New Members Psmith8547 Posted August 4 New Members Share Posted August 4 When I picked this up it was so dense and heavy, I thought it was just a rock. Cleaning all the calcium carbonate etc. off I think it is a bit more than half of a tail club. Found in southeast Montana. Picture one top rough surface about 4-5 inches long, 2-3 inches thick and wide; picture two bottom smooth surface; It is an unsual shape, very dense, has some well-organized structure (hard to show but I tried in picture three. Also found in general 2-3 foot area what appears to be tendonous tail pictures 4-5. Reading shows most common of this family in this formation to be Euoplocephalus. One thing that throws me is the shape if it is half a tail club. Any thoughts? IMG_4794.HEIC IMG_4797.HEIC IMG_4798.HEIC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fin Lover Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 Welcome to the forum. .heic files don't work on the forum, so you'll have to post them as .jpeg. Fin Lover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Members Psmith8547 Posted August 4 Author New Members Share Posted August 4 Shoot, sorry. So 1. picture from top 2. Picture from broken side 3. Bottom 4. detail from side 5. and 6. rocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 Not seeing any bone texture, looks like an iron concretion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Members Psmith8547 Posted August 7 Author New Members Share Posted August 7 I wish I could show what it looks like under the microscope, lots of fine parallel lines, some other features that really look biologic. Not heavy enough to be iron but very dense. Undersurface is too smooth (though micropatterns visible under microscope) to be an iron concretion. The convex edge is pretty convincingly regular too. I know I have a vivid imagination but am positive it is biologic in origin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randyw Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 I’m sorry but I’m seeing nothing biological about it. My vote is for rock… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advantage Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 Not biological in origin, its a rock, however closely you examine it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
val horn Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 It is not bone. What I see on the oval surface is a set of vertical ridges. This suggests a very worn ammonite fragment. The presence of sufficient limestone calcium carbonate says marine site. I would look in that area for other examples. I would be expecting marine fossils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 36 minutes ago, val horn said: This suggests a very worn ammonite fragment. There is no internal structure to support this conclusion. I can not see any pattern or structure too suggest the outside looks like any ammonite either. I think your pareidolia is worse than the op's is. 1 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