Re: Any one up for fossil ID, again

[Silvio Renesto <renesto@mailserver.unimi.it>]

At 07.43 22/01/02 -0700, you wrote:
> they are carved rocks, intended to fool tourists into thinking they are
> dinosaur fossils
>
> > I know next to nothing about fossil identification, but I was going to say
> > that they at least superficially resemble sauropod unguals of some sort.

I showed it also to a pedologist  and he agreeds with me that they look 
like stones, not like bones :-)
As David Marjanovic wrote before, some features (rounded structures at the 
"base" with a different colour/texture) make the thing look like a 
conglomerate.
IMHO either David  Marjanovic hypothesis is correct and they are very 
poorly preserved  internal moulds of some invertebrate shell, or (as I 
suggested in my previous posting) their shape is solely a  product of some 
geomorphological agent (water). We may also combine the two hypotheses: a 
poor internal mould that suffered an heavy action of the geomorphological 
agent.
All the best,

                                        Silvio Renesto



_
"The Wise Man is like a bamboo tree;
                simple, upright, and useful, but hollow inside"

                                                Lao Tzu

Silvio Renesto

Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra
Università degli Studi di Milano
Via Mangiagalli 34
I 20133 Milano
Italy
phone +39-02-50315511
fax     +39-02-50315494
e-mail:  renesto@mailserver.unimi.it
        Silvio.Renesto@unimi.it
have a look at our Triassic  website at
http://users.unimi.it/vertpal/index.htm