Unidentified fossil (Manubrium/Sternum?)

[Mick Zealand]

Hi Fossil Folks

this item was found in a big pile of gravel near the road, a couple of miles from the Nile river in Egypt.

If anyone out there has an idea of what it could be, I'd really like to hear what you think. . My feeling is that it's a manubrium/sternum from some kind of primitive mammal, but I'm definately no expert. I've looked at sternum fossils on the net so much now that I see them when I close my eyes - and I still haven't found a match...a drawing of a jeholoden manubrium came close,.

Sorry I don't have anything to measure with -  the best I can do is say that the item in picture no.1 is as wide across the top as a pack of 20 cigarettes is wide.

Any help greatly appreciated!
Mick

Edited 2 hours ago by Mick Zealand

[anonaddict]

what is the diameter and packing density of the cigarettes? packing density can vary significantly depending on arrangement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-packing_of_equal_spheres

while the original problem is in 3d it can be simplified by looking at cross sections of a version of the problem with no additional room in the y-plane leaving us with a number of circles contained in a rectangle from which we can calculate the width of the box

 

alternatively you can find printable centimeter paper here

 

[anonaddict]

it would also be helpful if you could upload the images individual since its very compressed so it becomes hard to tell details apart

Edited 2 hours ago by anonaddict
looks like some downscaling is done automatically?

[Mick Zealand]

Measure: Like I mentioned in the text, I don't have anything to measure with. At home I do have a rule - several in fact - as well as 4 tape measures and my wife's sewing tape measure, a printer and paper. But I'm not at home.

The image i uploaded is 2192x1845 pixels. That's already a bit of a mouthful in my situation (traveling) where internet bandwidth and availability is a problem.

Cigarette packing density: Cigarettes are not spheres, but standard radius cylinders, and are packed in a standard manner when sold in packs of 20. My reference to the width of a pack of 20 cigarettes in lieu of a rule or tape measure was meant to help describe the width of the item in the post, not invite to an exploration of sphere-packing theories of higher mathematics. FYI this width is 2.83 in (7.1882 cm), cf. https://www.silveredgepackaging.com/a-comprehensive-guide-on-cigarette-box-dimensions-sizes/ which you might find enlightening.

If exact measurements and higher image resolution are strict requirements for posting in the Fossil Forum I will have to stop posting until I am home again with my broadband internet connection and my many tape measures.

[anonaddict]

10 minutes ago, Mick Zealand said:

Measure: Like I mentioned in the text, I don't have anything to measure with. At home I do have a rule - several in fact - as well as 4 tape measures and my wife's sewing tape measure, a printer and paper. But I'm not at home.

The image i uploaded is 2192x1845 pixels. That's already a bit of a mouthful in my situation (traveling) where internet bandwidth and availability is a problem.

Cigarette packing density: Cigarettes are not spheres, but standard radius cylinders, and are packed in a standard manner when sold in packs of 20. My reference to the width of a pack of 20 cigarettes in lieu of a rule or tape measure was meant to help describe the width of the item in the post, not invite to an exploration of sphere-packing theories of higher mathematics. FYI this width is 2.83 in (7.1882 cm), cf. https://www.silveredgepackaging.com/a-comprehensive-guide-on-cigarette-box-dimensions-sizes/ which you might find enlightening.

If exact measurements and higher image resolution are strict requirements for posting in the Fossil Forum I will have to stop posting until I am home again with my broadband internet connection and my many tape measures.

firat off, I think I came off a bit harsher than i intended. We get a *lot* of posts with unknown objects for scale and it complicate the ID process. That said it came off much more hostile than I intended. I apologize for that.

 

I did some testing and it looks like the image resolution wont be a problem depending on how the programs used to combine them have handled the compression (lossy vs lossless) it seems the way the forum handles compression is lossless (see attached for example)

 

when IDing we pay a great deal of attention to patterns and textures on the rock surface so if an image has undergone lossy compression then it becomes significantly harder to ID. Again I don't know how the program you used handles compression, it would be helpful if you can upload them seperately once you get home, just to be safe.

 

And welcome to the forum, we (collective guilt, shame on everyone else) are usually much nicer

 

[Mick Zealand]

Ha-ha, no worries - apology accepted. I will definately try harder to get clearer images in future posts.

Maybe I'll even find a tape measure 😊 

[JohnJ]

I could be part of a vertebral dorsal process.