Jump to content

Difference between Dinosaur Bone Slice or Palm Slice


Guest

Recommended Posts

Dear All,

 

I want to buy a dinosaur bone slice but I also see the Palm or some Wood slices are very similar.

Are you able to see the difference between what is wood from what is dinosaur bone at the attached photos?

 

Best regards.

Alvaro.

 

A.JPG

 

 

C.JPG

B.JPG

Edited by Alvaro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Alvaro,

 

An interesting question, and one that - if extrapolated as "how to tell the difference between bone and (palm) wood" - may actually be more fitting of a spot on the Q&A forum rather than "Is it real?" (what do you think, @Fossildude19?)

 

While I'm not that versed in wood, I think I may provide you with a rough answer to your question. For, I think there are (at least) five characteristics that differentiate bone from wood:

  1. The cortex (outside) or a piece of bone will differ markedly from that of a piece of wood, with bone generally having an overall smoother appearance.
  2. The shape of bone in cross-section is more standardized that wood. That is, although the shapes of bones may differ from species to species and may even show intraspecific variation, healthy and unfractured bones will conform to a limited number of shapes, whereas wood (a stem or branch), given enough freedom to grow, can basically take any shape it wants.
  3. The vascular openings in wood will often show more of a consistent pattern than cancellous bone would. However, the size of vascular openings in bone will be more consistent than in wood, where you may have larger canals and bigger ones.
  4. Wood has vascular canals, whereas bone doesn't and actually has vascular struts. This means that, in a lengthwise cross-section (tangential, if I get my orientations correct), wood would show a fibrous texture of wood grains running from top to bottom, whereas the more randomly organised vascular system in bone wouldn't.
  5. Due to bone remodelling, bone doesn't typically exhibit a ring-based structure in terrestrial animals as wood may.

 

I know that a lot of these distinguishing features can be very difficult to apply to a slice of bone or wood, but familiarization with larger specimens should help you recognize what to look for in more fragmentary pieces (such as said slices). Based on that, my impression would be that all three of the above examples are actually of fossil wood.

  • The first specimen shows too much variation in the sizes of vascular openings and is too irregularly shaped to be bone.
  • The second specimen has acceptable vascularization for it to be a candidate for bone, but the piece seems rather irregularly shaped. It's also not possible to make any cortical details, even cortex is even present. And while the side doesn't show the lengthwise stripes of fibrous grains, it's hard to make out whether it does then have the proper vascularization for bone instead. Still, I consider this the best candidate for actually being bone.
  • The third specimen could also be bone based on the neat circular build-up of different patterns of vascularization. Histologically speaking, bone also grows in phases, each adding an additional ring to the core of the bone, however this pattern is frequently erased again when the cancellous bone gets remodelled - except for in marine species, where bone is turned osteosclerotic on a per ring basis (see Klein [2010]). As such, you wouldn't, as far as I'm aware at least, get multiple circles of vascular/fibrolamellar bone.

 

May be someone with more experience in bone histology will be able to correct me on some of this, but I hope this at least helps you on your way somewhat.

 

Un saludo,

Alexander.

  • I found this Informative 3
  • I Agree 1

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi Alexander,

thank you for your long answer. I thought no one could give me an answer because of the difficulty of the question.
You are correct the first photo is a palm wood slice.
I bought the next two supposed slices of dinosaur bone (photos two and three).
These two slices were bought many years ago in the USA and the professional seller inform me that they come from the Morrison Formation (Colorado).
If we put a lamp behind the third slice, red spots can be seen in some holes. Could this red spots be petrified blood?
Please see attached photos.

Best regards.
Alvaro.

21.JPG

22.JPG

23.JPG

24.JPG

25.JPG

26 Blood.JPG

Edited by Alvaro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alvaro said:

Hi Alexander,

thank you for your long answer. I thought no one could give me an answer because of the difficulty of the question.
You are correct the first photo is a palm wood slice.
I bought the next two supposed slices of dinosaur bone (photos two and three).
These two slices were bought many years ago in the USA and the professional seller inform me that they come from the Morrison Formation (Colorado).

 

No worries, happy to have been able to help. I had been hoping for others to chime in once my initial answer was out, but it does seem the question is a rather tricky one. In general, I think, bone histology is a bit of a niche field, and so I believe might wood be. Finding someone versed in both and able to properly explain the distinction (i.e., not me) would therefore be a challenge. It took me quite a bit of contemplation as well, to come up with the distinguishing features I mentioned. I did figure, however, that you likely already had the answers to these pieces. But it's great to have my original hunches confirmed, even if some of them were more certain than others...

 

Also interesting is that the matter becomes much clearer when shining light through the slices: your photographs clearly show the vascular structures not being tubular, as you'd expect a plant's to be - thereby confirming their being bone.

 

As to whether the red speck in your specimen is ancient blood, I couldn't guess to say. I do know ancient blood has been found before, but there are numerous other reasons for a red spot showing up. Firstly, one needs to realise that a red stain is most likely to be caused by haematite, which is an iron oxide. Since blood, of course, contains iron to bind oxygen for transport through the veins, one may expect to find traces of ancient blood by way of haematite staining. What's more, it isn't unreasonable to expect blood in the vascular system of bones - although I believe most of what fills up the spaces in cancellous bone is bone marrow, rather than blood (which flows through veins embedded in the bone). However, as iron is one of the most common components of compounds involved in the creation of fossils - such as, for instance, iron pyrite, marcasite and iron oxide(s) - one would be hard-pressed to attribute a haematite-stain to blood rather than a left-over from the process of permineralisation. This may especially be true for agatized bone, as the process of agate-formation appears to be a very complex one. You might need to study the microscopic structures inside the red specks to determine whether they are crystalliform or have the same molecular arrangement as in red blood cells. I'm not saying that it couldn't be blood, just that I think it's highly unlikely.

 

Other reasons why I don't think it likely that the red speck is ancient blood is 1) "that 90 percent of an agate is quartz" (source), which is a mineral known for its many different colours based on chemical inclusions (think amethyst, rose quartz, smoky quartz, etc.); 2) that the specks are in too many different places, which would not make sense in terms of blood in bones following through a limited number of organized veins; and 3) that for the stains to have ended up where they are following agatisation - that is, dead centre of vascular chambers - the veins that originally contained the blood would have needed to have lasted until this process was complete - which seems unlikely.

 

Still, a very interesting piece and beautiful when held against the light like that :o

  • Enjoyed 1

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I also think that red spots are created by metallic chemical elements (iron, manganese etc...). In the process of fossilization, organic particles are replaced by mineral elements mainly by the circulation of water. In this case, it implies that the blood, too liquid to stay in place in the bone, will be carried away and it probably contains too little iron to leave any residue. But this is only my opinion.
 
Coco
  • I found this Informative 1
  • I Agree 1

----------------------
OUTIL POUR MESURER VOS FOSSILES : ici

Ma bibliothèque PDF 1 (Poissons et sélaciens récents & fossiles) : ici
Ma bibliothèque PDF 2 (Animaux vivants - sans poissons ni sélaciens) : ici
Mâchoires sélaciennes récentes : ici
Hétérodontiques et sélaciens : ici
Oeufs sélaciens récents : ici
Otolithes de poissons récents ! ici

Un Greg...

Badges-IPFOTH.jpg.f4a8635cda47a3cc506743a8aabce700.jpg Badges-MOTM.jpg.461001e1a9db5dc29ca1c07a041a1a86.jpg

 

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...