Skip navigation
611 Views 7 Replies Last post: Jun 24, 2013 12:05 PM by Heather RSS
Currently Being Moderated

Jun 19, 2013 11:46 AM

Bones identification

Hi, I have found a couple bones, the big one is heavy. Are they fossil?

ThanksIMG_1397.jpgIMG_1398.jpgIMG_1399.jpgIMG_1400.jpgIMG_1401.jpgIMG_1402.jpgIMG_1403.jpg

DomIMG_1396.jpg

  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 21, 2013 11:39 AM (in response to onulu)
    Re: Bones identification

    Hi Onulu,

    They look like geologically recent fossils, sometimes it is difficult to judge. Please can you tell us where you found them? This may help us regarding the age.

    Regards,

    Fiona

    • Report Abuse
    • Currently Being Moderated
      Jun 21, 2013 12:06 PM (in response to Fiona - Museum ID team)
      Re: Bones identification

      Hello,

      These are too fragmented for an amateur like me to ID. I think the one in photo IMG_1396 is part of a cow radius+ulna (the two are fused together), towards the distal end. Ideally I would handle the specimens, as I'm not very good at estimating size and rotating them in my mind while looking at photos. The other one (IMG_1403) may be half of the distal end of a metacarpal or metatarsal. Or is it a pelvis fragment?

      They don't look fossil to me, but it's worth showing them to an expert just in case.

      Yours,

      Florin

      • Report Abuse
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2013 12:05 PM (in response to onulu)
    Re: Bones identification

    Indeed these are all too worn to identify species as the identifying features have all gone. They aren't fossil and are very commonly found along the Thames foreshore. However, the five whiter fragments towards the top of the image posted 21 June are all clay pipe fragments, not bone.

    • Report Abuse

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked by (0)