David MacMillan, who wrote an 8-part series on creationism for us, sent us these 4 photographs, along with the following request:
"I recently moved back to central Kentucky. One of the things I came across while visiting my family was this fossilized object I discovered near my home here when I was about 9 or 10 years old.
"Back in the late 90s, we were living in a new development and there was a lot of excavation going on near our house. I believe I found this half-buried in the bottom of a rain-fed creek just after a particularly heavy period of excavation followed by some heavy rainstorms.
"It appears to be a vertebra, due to the shape and orientation of the various spurs, and what seems to be a very large nerve opening going in the side. The exterior is dotted with what appear to be marine fossil concretions, including scallops and similar creatures.
"This region of Kentucky comprises primarily Ordovician limestone and shales, which is puzzling because this would have to be a pretty large marine vertebrate, and there were virtually no large bony vertebrates in the Ordovician. Perhaps this is actually not a vertebra at all and is rather some sort of oddly-shaped shell?
"The largest human lumbar vertebrae are around 13 mm thick, while this measures over 5 cm thick. If it is a vertebra, it would have to come from an animal with a spinal column at least five times the length of a human spine.
"Basically, I'm stumped. Any idea whether any of the readers of Panda's Thumb might be able to identify it?"
16 Comments
John Harshman · 22 June 2015
You're right. If it comes from Ordovician rocks, it isn't a vertebra or any sort of bone at all. It doesn't resemble anything else that I can see. A few questions: Are you sure it's a fossil? Bone has an obvious texture, and this looks from the photos rather like sandstone to me. Conceivably it's just an oddly eroded sandstone cobble. If, however, it is bone, It's probably Tertiary and marine, meaning most likely a whale. In what context was it found? Just lying on the ground?
John Harshman · 22 June 2015
More comments: It's hard to judge these things from photos, so don't believe anything I say. If there are indeed scallops, it's at least Mesozoic. What region of Kentucky?
Sorry, but the clear specification was for a Precambrian rabbit. Ordovician rabbits won't do.
Miguel Alfonso · 22 June 2015
Hi everyone. David, from your description you found that bone somewhere in the Bluegrass region? Do you remember where exactly? Can you get any better resolution of the surface of the specimen? Possibly near the end with the dimple/shallow hole? Also, is it possible to get a clear, high resolution shot of one of the suspected marine fossil concretions?
Miguel Alfonso · 22 June 2015
Oh and I nearly forgot. Could we have the the approximate dimnesions please? Thanks.
Matt Young · 22 June 2015
Comment from Dan Phelps: "For some reason, the comments section fails to mail me my password. If I could comment, I would ask for a better resolution photo. I suspect that it isn't a bone but a weathered fragment of cherty limestone. I can't tell without seeing the actual specimen or a better photo. David could take it to the next KPS meeting this Friday evening. I have been wanting to meet him."
Matt Young · 22 June 2015
Could we have the the approximate dimnesions please?
He notes in he caption that the thickness is "over 5 cm."
David MacMillan · 22 June 2015
If I dig deep enough and bury it in Precambrian strata, then retrieve it, will that do?
The specimen definitely has what appears to be several embedded scallop shells, at least on one side. There's also at least one embedded tube that looks like a segment from a bryozoan or a branching coral. I can't get any clearer pictures at present, but the texture is definitely very much like sedimentary rock, with a bunch of parallel layers. I'm afraid I don't know enough about geology to know whether it's a fossil or not.
The possibility of it being an oddly-eroded piece of sandstone seems rather low to me simply because of the symmetry and what appears to be a nerve hole, but I really don't know for sure. The hole is conical and quite deep; I estimate it goes in a full inch and narrows to only a 1/4 in diameter.
I don't remember who exactly found it, but it was half-buried in mud runoff after flooding. The soil here is sort of a rich orangey clay and stone is pretty much all either sandstone or shale; I think that the construction and excavation diverted a lot of water, eroding away exposed sandstone shelves along with a lot of soil, and this ended up in the mini-delta from that erosion.
It was near Powell County, Kentucky.
John Harshman · 22 June 2015
What you describe seems to be a piece of sandstone with embedded shells. It's vaguely conceivable that this sandstone infilled an existing mold of a previously dissolved vertebra, but that scenario is very unlikely. If your description is correct, this is probably not a fossil, regardless of shape.
JimboK · 23 June 2015
My experience tells me that this is probably not a vertebrae. It is most likely a solution-fluted piece of limestone or carbonate-bearing sandstone. Its resemblance to a bone is a mere coincidence. The marine fossils adhering to the piece are probably original fossils, also imbedded within the rock. I initially presumed that if this were a vertebrae, it might be of Pleistocene age, occurring in a surficial clay or sinkhole deposit. However, the intimate association of marine fossils makes that quite unlikely. From the image it is not possible to identify any fossils conclusively (i.e.- to assign an Ordovician/other age to them).
A more high resolution/close-up photo would help immensely.
Pierce R. Butler · 23 June 2015
Obviously, it's pre-Noachian.
There were giants in the earth in those days, yâknow...
Mark Sturtevant · 25 June 2015
We would need better pictures. A region of the object resembles a centrum of a vertebra, but I would feel better if I could see a closer picture and evidence of something more bone-like like markings for an ephiphysis.
Andrew Kelman · 25 June 2015
Looks like a bit of eroded sandy limestone. Perhaps test with some dilute HCl to see if it effervesces. In the lower right image, there seems to be a small grey disc with a central hole... that could be a crinoid ossicle which would be typical of ordovician sediment, and the scallops would likely be brachiopods. If you were to etch the sediment away is there any 'bone' beneath?
Ron Okimoto · 27 June 2015
There is a paleoanthroapologist that is well known to the Smithsonian named Ed Conrad. Tell him that you have found Ordovican man, and he is sure to help you get to the bottom of this issue.
Frank J · 2 July 2015
You "Darwinists" are no fun. From these few comments alone, all you do is critically analyze each other, and sometimes yourselves, test your hypotheses, then reject the answers you really want if they don't pass the tests.
What you need to do is start with the answer you want, pick and choose "evidences" to support it, make stuff up if you have to, and ignore what doesn't support it. And when you come across other "Darwinists" who disagree on the "details," just be as vague as possible to avoid publicizing your disagreements. Better yet, don't give any clue as to what you think happened where, when or how, and just whine incessantly about your perceived weaknesses of creationism/ID ;-)
16 Comments
John Harshman · 22 June 2015
You're right. If it comes from Ordovician rocks, it isn't a vertebra or any sort of bone at all. It doesn't resemble anything else that I can see. A few questions: Are you sure it's a fossil? Bone has an obvious texture, and this looks from the photos rather like sandstone to me. Conceivably it's just an oddly eroded sandstone cobble. If, however, it is bone, It's probably Tertiary and marine, meaning most likely a whale. In what context was it found? Just lying on the ground?
John Harshman · 22 June 2015
More comments: It's hard to judge these things from photos, so don't believe anything I say. If there are indeed scallops, it's at least Mesozoic. What region of Kentucky?
Jim · 22 June 2015
Definitely rabbit. I'm afraid they've finally got us.
John Harshman · 22 June 2015
Sorry, but the clear specification was for a Precambrian rabbit. Ordovician rabbits won't do.
Miguel Alfonso · 22 June 2015
Hi everyone. David, from your description you found that bone somewhere in the Bluegrass region? Do you remember where exactly? Can you get any better resolution of the surface of the specimen? Possibly near the end with the dimple/shallow hole? Also, is it possible to get a clear, high resolution shot of one of the suspected marine fossil concretions?
Miguel Alfonso · 22 June 2015
Oh and I nearly forgot. Could we have the the approximate dimnesions please? Thanks.
Matt Young · 22 June 2015
Comment from Dan Phelps: "For some reason, the comments section fails to mail me my password. If I could comment, I would ask for a better resolution photo. I suspect that it isn't a bone but a weathered fragment of cherty limestone. I can't tell without seeing the actual specimen or a better photo. David could take it to the next KPS meeting this Friday evening. I have been wanting to meet him."
Matt Young · 22 June 2015
David MacMillan · 22 June 2015
If I dig deep enough and bury it in Precambrian strata, then retrieve it, will that do?
The specimen definitely has what appears to be several embedded scallop shells, at least on one side. There's also at least one embedded tube that looks like a segment from a bryozoan or a branching coral. I can't get any clearer pictures at present, but the texture is definitely very much like sedimentary rock, with a bunch of parallel layers. I'm afraid I don't know enough about geology to know whether it's a fossil or not.
The possibility of it being an oddly-eroded piece of sandstone seems rather low to me simply because of the symmetry and what appears to be a nerve hole, but I really don't know for sure. The hole is conical and quite deep; I estimate it goes in a full inch and narrows to only a 1/4 in diameter.
I don't remember who exactly found it, but it was half-buried in mud runoff after flooding. The soil here is sort of a rich orangey clay and stone is pretty much all either sandstone or shale; I think that the construction and excavation diverted a lot of water, eroding away exposed sandstone shelves along with a lot of soil, and this ended up in the mini-delta from that erosion.
It was near Powell County, Kentucky.
John Harshman · 22 June 2015
What you describe seems to be a piece of sandstone with embedded shells. It's vaguely conceivable that this sandstone infilled an existing mold of a previously dissolved vertebra, but that scenario is very unlikely. If your description is correct, this is probably not a fossil, regardless of shape.
JimboK · 23 June 2015
My experience tells me that this is probably not a vertebrae. It is most likely a solution-fluted piece of limestone or carbonate-bearing sandstone. Its resemblance to a bone is a mere coincidence. The marine fossils adhering to the piece are probably original fossils, also imbedded within the rock. I initially presumed that if this were a vertebrae, it might be of Pleistocene age, occurring in a surficial clay or sinkhole deposit. However, the intimate association of marine fossils makes that quite unlikely. From the image it is not possible to identify any fossils conclusively (i.e.- to assign an Ordovician/other age to them).
A more high resolution/close-up photo would help immensely.
Pierce R. Butler · 23 June 2015
Obviously, it's pre-Noachian.
There were giants in the earth in those days, yâknow...
Mark Sturtevant · 25 June 2015
We would need better pictures. A region of the object resembles a centrum of a vertebra, but I would feel better if I could see a closer picture and evidence of something more bone-like like markings for an ephiphysis.
Andrew Kelman · 25 June 2015
Looks like a bit of eroded sandy limestone. Perhaps test with some dilute HCl to see if it effervesces. In the lower right image, there seems to be a small grey disc with a central hole... that could be a crinoid ossicle which would be typical of ordovician sediment, and the scallops would likely be brachiopods. If you were to etch the sediment away is there any 'bone' beneath?
Ron Okimoto · 27 June 2015
There is a paleoanthroapologist that is well known to the Smithsonian named Ed Conrad. Tell him that you have found Ordovican man, and he is sure to help you get to the bottom of this issue.
Frank J · 2 July 2015
You "Darwinists" are no fun. From these few comments alone, all you do is critically analyze each other, and sometimes yourselves, test your hypotheses, then reject the answers you really want if they don't pass the tests.
What you need to do is start with the answer you want, pick and choose "evidences" to support it, make stuff up if you have to, and ignore what doesn't support it. And when you come across other "Darwinists" who disagree on the "details," just be as vague as possible to avoid publicizing your disagreements. Better yet, don't give any clue as to what you think happened where, when or how, and just whine incessantly about your perceived weaknesses of creationism/ID ;-)