Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Some petrified wood found in northwestern New Mexico, San Juan Basin, Upper Cretaceous, Kirtland Formation a couple of weeks ago.  The cut slabs are from a log about 6-inches in diameter and my best guess is conifer only because most everything else in that area turns out to be conifer, specifically, Cupressinoxylon sp.   Any other opinion about species would be welcome.  There are several nice agate bands running through the length of the log and are clearly visible here.

 

The first slab is dry and the second is wet.

 

 

wood 1A.jpg

wood 1B.jpg

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice and I love the blue agate bands too. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t confirm or deny conifer, but that is a beautiful piece. Love the banding!  :wub:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jerry W. said:

Some petrified wood found in northwestern New Mexico, San Juan Basin, Upper Cretaceous, Kirtland Formation a couple of weeks ago.  The cut slabs are from a log about 6-inches in diameter and my best guess is conifer only because most everything else in that area turns out to be conifer, specifically, Cupressinoxylon sp.   Any other opinion about species would be welcome.  There are several nice agate bands running through the length of the log and are clearly visible here.

 

The first slab is dry and the second is wet.

 

 

wood 1A.jpg

wood 1B.jpg

GOSH!!! That is GORGEOUS!!!:wub:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you show us a surface that represents a transverse section ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Can you show us a surface that represents a transverse section ?

Sure thing.  Here is a longitudinal shot of the complete collected specimen showing the dissected portion.  Unfortunately, no bark from the wood was also fossilized.  From studies of that area (about 10 miles away), there was once a conifer forest close by enveloped by a bog or swamp. Such a thing would ordinarily rid the submerged trees of their outer bark.

0229200725a.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Moozillion said:

only because most everything else in that area turns out to be conifer,

I think it's all you have.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Rockwood said:

I think it's all you have.

Ummm... this is very odd- I never said that. Jerry W, the original poster is who said that...:headscratch:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moozillion said:

Ummm... this is very odd- I never said that. Jerry W, the original poster is who said that...:headscratch:

 Yes, pretty weird.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad

I think @Rockwood has quoted @Moozillion's post and then deleted everything except the part of @Jerry W.'s post that he wished to quote. But he didn't realize it would leave the time and poster listed as being Bea's (Moozillion's). 

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2020 at 6:43 PM, Jerry W. said:

only because most everything else in that area turns out to be conifer,

Better ?

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

and then deleted

I just highlight what I want and quote it directly. A quote of a quote became mislabeled. 

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Rockwood said:

I just highlight what I want and quote it directly. A quote of a quote became mislabeled. 

Thanks, Rockwood! I'm glad I'm not the only one who makes computer errors!

If only these dang machines would do what I WANT instead of what I TELL them to do!!!:default_rofl:

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/02/2020 at 12:43 AM, Jerry W. said:

Any other opinion about species would be welcome.

Commenting on the genus/species is not really possible with only macroscopic images. In fact, based on the photographs you present here alone, one wouldn't be able to conclusively confirm you're dealing with a softwood. You may be able to get further on your own, using a hand lens and comparing the wood microstructure to reference materials, like the InsideWood database: https://insidewood.lib.ncsu.edu/search. For more info about which characteristics to look for, see the IAWA list of microscopic features for softwood identification: https://www.iawa-website.org/uploads/soft/Abstracts/01_IAWA-Softwood_List.pdf

 

 

  • I found this Informative 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, paleoflor said:

Commenting on the genus/species is not really possible with only macroscopic images. In fact, based on the photographs you present here alone, one wouldn't be able to conclusively confirm you're dealing with a softwood. You may be able to get further on your own, using a hand lens and comparing the wood microstructure to reference materials, like the InsideWood database: https://insidewood.lib.ncsu.edu/search. For more info about which characteristics to look for, see the IAWA list of microscopic features for softwood identification: https://www.iawa-website.org/uploads/soft/Abstracts/01_IAWA-Softwood_List.pdf

 

 

I really appreciate your response and the resources.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...