Could  anyone specifically identify the species of this fossil?
965181
You should go to an university to check that out. Ask for the geology department and ask for a paleontologist, he(she) will help you out.\nI am no expert on this but it looks more like a type of crab, trilobites the head tend to be preserved more easily than the tail. It seems that you can carve the fossil out that will help, but ask a paleontologist first.
531946
wow that was soooooo long ago,you must be really old.number one was the first t rex went extinct. sorry lol
780432
Sahelanthropus tchadensis is the oldest fossil hominid...In the below website it mentions why it is the oldest....\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
498997
If it's really small, it may be a pseudoscorpion.\n\nHere's a pic: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ar_1.jpg
164872
Where is Calimecita when you need her!!!\n\nArchaeopteridales\n(Upper Devonian to Mississippian)\nPerhaps one of the most remarkable paleobotanical discoveries is the work done by Charles B. Beck in the 1960s. Through careful and painstaking work, he was able to demonstrate that the fossil wood known as Callixylon and the leaves known as Archaeopteris, shown at left, were actually part of the same plant. This may sound trivial, until one realizes that the fossil record seldom preserves whole organisms intact. \nIn the case of Archaeopteris, the leaves were reminiscent of ferns, and in fact produced and released spores in a manner consistent with this interpretation. As a result, they were considered to be some sort of fossil fern. The wood Callixylon, by contrast, was considered similar to modern conifers, and was placed with the seed plants. When Dr. Beck demonstrated that fossils of Archaeopteris were physically attached to Callixylon wood, it was realised that the plant, now collectively called Archaeopteris, was actually an extinct group of plants unlike any living plants today -- it had both wood and fern-like reproduction. \n\nYes...........I cut and pasted. (Hoping it would all make sense to you!!)
951088
just go in ask.com on type in fossils
820114
I think it is possibly a type of gargoyle
150103
>>>>>What color was Tyrannasaurus Rex?\n\nWe have no absolutely no way of knowing.  It almost certainly varied with the age of the animal.\n\nThe young animals almost certainly had feathers, and given their small size it seems reasonably that both the feathers and the skin would have been dark brown or black to enable them to heat from sunlight. The addittion of spots or stripes would add in hiding. The young of most large birds and mammals today are stipe dor spotted so it seems reasonable to assume the same for tyrranosaur chicks.\n\n\nThe adults seem to have lacked feathers, at least for the most part. In that respect they seem to be like elephants rhinos, whales and other large mammals where the young retain at leat sparse hair that is almost totally absent from the adult.\n\nWhat colour the adults were we simply can’t know. Animals of that size generally have little use for camouflage colouration so they can be whatever colour they like. The big question is how much of a role vision played in courtship. If tyrannosaurs were like modern birds we would expect the males at least to have extremely brightly coloured heads at the very least. \n\nSo an olive grey Tyrrannosaur with a bright blue head and big red circles under the eyes is no less likely than any other colour scheme.\n\n\n\nCellar door said “They were just large versions of the lizards we have today.”\n\n\nThey most certainly were NOT large versions of the lizards we have today. They are only very distantly related to modern lizards. The closest living relatives are, not surprisingly, birds. \n\n\nWe aren’t entirely certain what the lifestyle of a T. rex was, they seem to have been a combination of predator and scavenger. In terms of lifestyle the closest living comparison would probably be a lion or hyaena.\n\nThey were in no way lizard-like.\n\n>>>>They went extinct because of a meteor\n\nThat is one theory, but one that is rapidly losing credibility.  There were probably multiple factors leading to the mass extinction that took T. rex along with numerous other species. A comet or meteor impact just doesn’t explain all the observations
264399
This is actually a Apatosaurus.  It was mistakenly named in the 1870's.  Now most museums do not use the name "brontosaurus". It's also a Herbivore\n\nhttp://www.kidzworld.com/site/p614.htm\n\nhttp://yahooligans.yahoo.com/content/science/dinosaurs/dino_card/151.html
329047
it was a tyranosaurus rex wasn't it? I'm pretty sure that was it. except for the ones that he'd made up in the mansion of course, we don't know the sequance in which he made those, but the tyranosaurus rex was the first one you saw him do
1075116
Structures resembling remarkably preserved bacterial and cyanobacterial microfossils from ~3,465-million-year-old Apex cherts of the Warrawoona Group in Western Australia currently provide the oldest morphological evidence for life on Earth and have been taken to support an early beginning for oxygen-producing photosynthesis. Eleven species of filamentous prokaryote, distinguished by shape and geometry, have been put forward as meeting the criteria required of authentic Archaean microfossils, and contrast with other microfossils dismissed as either unreliable or unreproducible. These structures are nearly a billion years older than putative cyanobacterial biomarkers, genomic arguments for cyanobacteria, and oxygenic atmosphere and any comparable diverse suite of microfossils. Here we report new research on the type and re-collected material, involving mapping, optical and electron microscopy, digital image analysis, micro-Raman spectroscopy and other geochemical techniques. We reinterpret the purported microfossil-like structure as secondary artefacts formed from amorphous graphite within multiple generations of metalliferous hydrothermal vein chert and volcanic glass. Although there is no support for primary biological morphology, a Fischer-Tropsch-type synthesis of carbon compounds and carbon isotopic fractionation is inferred for one of the oldest known hydrothermal systems on Earth.
1120229
It's only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it.  One sold in 2003 for $3,000,000.00 and supposedly there are only 5 known specimens.
779028
No skeletal remains have yet been unearthed that match the classic dragon profile. However, there is some evidence that suggests a few dinosaur survivors may have coexisted with early man, and together with the occasional skeletal piece uncovered thru man's history, could provide the root to all the legends.
725060
Whoa! slow down, there is fossil evidence a transition from reptiles and birds. Most famously Archeopteryx with reptilian skull, teeth, digits, claws, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, and mainly unfused bones, and a few bird traits like a wishbone, wings and feathers!! In older sediments, there are theropod dinosaurs with skeletal similarities to Archeopteryx. In younger sediments, there are several fossils with more birds-like traits, such as Sinornis and Shenzhouraptor and dozens more (wikipedia "fossil birds").\n\nFossils of scales and feathers are very very rarely preserved. Imprints of the Archeopteryx feathers are only preserved because the fossils are embedded in very rare, very fine limestone that used to be used in lithography. It is unreasonable to demand fossil evidence of a transition between scales and feathers. That said, there are several theropod fossils with feathers that have been recently discovered in a fine Chinese deposit, things like Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx and Beipiaosaurus.\n\nBut sure, every detail of the the transition from reptiles to birds isn't documented. Other than demanding an excessive amount of evidence, I really don't know what arguments you can use, I don't think there are any true ones. But you might find some convincing sounding ones on Creationist propaganda websites. It depends on your audience.
77663
Adapted from Dinosaurs: The Very Latest Information and Hands-On Activities From the Museum of the Rockies, by Liza Charlesworth and Bonnie Sachatello-Sawyer. A Scholastic Professional Book.\n\nWay back in 1676, Robert Plot, the curator of an English museum, described and drew a thigh bone that he believed belonged to a giant man. Although that fossil disappeared without a trace, the surviving illustration suggests that it may well have been part of a "Megalosaurus." Later, in 1822, large teeth discovered in England by Mary Ann Mantell and her husband, Gideon, were thought to be the remains of a huge and extinct iguana. It wasn't until 1841 that British scientist Richard Owen came to realize that such fossils were distinct from the teeth or bones of any living creature. The ancient animals were so different, in fact, that they deserved their own name. So Owen dubbed the group "Dinosauria," which means "terrible lizards."\n\nAcross the ocean in North America, dinosaur tracks were studied in the Connecticut Valley, beginning in the 1830's. They were believed to belong to enormous ravens, freed from Noah's Ark after the Great Flood. At that time, paleontology was long on deduction and short on evidence. This was remedied when two wealthy and competitive American scientists, Othniel Marsh and Edward Cope, raced to excavate fossils in the Rocky Mountain region. In the late 1800's, their separate teams, armed against Native Americans and each other, dug up tons of bones from several sites. All in all, Marsh and Cope's rivalry — known as the Bone Wars — uncovered 136 new species. And their respective fossil displays generated excitement for dinosaurs the world over.\n\nIn the 1900's, enthusiasm for dinosaurs grew steadily, attracting the attention of the scientific community. Institutions such as the Carnegie Museum of Natural History and the American Museum of Natural History assembled dig teams, which uncovered many rich bone beds in North America (as did their counterparts overseas). New sites in Utah revealed several different species, including "Camarasaurus," "Apatosaurus," and "Stegosaurus;" "Tyrannosaurus rex" remains were found in Montana and baby Coelosaurs in New Mexico.\n\nIn recent decades, dinosaur research continues, but the emphasis has shifted from finding and classifying these animals to analyzing and reconstructing their lives and habitats. In the late 1960's, Robert Bakker proposed that these ancient creatures may well have been as agile and energetic as warm-blooded animals. In the mid 1970's, Peter Dodson, along with James Farlow, hypothesized that they used their horns to attract the attention of females, as well as for fighting. And in the late 1970's, Jack Horner made history by identifying some of the first dinosaurs nests and eggs in North America. These important "Maiasaura" fossils helped to determine that some species nested in colonies and cared for their young.\n\nIn the past few years, several paleontologists, including Ken Carpenter, Phil Currie, and William Coombs, have identified juvenile dinosaurs that were previously thought to be adults; and David Weishampel has theorized that some dinosaurs probably used their crests and nasal passages to create sound. Each day, scientists working all over the world, in the field and in research labs, help to redefine the meaning of the world "dinosaur."
315160
It's an Arctiidae (tiger moth) larvae. If you upload a picture and the region where you live, I might be able to tell you the species.
241677
You may be interested in this site: it lists the many fossil homonids.\n\nSome of the more famous fossil homonids include the Taung child, Turkana boy, Chellean man, Heidelberg man, and of course Lucy.  The site provided gives information on these and many other fossil homonids.  It also has interesting rebuttals to creationist arguments that these fossils are false, made-up, non-human, not as old as they seem they are, etc.  Definitely worth the read if you're interested in this topic...\n\nhttp://www.snowcrest.net/goehring/a2/primates/fossils.htm#args_piltdown\n\nIt is also good to remember that not all homonid fossils are "human ancestors", the Homo genus "family tree" has many branches.  There's a good article on Wikipedia explaining this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution\n\nHope this is helpful :-)