establishing what we're even supposed to look at in the first place.

 

Please clarify if we are looking at different rocks, and clearly indicate different views of the same rock. 

Sorry Mr. crabs! I forgot to use the secret formula! 

I had this under my welcome post and the admins moved it to this section. My intention was less of an ID and more of look it IS a fossil. So going forward I assure you the pictures will be better, singularly focused on one at a time, with scale and full information. 

The first picture that is all red is quartz taken out of soft sediment. This I think to be a kimberella almost fully preserved.  It matches the one with horrible lighting nearly perfectly in shape and size including the head. ( the last pictures. ) 

The one with the ribs is the only one not a kimberella. It has a scrunched star crinoid like bottom with a ribbed body. The underneath of that body was in the mist of decay so I am not sure if it was flat or if it had more underneath. The ribbed example exists plentiful here so I  am sure I will get a much more complete example in the future. 

The glob that is dark in color is a all football/ cigar shaped conglomerate of worm like critters. The close up one that is the most detailed on the surface resembles a small kimberella . The two quartz rocks under it are the same as the first red photo . 

Again sorry for the confusion and the mess of an ID post. The Id post was not my intention and I will do much clearer work when I am seeking ID in the future.
 

[Ludwigia]

I agree with what my colleages here are saying. I don't quite understand why you won't disclose even the general location and exact strata or formation of these finds. This would certainly help analysis of your claims and show us that you are versed in the subject. Of course the best thing is to present them in person to a qualified specialist for this strata. Just showing photos of what are usually quite difficult to recognize fauna won't bring you much further here as you are probably starting to realize.

[Lucky1]

4 minutes ago, Ludwigia said:

I agree with what my colleages here are saying. I don't quite understand why you won't disclose even the general location and exact strata or formation of these finds. This would certainly help analysis of your claims and show us that you are versed in the subject. Of course the best thing is to present them in person to a qualified specialist for this strata. Just showing photos of what are usually quite difficult to recognize fauna won't bring you much further here as you are probably starting to realize.

I am not well versed at all. This was never intended to be an Id post. I will post again when I have more clear and conclusive finds. Its more of my excitement with me saying that it IS a fossil and I am on to something, hoping it is in fact kimberella. 

I will be able to satisfy the needs of criteria next time. I knew I was never going to find the finish line here, yet, but I will.