Bark or Mulch?

[Vnaz50]

Vince 

San Antonio, Tx 

 

I walked over this piece for weeks. I thought it was a piece of bark or mulch. I picked it up and washed it off like a rock. After I dried it off I noticed the burn looked odd. 

[FranzBernhard]

This certainly looks like a piece of slightly compressed wood.

Inner part appears petrified, outer layer appears coalified in some spots.

Is it heavy like a rock for its size or lightweight?

Franz Bernhard 

[ThePhysicist]

Looks like modern wood to me - not mineralized or burned. Does it float in water?

[Rockwood]

Charcoal is quite resistant to decay. I suspect that it essentially what this is.

[Vnaz50]

9 hours ago, FranzBernhard said:

This certainly looks like a piece of slightly compressed wood.

Inner part appears petrified, outer layer appears coalified in some spots.

Is it heave like a rock for its size or lightweight?

Franz Bernhard 

It’s lightweight but what really threw me off was the rounded curve on the end. Along with whatever is showing like something shiny at the opposite end. On the inside it almost looks skeletal. 

[Vnaz50]

9 hours ago, ThePhysicist said:

Looks like modern wood to me - not mineralized or burned. Does it float in water?

Haven’t tried that yet

[digit]

10 minutes ago, Vnaz50 said:

It’s lightweight but what really threw me off was the rounded curve on the end. Along with whatever is showing like something shiny at the opposite end. On the inside it almost looks skeletal. 

Lightweight virtually confirms that it is a dried-out piece of modern wood. For it to be a piece of petrified wood it would be heavy and dense like stone (because it is mineralized and is in fact stone). Some pieces of pet wood can have a surface texture that looks very much like a dried-out and worn piece of wood but you know it is mineralize the second you pick it up and it is significantly heavier that it would be if it were just wood.

 

    

 

Are you saying that the rounded cross-section on one end which shows the characteristic tree rings are what you found interesting about this piece? Is this what has led you to consider that this "almost looks skeletal"? I'm not understanding you then as most bones do not show such layering. With the exception of the dugong and manatee rib bones that we find here in Florida which are solid and dense (for ballast to allow the blubbery animals not to float at the surface all the time) most bones have a spongy 'cancellous' layer inside the harder outer 'cortical' layer. I have seen dugong rib bones which actually show concentric growth layers that look vaguely reminiscent of the growth rings of a tree but that is about where the visual overlap of fossil bones and petrified wood ends.

 

 

I'm not quite sure what attracted you to this piece of wood. Please enlighten us.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

 

 

[Rockwood]

7 hours ago, Vnaz50 said:

but what really threw me off was the rounded curve on the end.

Likely part of a root. I envision a stump being burned out by a persistent farmer, perhaps several decades ago. As I said, charcoal is quite resistant to decay, and the lighter colored areas may have been less charred and were colonized by a bio- crust or lichen.

[Vnaz50]

14 hours ago, digit said:

Lightweight virtually confirms that it is a dried-out piece of modern wood. For it to be a piece of petrified wood it would be heavy and dense like stone (because it is mineralized and is in fact stone). Some pieces of pet wood can have a surface texture that looks very much like a dried-out and worn piece of wood but you know it is mineralize the second you pick it up and it is significantly heavier that it would be if it were just wood.

 

    

 

Are you saying that the rounded cross-section on one end which shows the characteristic tree rings are what you found interesting about this piece? Is this what has led you to consider that this "almost looks skeletal"? I'm not understanding you then as most bones do not show such layering. With the exception of the dugong and manatee rib bones that we find here in Florida which are solid and dense (for ballast to allow the blubbery animals not to float at the surface all the time) most bones have a spongy 'cancellous' layer inside the harder outer 'cortical' layer. I have seen dugong rib bones which actually show concentric growth layers that look vaguely reminiscent of the growth rings of a tree but that is about where the visual overlap of fossil bones and petrified wood ends.

 

 

I'm not quite sure what attracted you to this piece of wood. Please enlighten us.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

 

 

tried to get a more whole picture. 

[ScottBlooded]

Did you try seeing if it floated in water as was previously suggested? Or try a burn test? If it’s just a piece of wood it would save you taking all the additional photos

[Rockwood]

Modern wood, 400 year old charcoal, and 70 million year old lignite would all test the same though.

[digit]

The piece of (modern) wood still shows no signs of looking anything other than a piece of (modern) wood. I have no doubts that it would turn black and singe if a flame were put to it.

 

8 hours ago, Vnaz50 said:

I'm not clear as to the point of this last photo. I hope you are not suggesting that these two pieces are in any way associated with each other? The piece of (possibly cherty) limestone has nothing to do with this chunk of modern wood. Aligning them next to each other is irrelevant--any perceived "fit" is purely imaginary.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Vnaz50]

9 hours ago, digit said:

The piece of (modern) wood still shows no signs of looking anything other than a piece of (modern) wood. I have no doubts that it would turn black and singe if a flame were put to it.

 

I'm not clear as to the point of this last photo. I hope you are not suggesting that these two pieces are in any way associated with each other? The piece of (possibly cherty) limestone has nothing to do with this chunk of modern wood. Aligning them next to each other is irrelevant--any perceived "fit" is purely imaginary.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

I didn’t realize that a little theory would make you so angry. All I have is what I see. I see two ends with similar looking tears or breaks, that just happen to fit together. 

[digit]

1 hour ago, Vnaz50 said:

I didn’t realize that a little theory would make you so angry. All I have is what I see. I see two ends with similar looking tears or breaks, that just happen to fit together. 

You misunderstand me. I am in no way angry at all. I am simply curious why you would match two completely different objects in a way that suggests they go together?

 

It's as if I decided that my shoe fit well over a lightbulb in one of my lamps and took a picture of them together suggesting that in some way there is a connection between the two. The only connection would be that I decided that two unrelated items "fit" together. I am trying to dissuade you from unproductive pondering if you are devoting any time to the thought that the chunk of limestone and the piece of wood are in some way connected--they aren't. The only "connection" is what your unconstrained imagination is allowing. This type of "outside of the box" thinking is incredibly useful in artistic endeavors leading to truly imaginative pairings of dissimilar objects that might be pleasing artistically. If we are dealing with facts and science (which is what paleontology is based on) then expending effort trying to fit square pegs into round holes isn't a particularly useful use of time.

 

Your chunk of wood is quite modern and your piece of limestone is likely millions of years old. Any "fit" is a result of our pattern matching circuitry in our somewhat oversized brains which allows us to see connections (even when there aren't any). I am confused as to what has interested you so much in these two pieces.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken