Possible Fossil Found...Need To Know Who To Contact

[orogeny]

Sorry to say, I never received a call or e-mail from anyone " in the know " that might be able to shed some light on what this could be. Still hoping that I will get an answer from somewhere.




Kevin.

Hi Kevin. Based on your photo, it looks like what you found is a rock with an interesting weathering pattern rather than a fossil. The term for what you found would be pseudofossil. Regardless, it looks like a cool rock!

Tim

[huzkerpride]

Sorry to say, I never received a call or e-mail from anyone " in the know " that might be able to shed some light on what this could be. Still hoping that I will get an answer from somewhere.




Kevin.

Hi Kevin. Based on your photo, it looks like what you found is a rock with an interesting weathering pattern rather than a fossil. The term for what you found would be pseudofossil. Regardless, it looks like a cool rock!

Tim

I have no qualifications whatsoever, but I'm going to go ahead and disagree here.

[BryanCO]

I agree with huzkerpride. I am by far an expert but can distinctly see the eye socket and teeth of this skull. Can you can post your credentials oregeny or advise what kind of weather conditions could cause such a formation?

[Steve]

Actually I thought rock at first as well. "Teeth" not uniform at all.

[orogeny]

I agree with huzkerpride. I am by far an expert but can distinctly see the eye socket and teeth of this skull. Can you can post your credentials oregeny or advise what kind of weather conditions could cause such a formation?

I could be wrong about the object. I am a geologist and paleontology is a subject that I have loved since I was a child.

You might see a distinct eye socket and teeth, but I see a weathering pattern. Not weather, weathering.

Tim

[Retired]

Hi Tim,

Just a bit curious. Wouldn't virtually all the rocks in the area be igneous? If so, is it likely that a rock in the area would be weathering in the manner that this item is? This "thing" appears to me to be "weathering" as one would expect bone remnants to do. Further, what appears to be a tooth at the front of the lower jaws is not "weathering" at the same rate as the "non-tooth" area is, which makes a lot of sense due to the material that teeth are made of.
Not being one who is knowledgeable about these matters, I certainly would not argue with you on this.

Hopefully, our resident fossil finder will get back by and maybe turn this "thing" over and get a picture of the other side. The other side will probably tell us curious folks a lot.

[orogeny]

Just a bit curious. Wouldn't virtually all the rocks in the area be igneous? If so, is it likely that a rock in the area would be weathering in the manner that this item is?

It could be a welded tuff. A welded tuff is basically a volcanic ash that is still hot enough when deposited that the indivual ash particle weld together upon deposition. There was quite a bit of that formed during eruptions in the park.

This "thing" appears to me to be "weathering" as one would expect bone remnants to do.

Perhaps a non-fossilized bone would weather in a similar manner, but a fossilized bone is rock, not bone.

Further, what appears to be a tooth at the front of the lower jaws is not "weathering" at the same rate as the "non-tooth" area is, which makes a lot of sense due to the material that teeth are made of.

Well, you are looking at one side of what I believe to be a rock and you are seeing it after it has partially weathered. Differences in cementation within a very small distance in a rock is normal. That difference is why we see differential weathering.

Not being one who is knowledgeable about these matters, I certainly would not argue with you on this.

You may not be an expert, but your observations are not bad. The first thing that catches our eye when looking for a fossil or a mineral or for any other static object is very often the shape of the object. The shape of this rock certainly would have caught my eye and I would have taken a much closer look at it.

Hopefully, our resident fossil finder will get back by and maybe turn this "thing" over and get a picture of the other side. The other side will probably tell us curious folks a lot.

I too would be very interested in seeing the back side of the rock.

And just a general note. I am in no way denigrating the original poster (or anyone else) for identifying the object as a fossil. I came to this forum to learn as much as I can about Yellowstone before a planned vacation there in either May or September of next year. I saw the title of the thread and, because I am interested in fossils, took a look at the photo. Based only on the photo posted, I have given my opionion. I certainly hope I have not offended anyone.

Tim

[toddp]

Tim,
Pick May for your trip.

Great month to be in the park.

[Retired]

Tim:

I hope you keep hanging around and posting information. Given the geological history of YNP, anyone informed about same, such as you obviously are, is welcome as far as I am concerned. Over time, we are all better served with facts.
I learned a lot from your response to my post. Thanks!