Elmo Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 On 4/23/2024 at 10:13 PM, Darktooth said: I Sometimes there are other explanations for stange occurrences. We may or may not ever find out the truth about what these may actually be. I myself see it as a sad thing for somebody to get so upset and want to leave the forum. There are many good and knowledgeable members here. I am going to leave it at that. I agree it went down the wrong road with a member getting upset. They could be having a real bad day, week, or month that actually set them off and anger really had nothing to do with the forum at all. I myself am a fledgling in this and one of the best ways for me to learn is going to be open discussions with the good and knowledgeable members here. Kinda feel sad that the discussion ended way to quick. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 Not going to bother reading the thread. But can I have a steak too, please? Yummy! 3 1 Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randyw Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 Just now, Tidgy's Dad said: But can I have a steak too, please? Elmo’s bet 32 oz porterhouses! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotelus2883 Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 I think these could be badly weathered bones. They are consistent in small ways. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 Wow. I take a night off to visit family, and I miss all the drama. @cck I don't know what these are, and I am bad at identifying bone, but these look a bit too dense to be fish bone. Can we see some close up shots of the texture? And maybe a group shot of all the specimens? I know cck is not a noob, and knows a good bit about fossils, in general. I would not be so quick to dismiss these, but would like to see better pictures. If it is bone, I don't think it is fish related. 2 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 IPFOTM -- MAY - 2024 _________________________________________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brevicollis Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 (edited) 4 hours ago, cck said: The morphology is repeated .. I have ten more that are the same Well, this can accour naturally too. When you go to any river, you'll find maybe hundreds of similarly shaped rocks there. Might be a bit rarer, but yours dont look that much the same, many differences can be spotted. Also, when I look at most of them, I see no evidence of bone, scales, and teeth. So no fish or something else But thats not a good reason to leave, you've done so much good work here. Do you really want to leave, just because you're not happy with the ID of something ? Sometimes, you have to accept the hard truth. Edited April 24 by Brevicollis My account and something about me : My still growing collection : My paleoart : I'm just a young guy who really loves fossils Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivaldir Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 I agree with Tim. There can be a big gap in how a piece (whether it's bone, rock,...) strikes you between holding it in your hands and feeling it compared to seeing a picture (of mediocre quality) of it. Let's start this topic over with better pictures and re-evaluate, keeping the above in mind. Then at least the forum's opinion would be based on better quality material and in the best case a friendly discussion ensues. Just my two cents. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fin Lover Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 I was going to suggest better pictures early in the conversation last night until I saw this and figured we were just wasting our time in responding: I don't ever want to see someone leave over an ID but, if he's already made that choice, nothing I say is going to change that. Fin Lover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 @cck better pics and close ups would help to solve the problem. Bones could look like rocks and rocks like bones. But, bones could be identified by their fine structure, and rocks too. So, detailed pics of the surface could help. Thanks! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 If you zoom in, you can see some bone-like structure. This one has some bone-like structure visible on the left and attached bryozoan on the right. I wouldn't rule out some type of hyperostosed or pachyostosed fish bone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotelus2883 Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 6 hours ago, Brevicollis said: Well, this can accour naturally too. When you go to any river, you'll find maybe hundreds of similarly shaped rocks there. Might be a bit rarer, but yours dont look that much the same, many differences can be spotted. Also, when I look at most of them, I see no evidence of bone, scales, and teeth. So no fish or something else But thats not a good reason to leave, you've done so much good work here. Do you really want to leave, just because you're not happy with the ID of something ? Sometimes, you have to accept the hard truth. They show details which are consistent which are not due to weathering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brevicollis Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 13 hours ago, Isotelus2883 said: They show details which are consistent which are not due to weathering. I didn't see them at first glance. And I think many other members, too. The pictures weren't the best tho. So it might be something. Or not. My account and something about me : My still growing collection : My paleoart : I'm just a young guy who really loves fossils Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckyBottles Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 Science is a process not a forgone conclusion...pareidolia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
automech Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 Maybe a trip to Calvert Marine Museum would have helped the OP with IDing these items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 26 minutes ago, MuckyBottles said: Science is a process not a forgone conclusion...pareidolia I disagree. I don't think this is pareidolia. There are some possible bones in the mix here. With some better photos we may be able to say more about them. Again, the OP is experienced with fossils, and may have a better idea about it than you think. 2 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 IPFOTM -- MAY - 2024 _________________________________________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotelus2883 Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 1 hour ago, Brevicollis said: I didnt saw them at first glance. And I think many members too. The pictures werent the best tho. So it might be something. Or not. I didn't see them earlier at first glance either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckyBottles Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 5 hours ago, Fossildude19 said: I disagree. I don't think this is pareidolia. There are some possible bones in the mix here. With some better photos we may be able to say more about them. Again, the OP is experienced with fossils, and may have a better idea about it than you think. 🤷♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmo Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 I put line through what appears to be foramen holes. I also played with some filters to try to get some details pulled out that I’ve seen on other fossils from Calvert Cliffs. Four of these items are extremely alike in shape and size. Maybe we can stretch and say that natural erosion caused them all to take on near identical shapes and sizes, but then we still need a logical reason to what in Mother Nature is going to give them all identical holes. I think without additional pictures it’s easier to dismiss the rock identity rather than dismissing the fossil identity. Hopefully someone calms down and comes back to the forum because I’m now honestly curious if my 99.99% confidence can be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darktooth Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 Without trying to throw fire on the flame, I would like to point out one thing that may be helpful for members in the future. A few members have talked about how there appears to be bone like structure when you zoom in and wasn't noticed at first. This is a prime example of why CLEAR CLOSE-UP PICS, are important when trying toget an ID. Personally on my end the pics are not clear enough for me to say wether it is definitely bone or rock. 3 I like Trilo-butts and I cannot lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randyw Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 After the OP’s complaints I was convinced I wouldn’t reply to this topic anymore. However the other members are having a reasoned and polite discourse so I’m keeping up with it. Well done all! Now here's my problems with them being bone. 1) pictures are not clear enough to conclusively say its bone. 2) if they were basically the same bones with basically the same wear then you should be seeing the same “spongy bone” texture showing in roughly the same spots. 3) none of the pictures are showing the possible foramen holes as being more then just surface divots. 4) matter of fact the below example is actually shown as shallow and I’ve never seen a foramen with a rim. It reminds me of a partial geode in a rock 5)even if they do go deeper to me the angles look like they are pointing in different directions… Now personally, I don’t have a horse in this race. I’ve been wrong before and will be again and I would be more then overjoyed if I'm proven wrong, as long as I learn something during a COURTEOUS conversation. But I’m not seeing enough proof for me to say oh yes! I see it now! So I’m still seeing a few rocks one with a bryozoan wich also grew on rocks I believe. Let’s keep the convo going! 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darktooth Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 4 minutes ago, Randyw said: After the OP’s complaints I was convinced I wouldn’t reply to this topic anymore. However the other members are having a reasoned and polite discourse so I’m keeping up with it. Well done all! Now heres my problems with them being bone. 1) pictures are not clear enough to conclusively say its bone. 2) if they were basically the same bones with basically the same wear then you should be seeing the same “spongy bone” texture showing in roughly the same spots. 3) none of the pictures are showing the possible foramen holes as being more then just surface divots. 4) matter of fact the below example is actually shown as shallow and I’ve never seen a foramen with a rim. It reminds me of a partial geode in a rock 5)even if they do go deeper to me the angles look like they are pointing in different directions… now personally I don’t have a horse in this race. I’ve been wrong before and will be again and I would be more then overjoyed if Im proven wrong as long as I learn something during a COURTEOUS conversation. But I’m not seeing enough proof for me to say oh yes! I see it now! So I’m still seeing a few rocks one with a bryozoan wich also grew on rocks I believe. Let’s keep the convo going! I am right there with you Randy. 1 I like Trilo-butts and I cannot lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmo Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 I’m heading out Monday to Calvert Cliffs and Matoaka Cabins, if I wrap up soon enough I’ll stop by The Calvert Marine Museum. They might be able to help? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 I'm seeing bones (if they are bones) here from the same side of the animal. I would expect to see, in a group of this size, at least one specimen from the other side of the animal. 1 Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmo Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 1 hour ago, Mark Kmiecik said: I'm seeing bones (if they are bones) here from the same side of the animal. I would expect to see, in a group of this size, at least one specimen from the other side of the animal. I was thinking that at first too. After a good bit of thinking and looking at them I’m thinking that the top left side and middle right side are pretty weathered and could possibly be opposite orientation of the other 4. Those 2 are pretty bad off, but clamshelling them together in my mind got me out of the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randyw Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 But remember he said he has 10 more that are all just the same… so theres 14 individuals with only one bone saved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now