*ping*
A bone of contention?....................
Well, at least they aren’t vegetable.
I’m afraid that like the ruling that declared tomatoes to be vegetables, you have to look to the intent of the law. Yes, the dinosaur bones are COMPOSED of minerals, but no, their value is not the value of the MINERALS, but of their form.
Said Bones to the Captain; “They’re dead, Jim”
Still it does bring a smile to my face, being familiar with the US West and the separability of mineral rights from surface rights. I recall an apocryphal story that had an easterner buy a small 10 acre piece to retire on. Wakes one morning to a knock and a request for some ‘people’ to come on the lot. Asking why, the reply is oil, he gets excited and asks what is it worth to me? Sad reply, we pay you for access to the property, the mineral rights aren’t yours and so sorry, no dollar$.
Two old fossils were fighting in Montana?
I thought Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters didn’t like flyover country.
Animal, vegetable, or mineral?
Be fair, split it in half length wise.
"A mineral is a naturally occurring, inorganic solid with a definite chemical composition and a crystalline structure formed by geological processes. A rock is an aggregate of one or more minerals whereas a rock may also include organic remains and mineraloids. Some rocks are predominantly composed of just one mineral."
Rocks like silicified dinosaur bone, are composed of several minerals. But for that matter, unfossilized bones are made of minerals too. Seems to me that "mineral" wins.