Petrified Wood Confirmation please

[Top Trilo]

Pretty sure this is petrified wood can you confirm this. And then the little hole on the one side is deeper than it looks in the picture (about as deep as it is wide) is there anyway to say if this was caused by erosion or from something living before fossilization

[Top Trilo]

Forgot the pictures, 

[Rockwood]

3 minutes ago, Top Trilo said:

something living before fossilization

Blood vessel. Pretty sure that's bone. 

[Top Trilo]

32 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

Blood vessel. Pretty sure that's bone. 

Would better photos help determine bone or wood?

[Rockwood]

1 hour ago, Top Trilo said:

Would better photos help determine bone or wood?

Couldn't hurt.

[Top Trilo]

6 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

Couldn't hurt.

I attached some closer pictures along with pictures of the ends

 

 

[Rockwood]

32 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

Couldn't hurt.

Or maybe it could. 

I'll stick with bone though.

[Top Trilo]

26 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

Or maybe it could. 

I'll stick with bone though.

Do you think its fossilized? It feels like it but I'm unsure

[Rockwood]

4 hours ago, Top Trilo said:

It feels like it but I'm unsure

I would feel more confident if things weren't so quiet around here. 

[Top Trilo]

12 hours ago, Rockwood said:

I would feel more confident if things weren't so quiet around here. 

Ya yesterday was quiet, I want to be sure because it would be my first bone find even if it is just a chunkosaur. Thank you for your help.

[frankh8147]

I'm pretty sold on bone for the exact reasons @Rockwood mentioned. I would be shocked if that ended up being fossilized wood..

[Top Trilo]

22 minutes ago, frankh8147 said:

I'm pretty sold on bone for the exact reasons @Rockwood mentioned. I would be shocked if that ended up being fossilized wood..

Do you think it’s fossilized?

[Rockwood]

19 hours ago, Top Trilo said:

Do you think its fossilized? It feels like it but I'm unsure

If it feels like it it probably is.

You can try tapping it lightly with a spoon. The tone it makes will tell you to some degree how hard it is. An easily provable fossil will be a good match for stone.

[Thomas.Dodson]

Agreed with bone. It certainly looks fossilized but pictures can be deceiving. I'd lean towards fossilized though.

 

Does it seem dense or mineralized? Acoustic tests by tapping the specimen with a metal instrument can be informative. It sounds very different from tapping modern bone. This takes some experience with less altered bone but I'd imagine it will be clear for your specimen.

 

A burn test by burning a piece or non-visible corner can also be done. Non-fossil bone has a horrible smell from the burning collagen. That said, I think you'll be able to tell your specimen by acoustics.

[Top Trilo]

I couldn't compare it to a modern bone sound because I don't have any and I held it on a heat lamp instead of lighting it and there was no smell, not sure if it counts for a burn test. So I think I feel comfortable calling it a fossil chunkosaur, thanks guys for your help

[frankh8147]

1 hour ago, Top Trilo said:

Do you think it’s fossilized?

I honestly don't know anything about the preservation in your area so Im pretty useless on this one.. check out similar pictures of fossil bone found in your area and see if it matches. If it feels like rock and the preservation matches, I would be comfortable thinking it's fossil bone.

[Top Trilo]

@Rockwood @frankh8147 @Thomas.Dodson

 

A quick look at a geologic map says Paleocene-Eocene. Does that sound about right? Can you determine age just based off bone pictures? The main reason why I'm unsure is that there are other age fossils found not far away and this piece was found in an area with a lot human intervention.

[Rockwood]

17 minutes ago, Top Trilo said:

@Rockwood @frankh8147 @Thomas.Dodson

 

A quick look at a geologic map says Paleocene-Eocene. Does that sound about right? Can you determine age just based off bone pictures? The main reason why I'm unsure is that there are other age fossils found not far away and this piece was found in an area with a lot human intervention.

Yes. No. Wild card that is sort of blue on black. 

[Thomas.Dodson]

It's not possible to determine age based off of bone pictures. Where it is found and how it is found (in-situ) is the best method available to the hobbyist. Was it found as float (on top of worn sedimentary outcrops), in a rock outcrop, isolated river piece, etc.

 

  The location isn't stated so I can't help with geologic formations. Because of variations in formation exposures exact location and details is usually important. In some places, such as much of North Dakota, most rock outcrops fall in clearly defined formation areas and other formations aren't often exposed in the same area where one formation is. This can make it easy to age specimens. However, this varies wildly elsewhere and it isn't unusual to find exposures of multiple formations in a given area. It sounds like this is the case with your area so more details on location and how it was found are necessary to try and age it.

 

I doubt a heat lamp will sufficiently heat the specimen but even if you don't have modern bone available you can compare it to stone as Rockwood mentioned. Stone can vary in acoustics but it should give you some idea.

[Rockwood]

24 minutes ago, Top Trilo said:

A quick look at a geologic map says Paleocene-Eocene.

The rock type I assume to be at least potentially fossiliferous ? 

Igneous rock would present difficulties. 

[Top Trilo]

It was found on land not in-situ and it was found in western arapahoe county colorado.