Pertified/agetized wood?

[Rockwood]

6 minutes ago, Harry Pristis said:

indurated

Heavily silicate cemented ?

[Harry Pristis]

1 hour ago, Rockwood said:

Heavily silicate cemented ?

 

Hardened, anyway.  Could be cemented by silica, that is a good possibility.

 

Sandstone and other clastic sedimentary rocks differ from the igneous rocks in possessing a framework of grains which only touch each other but are not in a continuous contact. Consequently, sandstone contains a network of pores which are at least partly filled with a mineral cement. However, sandstone does not need to contain open pores, they may be, and often are, completely filled with a cementing material. The definition of sandstone is based on the size of the framework grains. No reference is made to the genesis.

[Het Patel]

2 hours ago, Harry Pristis said:

 

Hardened, anyway.  Could be cemented by silica, that is a good possibility.

 

Sandstone and other clastic sedimentary rocks differ from the igneous rocks in possessing a framework of grains which only touch each other but are not in a continuous contact. Consequently, sandstone contains a network of pores which are at least partly filled with a mineral cement. However, sandstone does not need to contain open pores, they may be, and often are, completely filled with a cementing material. The definition of sandstone is based on the size of the framework grains. No reference is made to the genesis.

So it's a  sandstone?

[Rockwood]

34 minutes ago, Het Patel said:

So it's a  sandstone?

The ID does seem to be enjoying a clear lead in the polling.

[paleoflor]

@Rockwood Sorry, I do not recognise any plant structures in these photographs. Could you perhaps annotate one of them to clearly point out the features you see?

 

Bark should be ID'ed on the basis of microstructure.

[Rockwood]

56 minutes ago, paleoflor said:

@Rockwood Sorry, I do not recognise any plant structures in these photographs. Could you perhaps annotate one of them to clearly point out the features you see?

 

Bark should be ID'ed on the basis of microstructure.

I'm afraid it would be futile at this point. It appears to have been more in the nature of the first photos. A more sizable pattern seemed to be evident in the coloration. The later set looks less convincing. Thankyou for taking a look. Hope things are going well for you.

[Coco]

@Het Patel

 

On 9/18/2021 at 2:38 AM, Coco said:

Take a look at my last link in my signature and in the future don’t take your fossils in your hands to make the pictures 

 

 

Coco

 

[Het Patel]

6 hours ago, Coco said:

@Het Patel

 

 

 

Coco

 

But why are you telling to look at the last link in your signature?

[Kane]

34 minutes ago, Het Patel said:

But why are you telling to look at the last link in your signature?

The member created a topic on how to print a ruler if a person did not own one, and that topic is linked in her signature.

Providing relatively accurate scale measurements is another key component in being able to identify fossils.

[Het Patel]

47 minutes ago, Kane said:

The member created a topic on how to print a ruler if a person did not own one, and that topic is linked in her signature.

Providing relatively accurate scale measurements is another key component in being able to identify fossils.

Ohh I see.

[Het Patel]

11 hours ago, Coco said:

@Het Patel

 

 

 

Coco

 

Ok  Thank you ma'am.

[Plantguy]

@Rockwood I started to reply a couple days ago and got hungup on/never got past my initial questions/observations of trying to figure out how many different specimens are represented--are there 3? just now getting back to this.

 

So I see Tim responded and he's had much more experience with wood than I ever will have but I agree I dont see anything that easily says wood to me--the 3rd initial image has a rounded/polished splintery look to it but I'm not sure what it is-- based on these images. I have seen very poorly preserved wood and bone for that matter that does have a similar splintery texture but I dont feel comfortable suggesting either. More inclined to think it might simply be weathering/mineralogic in nature.

 

So back two the 1st two images in the thread..they  do look like a cemented sandstone as Harry suggested and/or possibly even a metamorphosed sandstone. Wish we had some sharp closeups/sections that might make it easier to discern. The 4th initial image looks like a similar specimen to those in images 1 & 2 but it appears to have possibly a calcite or another elongated/possibly rectangular/rhomboidal shaped mineral within a layer or rind on the outside which makes me curious. Maybe its simply quartz..If its calcite as you know they should react to dilute HCL or vinegar. 

Sorry I havent added much/anything definitive to the discussions but nothing screams wood thus far. I do like looking at the specimens and trying to interpret the images, however! 

 

Regards, Chris