Fossil wood … bamboo? (Myrtle Beach)

[PSchleis]

Found this piece of fossilized wood on Myrtle Beach 4 years ago. Reminds me of bamboo. It’s 7 inches long. 
 

Wondering if anybody knows their plant life well enough to identify it.

 

Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

Typically cretaceous or pleistocene era.

Ped Dee formation.

 

Thanks!

Edited February 2, 2022 by PSchleis

[TyrannosaurusRex]

Not bamboo, bamboo is hollow internally, think like a straw. The texture is usually very stringy/straight grained, due to it being a grass, and not a tree. What you’ve got it a chunk of petrified wood with some mineral inclusions. This can happen a number of ways, and can result in some really interesting appearances in the wood. For more accurate identification, you’ll likely need to get a much closer image of the wood grain/rings. It’s not a guarantee to identify the tree species, but it can help. 

[PSchleis]

Thanks Trex. You are right. And also this is more oval shaped where bamboo I think is more round. I’m including a couple more pictures but this is as close as I can get. Maybe I’ll see if there’s a South Carolina university with a specialty in prehistoric plant life. It’s big enough that I’m hoping there’s enough detail for somebody to recognize it.

[Rockwood]

There appear to be teredo boring in the piece. It is likely from marine sediments. The segmented look is likely a result of the fossilization process (diagenetic). Shrinking and settling are elements in the process.

What is probably unlikely is that diagnostic features beyond wood were preserved.

[abyssunder]

Considering the substrate xylic (woodground), the borings are either Teredolites clavatus or Teredolites longissimus (Apectoichnus longissimus) ichnospecies.

Very nice specimen! 

[PSchleis]

8 hours ago, Rockwood said:

There appear to be teredo boring in the piece. It is likely from marine sediments. The segmented look is likely a result of the fossilization process (diagenetic). Shrinking and settling are elements in the process.

What is probably unlikely is that diagnostic features beyond wood were preserved.

Thanks Rock. I didn’t realize that happened during the process, but now that you’ve described it, while I’m looking at it, I can totally imagine that in this piece. 

[Fossildude19]

As far as I know, thin sections and microscopic study would be needed to attempt to ID the wood any further than fossilized or petrified wood.

[PSchleis]

45 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

As far as I know, thin sections and microscopic study would be needed to attempt to ID the wood any further than fossilized or petrified wood.

Right. Now that I realize those exterior rings are not likely part of the original specimen, suddenly there is a lot less to distinguish it!