Can Anyone Identify This Fish Fossil?

[dougd]

Can Any One Id This Fossil?

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't see a fossil.

 

[dougd]

correct , kinda,,it is a pre-historic carving from a dino tooth

 

[Bystander]

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?

 

[Evo]

What's this doing in "Social Science," anyway?

Because archaeology is listed here under social science.

 

[jim mcnamara]

I'm with Bystander - I do not understand what you mean - by "fishie" do you mean fake?

 

[Bystander]

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.

 

[Evo]

"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.