Can Anyone Identify This Fish Fossil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dougd
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around identifying a fossil presented in a post. Participants express varying opinions on the nature of the object in question, debating whether it is indeed a fossil or something else entirely, such as a prehistoric carving. The conversation touches on definitions and classifications within archaeology and paleontology.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the object may not be a fossil, with one suggesting it is a prehistoric carving from a dinosaur tooth.
  • Concerns are raised about the quality of the photographs provided, with a participant noting that they do not clearly show the fossil or any identifiable features.
  • There is a discussion about the classification of fossils and artifacts, with some participants arguing that the term "fossil" can encompass a wide range of items dug from the ground, depending on the context.
  • One participant questions the relevance of the thread being categorized under "Social Science," suggesting that archaeology's overlap with paleontology complicates the classification.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need for better photographs to clarify what is being shown, indicating that the current images do not provide sufficient detail to make an identification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus on whether the object is a fossil or something else. Multiple competing views remain regarding its identification and the appropriate classification of such items.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the ambiguity in definitions of fossils and artifacts, as well as the limitations posed by the quality of the images shared. There are unresolved questions about the nature of the object and its classification.

dougd
Can Any One Id This Fossil?
indian relics 300.jpg


indian relics 301.jpg
 
Biology news on Phys.org
I don't see a fossil.
 
correct , kinda,,it is a pre-historic carving from a dino tooth
 
Lousy pictures --- one barely shows bone, or plant stem --- the other's just shadow. Turn the rock over and take a picture of what's showing in the lower left of the upper right hand picture in the OP.

What's this doing in "Social Science," anyway?
 
Bystander said:
What's this doing in "Social Science," anyway?
Because archaeology is listed here under social science.
 
I'm with Bystander - I do not understand what you mean - by "fishie" do you mean fake?
 
Evo said:
Because archaeology is listed here under social science.

"Fossil" denotes anything dug from the ground if one works from the strictest definition of the word. Conventionally, archaeologists dig anthropogenic "artifacts" from the ground, paleontologists dig "fossils" of any life forms from the ground, and geologists dig "fossils" of geologic processes from the ground (Okla a "fossil" reactor, Chinle formation, a "fossil" river). Is "Lucy" a "fossil" or an "artifact?" Yeah, there's overlap, and archaeologists, anthropologists, and paleontologists are forever poaching on each others' turf; the first two are "social sciences" in most classification schemes, and the the third is regarded as Earth or life science.

Is the OP showing us a fragment of furniture embedded in consolidated ash fall from Pompeii or Herculaneum, dinosaur rib from the Morisson, petrified wood from who knows where, fish bone from Kansas? Hard to tell without a better photograph. Addressing the question in more detail, a photograph of a large indistinct chunk of the matrix in which a fossil is embedded is NOT a fossil --- photograph the anomalous structure, color, shape.
 
Bystander said:
"Fossil" denotes anything dug from the ground if one works from the strictest definition of the word. Conventionally, archaeologists dig anthropogenic "artifacts" from the ground, paleontologists dig "fossils" of any life forms from the ground, and geologists dig "fossils" of geologic processes from the ground (Okla a "fossil" reactor, Chinle formation, a "fossil" river). Is "Lucy" a "fossil" or an "artifact?" Yeah, there's overlap, and archaeologists, anthropologists, and paleontologists are forever poaching on each others' turf; the first two are "social sciences" in most classification schemes, and the the third is regarded as Earth or life science.
Yep, I know, it was decided to lump everything together because there wasn't enough posting individually, paleontology was grouped with anthropology and archaeology.

Is the OP showing us a fragment of furniture embedded in consolidated ash fall from Pompeii or Herculaneum, dinosaur rib from the Morisson, petrified wood from who knows where, fish bone from Kansas? Hard to tell without a better photograph. Addressing the question in more detail, a photograph of a large indistinct chunk of the matrix in which a fossil is embedded is NOT a fossil --- photograph the anomalous structure, color, shape.
I can't make out what the picture is either.
 

Similar threads

How do evolutionists construct descendency trees from fossils?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
How can humans know that dinosaurs looked like reptiles?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Fossil origin based on DNA testing
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
Itty Bitty Bird-Like Dinosaur Fossil Found in Amber
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Fossils: 95% Plants, 1/4% Vertebrates - Fact or Fiction?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Earliest Homo erectus fossil dated
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Fossils of Closely Related Species
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Was Dickinsonia One of the Earliest Multicellular Animals?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Ancient Jaw Found in Tibetan Cave Identified as Denisovan by Proteins
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Color vision in 300 million year old fish
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K