Indiana.Matt Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 I found this fossil in Johnson County, Indiana, near Trafalgar. I found it in the creek next to my house and have never had it properly identified. I have always thought it might be a black walnut. I can wiggle the inner part with my finger. What do you think? Is it even a fossil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 That is really neat! The concentric layering makes me think "concretion", but the loose, textured core is real different than any I've seen. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdevey Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 Hmmm, Im not sure what it is, but that is cool looking. Is it the size of a walnut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpc Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 Weird rock. It doesn't look fossily to me. (keep in mind that I have been wrong once or twice, maybe more). I think it may be some sort of concretion, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 Hi Matt, I'll echo the others on concretion ... but SUPERB nonetheless !! Btw, your photo is perfect ... what camera are you shooting with? :pic: The more I look at it I want to say NUT !! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 Concretion, but remember some concretions form around a fossil. But I just don't see fossilness here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indiana.Matt Posted February 27, 2011 Author Share Posted February 27, 2011 Hmmm, Im not sure what it is, but that is cool looking. Is it the size of a walnut? Yes, it is the size of a walnut and we have lots of black walnut trees in our area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indiana.Matt Posted February 27, 2011 Author Share Posted February 27, 2011 Hi Matt, I'll echo the others on concretion ... but SUPERB nonetheless !! Btw, your photo is perfect ... what camera are you shooting with? :pic: The more I look at it I want to say NUT !! Thanks for the compliment! I have a Nikon D70s with a SB-800 flash that I bounced off the ceiling to give a nice even, soft lighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 From the looks of it, I think this started forming long before there were walnut trees (or trees as we know them of any kind). It's a captivating specimen; I wish it were on my shelf! "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Edonihce Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 First off, I'm thinking concretion too... From the looks of it, I think this started forming long before there were walnut trees (or trees as we know them of any kind). It's a captivating specimen; I wish it were on my shelf! OK....I'll bite......what about how it looks (i.e. "From the looks of it") makes you think it formed prior to the advent of trees? I'm not asking this because I disagree......I have no idea.....I'm just looking for more education on how things look to others and maybe I can pick something up... . ____________________ scale in avatar is millimeters ____________________ Come visit Sandi, the 'Fossil Journey Cruiser' ____________________ WIPS (the Western Interior Paleontological Society - http://www.westernpaleo.org) ____________________ "Being genetically cursed with an almost inhuman sense of curiosity and wonder, I'm hard-wired to investigate even the most unlikely, uninteresting (to others anyway) and irrelevant details; often asking hypothetical questions from many angles in an attempt to understand something more thoroughly." -- Mr. Edonihce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 First off, I'm thinking concretion too... OK....I'll bite......what about how it looks (i.e. "From the looks of it") makes you think it formed prior to the advent of trees? I'm not asking this because I disagree......I have no idea.....I'm just looking for more education on how things look to others and maybe I can pick something up... Probably based on the Paleozoic fossils of Indiana. Flowering or fruit producing trees appear much later. LINK 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Edonihce Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) Probably based on the Paleozoic fossils of Indiana. Flowering or fruit producing trees appear much later. LINK Sorry, but nope ...he said "From the looks of it, I think this started forming long before there were walnut trees" The age or formation, while relevant (and more-so in my mind) were not part of Auspex's proposal (well, not in the typed words, anyway). Also, something found in a creek can not be dated without at least a few different pieces of data (what formation did it actually come from before finding its way into the creek?, etc). How do we know that this thing didn't form in a cave a few hundred thousand years ago....or even a few tens of millions of years? Clearly, if it formed in a cave or in a dike or sill anytime in the past 40 million years, it would not have done so before the advent of trees as we know them....I know, because I've hunted and collected trees as we know them from formations older than that. So, my question is to Auspex. I am wondering what about how this item looks places it older than trees as we know them. Edited February 28, 2011 by Mr. Edonihce . ____________________ scale in avatar is millimeters ____________________ Come visit Sandi, the 'Fossil Journey Cruiser' ____________________ WIPS (the Western Interior Paleontological Society - http://www.westernpaleo.org) ____________________ "Being genetically cursed with an almost inhuman sense of curiosity and wonder, I'm hard-wired to investigate even the most unlikely, uninteresting (to others anyway) and irrelevant details; often asking hypothetical questions from many angles in an attempt to understand something more thoroughly." -- Mr. Edonihce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 This siderite (ironstone) nodule is typical of what is recorded from the Carboniferous. Fair to say if you add it all up that is the most logical conclusion. Sorry ... I left out that key nugget of info. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 it smells mississippian to me, which fairly much rules out bison. and angiosperms, whatever they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 ...I am wondering what about how this item looks places it older than trees as we know them. I'm thinking it takes a long time to grow a thick-walled, concentric concretion, in sediment that is deposited, buried deeply, thrust up, then eroded down to expose it. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Edonihce Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 This siderite (ironstone) nodule is typical of what is recorded from the Carboniferous. Fair to say if you add it all up that is the most logical conclusion. Sorry ... I left out that key nugget of info. Aha. OK, cool. This is info that helps with such an age designation. Thanks, piranha. I'm thinking it takes a long time to grow a thick-walled, concentric concretion, in sediment that is deposited, buried deeply, thrust up, then eroded down to expose it. Indeed, but why couldn't such a concretion build up in 40-some million years....must it take many multiples longer than that? Again, I am not arguing...I actually have no idea....just genuinely curious. . ____________________ scale in avatar is millimeters ____________________ Come visit Sandi, the 'Fossil Journey Cruiser' ____________________ WIPS (the Western Interior Paleontological Society - http://www.westernpaleo.org) ____________________ "Being genetically cursed with an almost inhuman sense of curiosity and wonder, I'm hard-wired to investigate even the most unlikely, uninteresting (to others anyway) and irrelevant details; often asking hypothetical questions from many angles in an attempt to understand something more thoroughly." -- Mr. Edonihce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) I found the state geology report of Johnson county from 1884. Trafalgar and all of Johnson Co. are awash in iron "Knobstones". Additionally, one lone reference of a Carboniferous calamites. LINK Edited February 28, 2011 by piranha 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Edonihce Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 ...all of Johnson Co. are awash in iron "Knobstones". That seems to be a pretty good sign right there then. . ____________________ scale in avatar is millimeters ____________________ Come visit Sandi, the 'Fossil Journey Cruiser' ____________________ WIPS (the Western Interior Paleontological Society - http://www.westernpaleo.org) ____________________ "Being genetically cursed with an almost inhuman sense of curiosity and wonder, I'm hard-wired to investigate even the most unlikely, uninteresting (to others anyway) and irrelevant details; often asking hypothetical questions from many angles in an attempt to understand something more thoroughly." -- Mr. Edonihce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Knobstone. Interesting. I was going to say concretion or geode like object. Pretty cool looking. Nice photography Indiana.Matt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Knobstone. Interesting. I was going to say concretion or geode like object. Pretty cool looking. Nice photography Indiana.Matt. You are right Mike, "Knobstone" is not a geological term. That is why I put quotation marks on it. Knobstone is a colloquial reference from the 1844 bulletin that describes the predominant Knobstone Formation of Johnson county. Remarkably it appears that there are no fossils except for the lone calamites recorded. Trafalgar is a town in Nineveh and Hensley townships which coincidentally is described as particularly abundant with ironstone concretions of all shapes and sizes. Sorry for not specifying that more clearly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Oh, I wasn't complaining. I was just throwing my guess out there. The USA is full of colloquialisms and I found that one a rather interesting name. Even more interesting is that you came up the info in a bulletin from 1884. I always wonder how long it took them to get around back then while they were recording all of that information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdevey Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Hey Matt, I've been wondering the object in the middle can you scratch it with your finger nail, ummm in other words is it softer than the rock around it? that things kinda buggin me. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indiana.Matt Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 Hey Matt, I've been wondering the object in the middle can you scratch it with your finger nail, ummm in other words is it softer than the rock around it? that things kinda buggin me. Thanks Thanks for asking, the entire thing is hard as a rock (pun intended). I just tried scratching all parts of it including the middle. All I got was a chip in my fingernail. Nothing came off the rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdevey Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Thanks for asking, the entire thing is hard as a rock (pun intended). I just tried scratching all parts of it including the middle. All I got was a chip in my fingernail. Nothing came off the rock. Well I was hopeing it was organic and wasn't completely mineralized, to me its weird that it does'nt fill the void. And that maybe it would if soaked in water, if it wasent mineralized. Well Im jest not used to seeing anything like that, Thanks for helping my curiousity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ianindiana Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 (edited) Hello I created an account just because I saw this post. I found a VERY similar specimen in Putnam county, Indiana. I also thought it was a walnut. Here it is: I’ll get more pictures up if anyone’s curious. I’ve exceeded the data limit. Edited April 21, 2019 by Ianindiana One picture did not render Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now