Opalised bone?

[Vopros]

This is a boulder opal from Australia.

it is 12 x 8.4 x 3.2mm

could it be a bone?

[Fossildude19]

The picture is too blurry to make out any kind of detail.

[Vopros]

10 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

The picture is too blurry to make out any kind of detail.

There are usually no details thar survive in opals. I am asking about the shape. Does the shape look as it could be a bone?

[Fossildude19]

Still too close, and no size reference.

To me, from this photo, I would say no.

[Vopros]

Here is the opposite side

[Mahnmut]

Well,

of course for all kinds of fossilization, less detail is the default, much detail is luck.

As far as I know, boulder opal is not the kind that usually preserves vertebrate fossils, sometimes opalized wood is labeled as "boulder opal" though, because of the opaque parts.

In most boulder opals the structure is mainly given by shrinking fissures like the ones so beautifully filled with colourful opal in your specimen.

On the other hand, opal can preserve much finer detail than most other fossilbearing rocks, as is apparent in your recent post:

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/129669-opal-lungfish-tooth-plate/&tab=comments#comment-1401986

As far as I know, that kind of fossil is found at lightning ridge and nowhere else (may be wrong though)

I think the shape of this one (not the lungfish tooth) is a freeform polished gem, but thats of course just my opinion based on lowres pics.

Best Regards,

J