Possible egg

[doushantuo]

Hi Tenchi.

For various reasons, I don't think it is problable you have found a fossil egg.

As others have pointed out, both the structure and texture that is visible to the unaided eye  are not very reminiscent of the characteristics found in objects  commonly circumscribed as " eggs ".

 

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by doushantuo

[Tenchi]

7 hours ago, Mahnmut said:

Although I begin to feel this thread gets to long without the necessary new information from examination in hand, I have still some general thoughts to share.

You say you value the scientific process and feedback from others.

But what you do is something different:

Many people, some of them with much more experience in the matter than you or me give their reasoning and opinion (in short sentences, long texts and links to much collected information.) I also asked you why you think your find "breaks the rules of concretions" as you stated at the top of the post.

But you do not aknowledge the information given or questions asked, you just go on repeating that you got so much information supporting your claim, questioning the expertise and manners of others and ignoring their arguments. Thats not the spirit of the scientific method.

As I told you, I know how it is to find something interesting and being told it isn´t what you hoped.

We cannot prove its not an egg preserved in an unusual new way, philosophically speaking. But we cannot prove its not a camuflaged alien spaceship either.

I hope the people at the museum can convince you of whatever they find, but I begin to doubt it.

Best regards,

J

 

I did give you an answer but I think the problem is that I'm just some random person blurting out a lot of stuff in excitement and trying to work out a lot of information in my head and put together all the pieces. I did reply to you and maybe you didn't read it because I didn't link you to the post? I'm new here. Lol

 

I said that the measurements of both the very outer layer and the first layer shouldn't be so perfectly similar in width all around if it was a concretion. That's what I heard in the many hours of listening to paleontologists talk about it on podcasts.

 

It might be annoying to you but I do honestly believe this is scientific process. It might be a rushed form of scientific process but until the person asks enough questions to get a better understanding of what they're looking at. You would think them a fool to just take a one word answer and walk away. How would we have ever figured things out if we didn't ask a million questions and look at a million different ways things were going on. Science is about debate and sharing of information and always challenging the truth. It doesn't have to be chaotic or a panic. But getting annoyed at people for continuing to search for the proper technical understanding of what they are looking to try to understand. I wouldn't shame somebody for that guys. It might be annoying but it's definitely much better than being small-minded and not learning anything and acting like you know everything.

 

Not saying that's what anyone here is doing. I'm just saying I don't want to be like that. Imagine for a second you thought you might be coming across something important. Would you not strive to follow it through? I'm not saying I absolutely believe what I have is important. But isn't it worth giving the time if it was?

 

 

[Tenchi]

6 hours ago, Bobby Rico said:

Welcome to TFF

 

Text book mudstone concretion, can not see anything strange here.

 

On show on  this thread is many , many years of  fossils collecting knowledge both from hobbyists and professional.  If after two pages of answers your not convinced,  I think a museum is best way forward .  

 

Cheers Bobby 

Honestly until I can understand the actions that created this specific concretion as you say. Why would I just go away happy and forever think this is concretion when I don't actually have any real proof other than people telling me they know all about it and that's what it is. Does anybody have real relevant information to show why the outer edge looks more to me like a calcium growth then it does mashed up compressed slowly rolled outer material. The cleavage planes of each different material don't make sense to me for concretions. I would like to understand why there is a difference between what I'm learning about concretions and the object I have in my hand. I am trying to deduce what it is and a lot of the things that people put out there as the pros and cons of being an egg make it a very curious object. I am looking to learn the true action of what is going on and to weigh the pros and cons. I don't think anybody here has given me enough information to properly weigh the pros and cons. Is this just a form of opinions? Or is this a forum to teach people and share with people about amazing fossils and to share science? Because any real scientist would know just telling somebody their opinion is not real science and for somebody who doesn't know what's going on just telling the name of something doesn't really give them a proper idea of what they're actually looking at for real. If somebody wanted me to completely stop and following this through. You can share with me your vast amounts of information or send me to the right direction to actually understand the process that would 100% classify what I have. Without a doubt.

 

But even if I say that, I'm not demanding anybody have to go to any length to solve my answers. This is a free world and I know I'm asking for a service of people's time that they don't have to give. But in that same respect, if this is bothering anybody too much. Just unfollow This Thread and move on with your life. That is your right just as much as I don't think I am doing anything wrong for continuing to learn more about this. I think that it's pretty clear to see that giving somebody a name and a one-word answer isn't a very conclusive way for somebody to learn. Some people are just stuck in this middle Zone where they think they've given enough and they're getting a little disgruntled. But honestly if any one of them was actually curious about finding the truth of anything. They would find their own answers lacking. Again not lacking because they are possibly wrong. But nothing has fully conclusively proven to me either direction and if somebody can help me with that I would be greatly appreciated.

 

Cheers! 

[Tenchi]

8 hours ago, Ludwigia said:

 

I gave you a short full sentence answer because you originally just asked a simple question with a very short description and didn't give information as to location, size or stratigraphy in your first post. Now I know better, but I'm still of the opinion that this is part of a mudstone concretion for the various reasons which many colleagues here have mentioned. I can add a very good link which explains in detail the various types of concretions and how they are formed. Now I'm just curious to hear what the experts at the museum have to say about it.

I'm sorry if that came off as rude. You don't really have to put any effort into this. I definitely respect anyone giving their time. But I'm just looking for more information because I want to understand more. I don't mean to make anyone feel like what they have done is wrong (unless they are being rude or something) I don't demand more from people who don't need to give it.

 

I VERY much appreciate the link to see and learn more. Thanks a lot! 😁😁😁

[Tenchi]

8 hours ago, Ludwigia said:

 

I gave you a short full sentence answer because you originally just asked a simple question with a very short description and didn't give information as to location, size or stratigraphy in your first post. Now I know better, but I'm still of the opinion that this is part of a mudstone concretion for the various reasons which many colleagues here have mentioned. I can add a very good link which explains in detail the various types of concretions and how they are formed. Now I'm just curious to hear what the experts at the museum have to say about it.

Wow this link has soooo much good information! So this could come from a lake or a river and the calcium look of it could be true because of the presence of shells in the water system that this formed. This is the type of understanding I was hoping to gather. 

 

I guess a funny part about this is that it's probably still a fossil if it's concretion. Just not an interesting fossil anymore. Lol. Still an interesting rock though! 

 

Cheers 

Edited 10 hours ago by Tenchi

[Fossildude19]

I still think your curiosity would be better served by talking with someone who studies fossil eggs.

While we have some experience with them, we obviously do not have the expertise to be able to answer all of your many questions.

I think we have exhausted our ability to help you.

 

You might consider sending a PM to @CBchiefski , to get his opinion on this. 

[Tenchi]

11 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

I still think your curiosity would be better served by talking with someone who studies fossil eggs.

While we have some experience with them, we obviously do not have the expertise to be able to answer all of your many questions.

I think we have exhausted our ability to help you.

 

You might consider sending a PM to @CBchiefski , to get his opinion on this. 

Again sorry if this is a bother to anyone. Someone did just send me a link to a research page and it's been quite helpful. At least it's really helping me understand the processes of concretion that I could not find elsewhere. Maybe it's Google, but I could just keep finding the most basic idea of what concretion is and not any further detail. I was watching and listening to a lot of paleontologist talk about their specific studies but they also weren't really going into the major details and only focusing on a very specific singular study. Interesting information but it wasn't clearing the air. And again I don't expect anyone to have to clear the air for me. But if anyone was willing to give me more information I would have greatly appreciated it. That's how I view this

 

I love seeing how a process works and Gathering the details. From what I'm reading in this article the calcium in this rock could have been produced by worms that bore holes in oyster shells. What's crazy is that I found oyster shells on a beach in Scotland with bore holes all over them and I have one at home. It's crazy to think I have potentially the before and after effect in front of me and the fact that the after effect took an insanely long time to produce that  large effect from such a little action.

 

Again teaching you in life. Small things can have large outcomes when given enough time. A common rule on our planet

Edited 10 hours ago by Tenchi

[Mahnmut]

Hi again.

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Somewhere in this long thread I got the impression you just went on saying "its an egg, prove me wrong." I did not see an answer to my question why you thought it "broke the rules of concretions", that answer would have been interesting.

I think the best advice here was Ludwigias, to learn more about concretions in addition to learning about eggs.

Best regards,

J

[Tenchi]

1 minute ago, Mahnmut said:

Hi again.

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Somewhere in this long thread I got the impression you just went on saying "its an egg, prove me wrong." I did not see an answer to my question why you thought it "broke the rules of concretions", that answer would have been interesting.

I think the best advice here was Ludwigias, to learn more about concretions in addition to learning about eggs.

Best regards,

J

Do most likely got that impression because the Internet seems to be filled with those sort of people. I don't want to judge but the frequency of people having massive Egos and only trying to tear down what you are trying to tell them is going on everywhere in every forum all of the internet. It can be stressful to have to deal with so many people who don't respect others. I completely understand and I very much appreciate everyone's patience.

 

Cheers! 

[Tenchi]

We live in a world today where a Layman person can gather much more information than they could ever gather before. University teachers are putting out podcasts and students are posting their studies on YouTube. If you like to gather information this can be a wonderful source that no one has had before.

 

I watched a university professor talking about geology recently. He slapped down a very large book on the table and explain that in this book was every name to every function of geology. He said you can learn every name of every action in this book and that's great. But when you are out in the world dealing with people it's much much more important that you learn why these things are the way they are. It's very important when you teach somebody not to just say a name of what it is but to explain the proper actions as to why it happened.

 

Not everybody has to think that way. But I found it incredibly insightful and inspiring.

[Kane]

1 hour ago, Tenchi said:

Do most likely got that impression because the Internet seems to be filled with those sort of people. I don't want to judge but the frequency of people having massive Egos and only trying to tear down what you are trying to tell them is going on everywhere in every forum all of the internet. It can be stressful to have to deal with so many people who don't respect others. I completely understand and I very much appreciate everyone's patience.

 

Cheers! 

Welcome to an oasis in an otherwise volatile, emotionally turbulent digital media ecosystem. 

[CBchiefski]

Howdy and welcome @Tenchi, I appreciate your desire for more information and will try to give you a bit more reasoning beyond what was already shared. I will say, depending on where you are located, your best bet for showing it to a paleontologist in Alberta would be Darla Zelensky. She works on fossil eggs and would likely be happy to take a look at it in person, I certainly enjoy working with her.

What you have is very likely a concretion, I highlighted in blue the round bands of different minerals that have formed radiating out from the circle and such features are common in concretions but rare in eggs, especially deeper within the egg. Just inside near the eggshell, some banding can sometimes be seen due to a host of taphomoic reasons but that is not common. In your piece, there is a relatively thick layer, which I highlighted in red, and this is too thick to be a paleopathology such as a 2nd layer of eggshell bound to the first or being the preserved shell membrane.

The outer layer, which I marked in black does potentially have calcite or a similar mineral present but does not show the microstructure when zoomed in, yes it is much better to use a microscope to determine shell microstructure but some of the larger features expected should be barely visible when zoomed in and no such features are present from what I can decern. If you look at some of the pictures in my egg guides, there are examples of what the expected structure would look like. Below is one example for you, it is a modern emu eggshell with the shell membrane still attached. The microstructure is barely visible but there, and you can see the shell's thickness relative to the membrane.

Another point is that the surface of what you have does not show any egg texture, see the Emu eggshell for an example of what I mean by eggshell texture. Yes, there are no doubt eggshell textures are unknown and new but there are still trends in the surface of eggs that are constant and none of those expected features are present from what I can tell. Pore openings are an example of such a surface feature.

Hopefully, all of this is sufficient but I am happy to help more if you would like.

Edited 6 hours ago by CBchiefski
clarity

[Fossildude19]

Thanks for checking this out, @CBchiefski - we appreciate your knowledge in all things egg related! 

[CBchiefski]

4 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

Thanks for checking this out, @CBchiefski - we appreciate your knowledge in all things egg related! 

Of course, happy to help and wish I could more often.

[Sagebrush Steve]

Just when I was going to suggest we close this topic to further replies, along comes @CBchiefski with insight that makes me glad I kept quiet!  Great info!

[Denis Arcand]

20 hours ago, Coco said:

If you want to believe that you have an egg you have the right, but your approach is not very scientific. You ask us to confirm if you have an egg, we tell you no by explaining why and you keep telling us that we are wrong.

 

Now I waste my time answering here, it’s my last word.

 

Coco

 

You're definitely not wasting your time! I’ve learned quite a few thing  from your insights and others expert in this thread, and I’m sure future readers will too. So it is not a total waste of time, i think .  

[Denis Arcand]

Thank  @CBchiefski, I really appreciated this very well done and understandable explanation.

[Tenchi]

1 hour ago, CBchiefski said:

Howdy and welcome @Tenchi, I appreciate your desire for more information and will try to give you a bit more reasoning beyond what was already shared. I will say, depending on where you are located, your best bet for showing it to a paleontologist in Alberta would be Darla Zelensky. She works on fossil eggs and would likely be happy to take a look at it in person, I certainly enjoy working with her.

What you have is very likely a concretion, I highlighted in blue the round bands of different minerals that have formed radiating out from the circle and such features are common in concretions but rare in eggs, especially deeper within the egg. Just inside near the eggshell, some banding can sometimes be seen due to a host of taphomoic reasons but that is not common. In your piece, there is a relatively thick layer, which I highlighted in red, and this is too thick to be a paleopathology such as a 2nd layer of eggshell bound to the first or being the preserved shell membrane.

The outer layer, which I marked in black does potentially have calcite or a similar mineral present but does not show the microstructure when zoomed in, yes it is much better to use a microscope to determine shell microstructure but some of the larger features expected should be barely visible when zoomed in and no such features are present from what I can decern. If you look at some of the pictures in my egg guides, there are examples of what the expected structure would look like. Below is one example for you, it is a modern emu eggshell with the shell membrane still attached. The microstructure is barely visible but there, and you can see the shell's thickness relative to the membrane.

Another point is that the surface of what you have does not show any egg texture, see the Emu eggshell for an example of what I mean by eggshell texture. Yes, there are no doubt eggshell textures are unknown and new but there are still trends in the surface of eggs that are constant and none of those expected features are present from what I can tell. Pore openings are an example of such a surface feature.

Hopefully, all of this is sufficient but I am happy to help more if you would like.

You went into detail and focused on my questions and really helped me see things more clearly. This is an excellent reply and I am very grateful for it. I did not expect anyone to be willing to personally write out so much personal knowledge and take time on my own questions/thoughts. I very much appreciate your knowledge and as well your approach to sorting out information as best possible. It seems like you take a very honest approach to science and you look at it with a very careful mind. I'm quite impressed

 

You have given me a lot to consider. I still do believe this is a bit strange even for a concretion. I will need to learn more one day about how they form and how that second banding inside is the way it is. I must say. You probably get a lot of people asking if they've found an egg without it looking as much like an egg as this does. Or why I would be so curious about this specific Rock. It's very egg-like! LOL

 

My thanks to you is vast and great 😁😁😁😁

 

Cheers!