MSirmon Posted February 8, 2020 Share Posted February 8, 2020 Found a couple pretty large pieces today on my property just outside Wister OK. The area is Pennsylvanian and I have found a lot of very nice calamites sp. and other plant related items but am struggling with deciding if these 2 pcs are fossils or cool looking geological, either way I will happily add them to either a collection of rock garden, depending on the outcome. Any help would be appreciated. I didn’t have a tape available so the chapstick tube is the best size reference I have for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandpa Posted February 8, 2020 Share Posted February 8, 2020 I believe we are looking at sedimentary (sandstone?) deposits. Interesting that they are in cylindrical shapes. Should be great additions to the rock garden. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 I agree. Interesting example of less common erosion. 1 Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plantguy Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 I agree the rock/remains looks like sandstone/siltstone type layering. The overlapped areas that I circled and the general cylindrical shape makes me wonder if it could be some type of infill of a long ago gone burrow/trunk/now possible pith cast (artisia like) given the geology/nearby plant fossils mentioned...that overlap suggests to me fill/a layered cast -- more than/just an unusually weathered sandstone shape? Anyone agree/disagree? Regards, Chris 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 I agree it may be a possibility, but is there enough detail present to say so with any certainty? If we apply Occam's razor to the dilemma, which is the least complicated explanation? 2 Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 Artisia might be a good guess for this specimen. I agree with Chris. 1 " We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. " Thomas Mann My Library Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kato Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 Given the estimates size of that lip balm the possible pith would be approximately 10"-12" in diameter? If it is Artisia, then that would have to been on huge calamite! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 1 hour ago, Kato said: If it is Artisia, then that would have to been on huge calamite! They did grow to thirty meters. 1 Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleoflor Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 The genus Artisia represents pith casts of cordaitaleans, rather than sphenophytes. I agree with Kato, however, that this would be a rather huge specimen. The largest Artisia specimen I have ever encountered measured under 13 cm in true diameter (see LINK). According to Crookall (1969), Artisia is commonly 2-3 cm but can attain about 10 cm in diameter, suggesting a similar range. Note the pith would have had a much smaller diameter than the woody cilinder, so even for a tall tree this would be quite massive already. Having said that, this specimen does not resemble Artisia to me. The layered (sedimentary) structure is clearly present throughout, as evidenced by the "steps" on the upper face of the specimen, best visible on the first and third photographs. Colour changes and variations in thickness also suggest the visible layering is sedimentary. In Artisia the ribbed texture is a surface feature and generally not aligned with the bulk layering of the sediments making up the cast. 4 Searching for green in the dark grey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kato Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 8 minutes ago, paleoflor said: The genus Artisia represents pith casts of cordaitaleans, rather than sphenophytes. I agree with Kato, however, that this would be a rather huge specimen. The largest Artisia specimen I have ever encountered measured under 13 cm in true diameter (see LINK). According to Crookall (1969), Artisia is commonly 2-3 cm but can attain about 10 cm in diameter, suggesting a similar range. Note the pith would have had a much smaller diameter than the woody cilinder, so even for a tall tree this would be quite massive already. Having said that, this specimen does not resemble Artisia to me. The layered (sedimentary) structure is clearly present throughout, as evidenced by the "steps" on the upper face of the specimen, best visible on the first and third photographs. Colour changes and variations in thickness also suggest the visible layering is sedimentary. In Artisia the ribbed texture is a surface feature and generally not aligned with the bulk layering of the sediments making up the cast. @paleoflor Wow! 13 cm is ginormous. Most of the pieces I find are 2-4 cm. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleoflor Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 9 minutes ago, Kato said: Wow! 13 cm is ginormous. Most of the pieces I find are 2-4 cm. Below a photograph with scale. Vast majority of my finds are also in the 1-3 cm range. 2 Searching for green in the dark grey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plantguy Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 Hey Tim and gang, @paleoflor Thanks for the replies/additional thoughts on my pondering outloud. Ruling out Artesia makes complete sense now. I bounced this additional image with arrows pointing at some of the overlaps of the layering along with several of the other photos of a local expert and got this similar comment/detail: Examined the images that you sent. They appear to be of a sandstone column. The column is not Artesia (too large and lacking the vertical striae characteristic of the form). Although it might be infilling of a log/trunk, it shows very nearly horizontal layers and does not bear the pattern of sediment infill one would expect (i.e., more meniscate/concave up, particularly near edges) of filling a tube. The arrows seem to point to fractures (possibly with secondary infill) as one or more of the fractures appear to pass up and out of a light/dark layer then return, rather than follow layers across. Thanks all for the responses! Very very cool specimen! Regards, Chris 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westcoast Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 I wouldn't completely rule out log/stump infill. Meniscate edges wouldn't be obvious unless you see a cross section. Also I have seen quite fine laminations in stump infill. Interesting piece. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now