Search the Community

Hi everyone today again I found another plant fossil in the creek it use to be 2 feet long but I could not get it out in one piece because it seemed to fall apart when when I tried to remove it but I did get one piece out with good detail here are some photos

I needed help identifying this tree bark. Its about 38 million years old from the Renton Formation in Western Washington State. I can see insect burrow marks but they could also be the details in the tree itself. Its about 12 inches long and 5 ish inches wide

Hi, I found these in the Carbonado Formation Washington State. 42 - 47 million years ago. Eocene under a coal seam. I found this bark of some mysterious looking tree. Around the same rock were tons of leaves, all similar to one species (except one leaf which I will also include). I am hoping people can identify the family of tree for me. I also am posting some strange "cattail" / "horsetail" like stem / leaf because this could possibly be a branch from this tree. disclaimer: I am still trying to figure out my phone. The last photo is more clear, larger and detailed. The only difference was, I held my phone sideways. Maybe this is what I will do in the future. First I will post the bark

Here’s the first fossils I’ve ever found! Found in Webster County, West Virginia. Where they hollow out a road. The stone is shale from my knowledge..... I’d love to know it’s age and name? And, how to prep them.

Good evening to everyone, I am really very new to fossils and petrified items so I am at a loss as to what I may have and I need your help. My grandfather left me this piece when he passed away a few months ago and it was marked "Petrified Mushroom". I have included some photos for your review and if you have any questions please let me know. The mushroom, for lack of a better word, is about 22" long by 14" deep by about 3/8" in height. It weighs just about 74 grams and has a spot in the middle that looks like wood, it looks like it was cut or removed from a piece of wood maybe a tree. Any help anyone could provide would be extremely appreciated. If this is the wrong forum to ask about my item I deeply apologize, just let me know and I will remove the post right away. Thank you again and I hope everyone has a great week.

This is an assortment of what I've been told by Devonian fossil experts are "mangal shoots" - tubular shoots growing in an ancient Devonian mud swamp, similar to mangrove shoots. I am told these are most likely shoots of the Wattiezza fern tree, which has been found in Devonian strata in New York. I discovered these in central New York at a construction site where I asked permission to collect some fossils a few years ago. I also collected several Devonian plant stems as well as several of these "mangal shoots". They were found vertically situated from 1 to 3 meters apart, in a layer of fossilized mud. Several stems or roots were also revealed in situ but too fragile to recover intact. The "mangal shoots" are tube shaped, rounded on the top, some have evidence of root structures (similar to swamp tree roots like Cypress, that spread out at the base) and there is a small circular tube structure running down the center. One photo shows the bottom where "root" appendages are shown. None are solid, all are broken into segments. Here are a couple of photos. Any insights and comments would be welcome.

UPDATE: August 20, 2013 - A new site for Wattieza - the world's oldest known tree Since posting this, the debate about "orthocone" versus "Devonian tree" has been settled. The Devonian tree experts have weighed in and confirm that these are Devonian tree shoots. They were growing in a swampy shallow marine environment similar to how modern mangroves grow. Since our original discovery - which represents an entirely and previously unknown site for Devonian Wattieza trees - my wife and I have collected more than a dozen separate fossils including some with surrounding substrate, from this site. I have cleaned most of the specimens and am taking closeup photos from all perspectives, now, to show such things as the central tube (called a stele) that runs through the core and the texture of the outer covering. In addition to Wattieza we have also discovered a separate Devonian plant species which we are attempting to evaluate and identify. Here is a photo from our SECOND site visit that shows the actual small Wattieza stump fossil that we collected, placed in front of a photo of the same fossil in the substrate as we found it. You can also see the adjacent "stick" which we currently believe is NOT part of the Wattieza stump - a separate closeup of the stick is included. We are currently looking at our several "stick" fossils and planning to cut one to look at the cross-section pattern, to try to determine the plant species. We feel that these finds have the potential to add new information about Devonian trees and plants, from this new site. It is also significant that we found these in a Devonian site where there are normally only marine fossils so we appear to have found a rare "island" of ideal conditions where young mangal Wattieza trees were growing in a paleosol where the conditions allowed fossilization. Geologically, these fossils are at the lower end of the "Tully limestone" formation. Our Devonian tree/plant finds confirm our thinking as "advanced amateur" paleontologists that as amateur fossil hunters we all can and should be using our time and knowledge to discover new sites and add to the fossil record. The small "army" of fossil hunters represented on The Fossil Forum have a unique opportunity to look in places where scientists may not have an opportunity - or inclination - to search. Once in awhile we discover something important, which seems to be the case here. OUR ORIGINAL POST Before I write our 4th of July trip report, I asked for some ID help with 3 tube shaped fossils we discovered at Tully, NY (Devonian, Hamilton Group) - the first opinion I received is that these are orthocone cephalopods. A contrary view is that these are Devonian trees! I modified the description slightly from the original post to reflect the current debate which has made this a "hot" topic. Have to admit, it's kind of cool that our first major fossil trip this year has sparked such an interesting discussion! Nan and I found these in situ sitting vertically in the substrate of a new construction site. I had found a few very large (2 inch diameter) cylinder shaped segments in the rubble that looked like cephalopod pieces and they were the largest we have seen to-date, so we were intrigued and started pulling away the substrate in the vertical walls exposed by the bulldozer. The first two fossils were found about a meter apart and the third was found about 300 meters away over a hill, but in the same level strata and depth. I'll do some minor cleaning, take better pix of the recovered fossils and segments, and add them soon - there appears to be a siphuncle structure running through the center, and other clues to the identity. Here is a quick view of how and where they were found - of course we realize it's very rare to find this type of fossil vertically embedded in the substrate. Nan found the first one, I found the next two and excavated all three - will provide more photos soon but hoped to get an ID first. The third sample had about 2/3 with the bottom portion missing. The first two appear to spread out slightly at the bottom. Several people suggested these could be trees and a few said other creatures but most people I talked to before posting this seem to agree they are orthocone cephalods. Aside from their size and shape (which is unusually large for the Tully shale so these are rare especially found in situ) - the primary convincing evidence is the siphon (siphuncle) protruding from the tip of the top of one of the specimens. This structure runs like a worm through the center - the other segments show holes in the center where the "wormlike body" ran through it. This argues against trees or other creatures but a few people claim that Devonian trees did have a similar center structure. The most confusing aspect is the lack of hard shell which should be present if this were a cephalopod - so what does that suggest? Another type of creature? Did they moult their shells and is this the "soft shelled" phase? Or is this a tree? Here is the top segment from the best specimen which clearly shows the siphuncle protruding at the center. In addition to the segmented tube shaped structures (they are all about the same diameter and length) there appear to be tentacle shaped structures on the left side although I didn't recover those when I extracted the tubes. Of course if this is a tree, then it is possible that those structures could be shoots. The tentacles or shoots were not recovered and are only shown in the photo which unfortunately limits the analysis. Here is how the debate seems to be shaping up: Pro Orthocone Cephalopod - These 3 specimens were found in what appears to be a Devonian marine environment where all of the fossils found there have been marine fossils. They have a small center "worm like" structure running through the center that looks like a siphuncle (siphon). They are all segmented and all the same approximate length and diameter. One was partially collapsed and distorted (some segments bulging outward). No one has suggested a cephalopod species that this might represent. Pro Devonian Tree - The horizontal strata where they were found contained very few if any marine fossils so they could be small young trees growing in the water. There is no trace of any shell fragments which is unusual if this is a cephalopod and the segments don't resemble cephalopod shells. There is a thin outer "skin" which could be consistent with ancient horsetail type bark. In the cross section of the segments, there are no concentric circles - in early trees there was pith, not traditional wood with concentric growth circles and some people have indicated that the first Devonian trees did have a similar center structure. The center core that looks like a siphuncle would be a core structure called a stele. Piranha suggests that this could be Wattieza sp., a prehistoric cladoxylopsid tree from the Middle Devonian that was discovered in Gilboa, New York which would be consistent with the location which was the Hamilton Group near Tully, NY. This genus has been called the earliest known trees. One of our goals for this fossil trip was to find something larger and distinctive/unusual and apparently we've done that. Another goal we've had since last year was to find a Devonian plant of some sort and it would be cool if that's what this turns out to be. I'll be just as happy if these are orthocones. The debate is hot on the ID for these and with all the attention and help from everyone, we should zone in soon. I'll take some more closeup photos this week and post them here. These are some of the largest fossils Nan and I have found so far and certainly the largest we have found in situ - it's fascinating that we found these exactly where they died and were preserved, 385 mya. I have to admit I felt like RomanK, who finds a lot of stunning in situ fossils and I have to admit, I was consciously trying to think like Roman and inspired by his example while searching for these fossils, which involved a lot of "excavation." UPDATE: NEW PHOTOS/CLOSEUPS At the end of this blog (page 3 and 4) I posted some new closeup images.

Nice day to all here ! Could anyone tell a tree? Location Czech Republic, limestone board. Because it has fallen in the limestone, the crust is quite cruel. It would probably break apart. Can you advise me to have a tip for conservation?

I have a couple of rocks that look like seeds. What do you think? Do those look like bite marks on the one on the left? Let's hear your thoughts. The one on the right was in pea gravel at a playground in Iowa, I find fossil shell fossils in pea gravel sometimes. I'm not sure where I got the other one, in central Iowa.

Is this a tree fern/cycad fossil? It measures 12cm in diameter and is round in shape. It is from Liaoning of China.