Three (fossilized?) fragments of bones

[Skam79]

Hello everyone!   I am interested in fossils and paleontology from many years although my knowledge about ID of vertebrate fossils is very limited. My 11 years old son found these three  bones, among little stones in the small river in a past glacious region in Poland. Despite I washed them their collours are without changes as you can see on the photos. The weight seems a bit havier than it "should" be in in the case of more or less new bones. What do you think about them when it comes to their age and possible "owners"? My teenager is very curious but I can't answer at his questions about these bones. Any suggestions will be helpful. Thank you for your time!

[Fossildude19]

More pictures of each item are required.

Please take pictures of each item from all sides, including broken sides.

First looks interesting. Second looks like rock, not bone.

Last looks like a deer leg bone to me, but more pictures are required.

[Brandy Cole]

Hello and welcome!  The first and third items appear to me to be fragments of bone, but more pictures would help with an ID.

 

The bone in the third picture likely would be from a juvenile mammal since it looks like the epiphysis at the end of the bone was not fused.

 

For best ID results, I would help to take pictures focused directly on the ends of the items and post them here as well.  

 

The second picture might be a bone, but in the picture you've provided I can't see any of the porous nature that I would expect to see around a break or from wear.  That's another reason why more pictures would help.

[Skam79]

18 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

More pictures of each item are required.

Please take pictures of each item from all sides, including broken sides.

First looks interesting. Second looks like rock, not bone.

Last looks like a deer leg bone to me, but more pictures are required.

 

13 minutes ago, Brandy Cole said:

Hello and welcome!  The first and third items appear to me to be fragments of bone, but more pictures would help with an ID.

 

The bone in the third picture likely would be from a juvenile mammal since it looks like the epiphysis at the end of the bone was not fused.

 

For best ID results, I would help to take pictures focused directly on the ends of the items and post them here as well.  

 

The second picture might be a bone, but in the picture you've provided I can't see any of the porous nature that I would expect to see around a break or from wear.  That's another reason why more pictures would help.

Thanks for the informations! Of  course - I'll post more photos soon.

[Skam79]

I've taken more photos. I hope they will be helpful.

 

 

 

 

NEXT

 

 

 

 

NEXT

 

[Fossildude19]

Straight on views of the broken and non broken ends, please. Oblique angles do not show the outline of the shape of the bone.

 

 

[jpc]

The third is the distal end of a mammal tibia.  And as previously mentioned, from a young animal.   The other two are also bones, but I can't remember where I have seen those patterns before. 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by jpc

[Skam79]

1 hour ago, jpc said:

The third is the distal end of a mammal tibia.  And as previously mentioned, from a young animal.   The other two are also bones, but I can't remember where I have seen those patterns before. 

Thank you. Could you write something about possible age of the bones? Pleistocene or something closer to "yesterday"?

[Skam79]

1 hour ago, Fossildude19 said:

Straight on views of the broken and non broken ends, please. Oblique angles do not show the outline of the shape of the bone.

Here you are. Unfortunatelly I am afraid I'm not able to take better photos.

 

[CDiggs]

13 hours ago, Skam79 said:

I could be totally wrong but this looks a bit like a bird ulna to me.

https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/w-7380-r-ulna-bcb51337251745b5af70647aa8160c52

[Brandy Cole]

@Skam79 Your most recent photo angles are definitely more useful to get to a possible ID.  Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with bones this size and would need to study up a bit.

[jpc]

I can't say anything about the age, but the other bones look somewhat birdish. 

[Skam79]

14 hours ago, CDiggs said:

I could be totally wrong but this looks a bit like a bird ulna to me.

https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/w-7380-r-ulna-bcb51337251745b5af70647aa8160c52

It seems you're right. Thank you.

[Skam79]

@CDiggs @jpc @Brandy Cole @Fossildude19 Thank you very much for your help, informations and suggestions! What do you think about the age of these bones? how they look like for you - like fossils or more like for example one hundred-year-old boneshundred. Taking innto account what I see in my books and in the internet they look "promising" when it comes to be a  pleistocene or a bit earlier fossils. However I realize it is not easy to precize the age in such case.

[Fossildude19]

Not a bone guy, so I have no thoughts on ID or age.

 

[Brandy Cole]

@Skam79 Your most recent photo angles are definitely more useful to get to a possible ID.  Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with bones this size or birds in general.

 

It's very hard to venture a guess at the age without first identifying your items. 

 

If they can be identified to a species that has gone extinct, that would give us a clear time frame.  If the bones belong to a species that still exists, then aging the items becomes harder and relies on characteristics like whether or not your finds are mineralized and whether the area you found them is a common source of fossils of a certain age.

[Shellseeker]

On 9/27/2023 at 10:56 AM, jpc said:

The third is the distal end of a mammal tibia.  And as previously mentioned, from a young animal.   The other two are also bones, but I can't remember where I have seen those patterns before. 

I am not sure, JPC .I found a similar bone 2 weeks ago and it seems the same. Mine is not a long bone, rather a phalanx or metapodial. I will start searching.  Let me know if you agree.   @Harry Pristis

 

[Shellseeker]

This is the best I can get:  @Sharkbyte found a pair in the Peace River in 2011, looks like the Epiphysis is missing.  Match to my find, but not likely a match for a proximal phalanx found in Poland....    but possibly there were Camelids in Poland ???? 

 

[Brandy Cole]

@Shellseeker I'm definitely no Harry, but I feel pretty confident this isn't a camelid phalanx based on the side image that the original poster showed us. 

 

The jagged features seem more consistent to me with a juvenile tibia missing an epiphysis.

 

Although I can see some similarities if you're looking directly at the articulation point, I don't see much of a match to the shape of a camelid phalanx once you look at a lateral view.

 

 

 

[Brandy Cole]

l found a somewhat similar bone that I think may match most closely with a juvenile equus tibia. But I never positively ID'd it.

 

The missing epiphysis makes these bones hard to ID to species for me.

[Rock Hound]

To the op, I can only add that if the bones are heavy and hard like stone, and give off a metallic tinkling sound when tapped together; they are fossils, and at least thousands of years old.

[Shellseeker]

Searching for Artiodactyl fossil bones in Poland:  There are a number of interesting documents

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Studies-on-Pleistocene-and-Holocene-mammals-from-of-Pawłowska/2cf9700ba18393be254307d46d3a6beb791c8749#:~:text=DOI%3A10.1016,Quaternary International

 

Follow this Link @Skam79,  You read polish better than me.

 

46 minutes ago, Brandy Cole said:

@Shellseeker I'm definitely no Harry, but I feel pretty confident this isn't a camelid phalanx based on the side image that the original poster showed us. 

 

The jagged features seem more consistent to me with a juvenile tibia missing an epiphysis.

 

Although I can see some similarities if you're looking directly at the articulation point, I don't see much of a match to the shape of a camelid phalanx once you look at a lateral view.

You are likely correct...  The Poland fossil is likely an Artiodactyl,   I am unsure of yours but could easily be a tibia...

 

The one I found ends around 85 mm and I think I have IDed it a Camelid phalanx.  I would like to Id OPs fossil to a Poland fauna , so I can justify intruding on this Fossil identification Thread... I'll continue browsing the Poland Research papers for Pliestocene fauna.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jpc]

shellseeker... good point.  I maybe wrong, but I think the extreme topography, if you will, on the end of the bone suggests tibia to me.  Because of your post, though, I will back off and say ... to me, 90% sure it is a tibia.   : )

 

[Harry Pristis]

14 hours ago, Shellseeker said:

I am not sure, JPC .I found a similar bone 2 weeks ago and it seems the same. Mine is not a long bone, rather a phalanx or metapodial. I will start searching.  Let me know if you agree.   @Harry Pristis

 

Your find, Jack, appears to be a part of a partly-fused metapodial from a young peccary.

[Shellseeker]

Wow Harry. Thank you.  I have found a very few peccary fossils, mostly teeth.  Perhaps that is why I do not recognize peccary bones them when I find one.