Petrified Fruit

[Scylla]

Two pic's of the one specimen and it looks like a nut.

Two pic's of the one specimen and again it looks like another type of nut.

Well if it looks like a nut, must be a nut but I'll bet that is one tough nut to crack!

[THobern]

Well if it looks like a nut, must be a nut...

After this thread, I've been having thoughts to a similar effect...

Edited July 28, 2012 by THobern

[dinolol]

Which is 90km an hour, nearly as fast as a cheetah.

I just went on google and found imformation on, mungoon galli. It sounds the same as the lizard that I saw, but as I said, it run at a high speed. And I think to myself, if it wanted to kill someone are something as large as a man, I think it could. I now think to myself, how lucky was my brother and I at the time we saw it.

Edited July 28, 2012 by dinolol

[dinolol]

Well if it looks like a nut, must be a nut but I'll bet that is one tough nut to crack!

I have seen plenty of nuts like...........lol

[Auspex]

Please let us know what the folks at the museum have to say.

[dinolol]

Please let us know what the folks at the museum have to say.

Yes, I will let you know. I have done a lot of research on what I have and some of it, I have had for many years. Computers have help me out to no end and I am going to get in contact with the Armidale University, to see what studies they can help me with in this subject. I do not have much money due to being a invalid pensioner. I was run over by a drunk driver, but I can still get around OK. In my research I have found out that some of the most important discoveries have been made by enthusiastic amateurs, as they have no perimeters placed on them, that will blinker them from seeing sideways or backwards or what is right under their feet. If I had listen too,"the deposits just aren't there" I would have not found what I have now or what formation did it come from. Well, I know what the stratum is around my area, not much different to any where else on the east coast of N.S.W... But my theory is, what I have found has come from an eroded formation and deposited by the sea. Then you have, tectonic plate movement, which has lifted the east coast of Australia out of the sea and leaving behind what I have found. As I am finding the same material washing up on the beach, but some are very badly damage, but others look in pristine condition and I find this amazing. I have only put one of those fossils here, that I have found in my area.

[painshill]

Hi Dinolol

I am sorry to hear about your accident and sympathise with your shortage of finances. Museum authorities will however, of course, provide their opinions for free.

I have seen posts that you have made elsewhere (such as the Smithsonian blog, anthropology.net and such). You seem to be making the same assertions for your finds, based – as far as I can tell – on picture comparisons to the books you have, coupled with a very vivid imagination and little regard for the known formations in the localities concerned. You also seem in many cases to be making comparisons to artists’ illustrations of specimens as they would have been “in life”, with little regard for the very special conditions required for soft tissues to be preserved and the consequent extreme rarity of such items, even in partial preservation.

While I admire your enthusiasm, I do not share your views, and the absence of any positive response to your previous posts should perhaps tell you something. My feeling is that you should not take the absence of any responses as an indication that people are agreeing with you. The (very experienced) collectors here on the forum will be considerably more candid with their opinions… as now will I.

I have viewed your picture album on Facebook... including the partial “tortoise” (with “muscle tendons, internal organs and teeth!”, the other “tortoise”, “eternally on guard with one eye looking out to make sure there’s no danger”, the “nest” made by “one large insect” (almost 6 inches long!), the “mummified petrified thrinaxodon or very young moschops”, the huge “marine tooth… the area where I found it looked like an ancient shoreline” and so on.

You may be making these finds in areas which are geologically interesting, but none of the items in your pictures are fossils and the descriptions you give them – pretty much irrespective of where they were found - are in the realms of fantasy.

The “highlight” for me was this one:

Even if (bizarrely) it were to be what you claim, there is simply no way that anyone could have identified it as such… least of all an inexperienced amateur. That may be harsh, but I cannot believe that these opinions are supported by anyone (anonymous or otherwise) with any real experience in palaeontology. It seems that you are being wilfully vague about the circumstances and location of the finds and which (if any) of these specimens have been examined by anyone with any expertise.

[ckmerlin]

How extraordinary !! I have posted one or two things for Id here whilst at the same time I have asked for an outside opinion from museum Paleontologists or zoo archaeologists . If I get a reply from the museum experts I always copy and paste here for all to see

Which I must say seems to be the norm for most members who have done the same.

I very much value the opinions of the members here as there is a a large area of diverse expertise and members with many years of collecting which I find invaluable

[Herb]

dinolol,

I find your specimens interesting, however I do not see any fossils seeds among them either. Sorry.

[dinolol]

I have been to Sydney and went to the Australian museum. Four of my specimens were found to be very interesting and I only took with me 9 examples of what I thought were fossils. The four specimens have now been past onto a palaeontologist. Will let you know what his conclusions are after he has examine them and lets me know what his opinion is on those specimens.

[Ramo]

Reminds me of the Seazoria Dragon. You might want to show that guy your finds. He can probably help you more than anyone here can.

[Xiphactinus]

Reminds me of the Seazoria Dragon. You might want to show that guy your finds. He can probably help you more than anyone here can.

Hee....I was thinking the exact same thing!

[Missourian]

Seazoria Dragon.... Color me impressed if he attempts to mount that specimen.

[dinolol]

I am posting this pic again, because I was told by a geologist/palaeontologist, Mellisa at the Australian Museum. That the one in the middle was ilmenite (she spelt it illmenite), at the time I did not wish to debate with her, that it did not look like ilmenite until I researched it further myself. She is not the palaeontologist looking at the four fossils. He must have more experience in the field of palaeontology than she, I would hope that he had more experience. So how can a expert make such a mistake. I will sick to my opinion, that it is petrified fruit, not ilmenite.

[Missourian]

I was told by a geologist/palaeontologist, Mellisa at the Australian Museum. That the one in the middle was ilmenite (she spelt it illmenite)

Mellisa llikes her ll's. Lloll.

[Raistlin]

Looks sort of like this one.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ilmenite-163176.jpg

I think it looks like chert, the one in my link anyway lol.

[dinolol]

Looks sort of like this one.

http://commons.wikim...nite-163176.jpg

I think it looks like chert, the one in my link anyway lol.

As you say, "looks sort of like this one", but there is a difference. Your example has a hexagonal shape, whereas my one does not. If I took a pic (my digital camera is not working) of the bottom of my specimen, you would see that it is a irregular shape, uneven, like it had taken on the shape of the ground. Your example has a metallic to submetallic look about it, whereas, my one does not look metallic or submetallic. My one has holes in it (I can give an opinion on the holes, but not quite yet) and yours is smooth. And all of the other ilmenite I have seen, is black.

[Down under fossil hunter]

This is the best thread I have ever followed!!!

Sorry to skip back but your lizard was probably Megalania prisca as it is the closest Varanidae from that area that matches your description, also from my time spent working at the Queensland Museum we uncovered that they were particularly fond of bananas (when Diprotodons were scarce) and this may have been why it was attracted to your farm.

[THobern]

I am posting this pic again, because I was told by a geologist/palaeontologist, Mellisa at the Australian Museum. That the one in the middle was ilmenite (she spelt it illmenite), at the time I did not wish to debate with her, that it did not look like ilmenite until I researched it further myself. She is not the palaeontologist looking at the four fossils. He must have more experience in the field of palaeontology than she, I would hope that he had more experience. So how can a expert make such a mistake. I will sick to my opinion, that it is petrified fruit, not ilmenite.

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that Mellisa apparently doesn't value her privacy, was it Melissa H.?

[painshill]

It's not clear whether Mel(l)isa had the benefit of physically examining the item or was going by pictures alone. Good luck to anyone trying to identify that rock just based on pictures. I don't know if it's ilmenite or not, but I would point out that the characteristic black metallic trigonal crystals normally pictured in reference sources can be a long way from what is actually found in the field. The alteration products after weathering (principally leucoxene) are typically that warm yellow-brown colour. Ilmenite frequently occurs as weathered sand and quartz-cemented sandstone deposits.

The rock is also broken and weathered to the extent that there is no reason to believe it would have retained any of the characteristic shapes of crystalline ilmenite, even if started life as a crystalline deposit. In addition, ilmenite is a mineral, not a rock. There is a wide variety of possible appearances within the ilmenite-bearing group of rocks and no reason why it could not be ilmenite quartz or ilmenite sandstone or a number of other possibilities.

However, the question here isn't whether or not this is a chunk of ilmenite, but whether or not this is a fossil (fruit, nut or otherwise). The probability of it being a fossil - as claimed - is not increased just because it's not ilmenite. The probability is not even improved if it can't be tied down to a specific rock or mineral group (in the absence of full analysis). The probability is only raised if it actually has any identifiable features consistent with an organic origin... which it doesn't. "Nut-shaped" isn't good enough (and it isn't really even that).

Edited August 14, 2012 by painshill

[Missourian]

zOMG!!!11!1!

[Raistlin]

zOMG!!!11!1!

Okay, there it is my vote is on this.

[Raistlin]

It's not clear whether Mel(l)isa had the benefit of physically examining the item or was going by pictures alone. Good luck to anyone trying to identify that rock just based on pictures. I don't know if it's ilmenite or not, but I would point out that the characteristic black metallic trigonal crystals normally pictured in reference sources can be a long way from what is actually found in the field. The alteration products after weathering (principally leucoxene) are typically that warm yellow-brown colour. Ilmenite frequently occurs as weathered sand and quartz-cemented sandstone deposits.

The rock is also broken and weathered to the extent that there is no reason to believe it would have retained any of the characteristic shapes of crystalline ilmenite, even if started life as a crystalline deposit. In addition, ilmenite is a mineral, not a rock. There is a wide variety of possible appearances within the ilmenite-bearing group of rocks and no reason why it could not be ilmenite quartz or ilmenite sandstone or a number of other possibilities.

However, the question here isn't whether or not this is a chunk of ilmenite, but whether or not this is a fossil (fruit, nut or otherwise). The probability of it being a fossil - as claimed - is not increased just because it's not ilmenite. The probability is not even improved if it can't be tied down to a specific rock or mineral group (in the absence of full analysis). The probability is only raised if it actually has any identifiable features consistent with an organic origin... which it doesn't. "Nut-shaped" isn't good enough (and it isn't really even that).

I try I really do to take things and look at the other point of view. In this case I see nothing on the other side. This thread reminds me of another thread on another forum where I tried to educate poeple. I gave them plenty to go on to form an educated guess. They refused to look at the evidence out right denying it. Other here have done just as I did on the other forum. I have seen a ton of work put into this by TFF members to educate.

I the members that have worked as they have on this thread.

[dinolol]

This is the best thread I have ever followed!!!

Sorry to skip back but your lizard was probably Megalania prisca as it is the closest Varanidae from that area that matches your description, also from my time spent working at the Queensland Museum we uncovered that they were particularly fond of bananas (when Diprotodons were scarce) and this may have been why it was attracted to your farm.

I don't think it was a megalania, not unless it was a young one. What would make you think it ate bananas? There was plenty of kangaroos and wallabies, but no wombats, mate. It may have had a taste for cows, as my neighbour blamed my dogs for killing his cows. This lizard had a body size of an adult male and was 3 or 4 metres long. It could have been longer, as it had a long tail, tapering off to the size of a pencil. I only know of about 6 people that saw it and I am still wondering how this lizard can live in a populated area without being detected by more people. The last time that someone saw it was 1986. So if there is one, there has to be more of these lizards out there. I have talked to aboriginals in my area about it and they still think it is out there in the bush.

Edited August 16, 2012 by dinolol

[dinolol]

It's not clear whether Mel(l)isa had the benefit of physically examining the item or was going by pictures alone. Good luck to anyone trying to identify that rock just based on pictures. I don't know if it's ilmenite or not, but I would point out that the characteristic black metallic trigonal crystals normally pictured in reference sources can be a long way from what is actually found in the field. The alteration products after weathering (principally leucoxene) are typically that warm yellow-brown colour. Ilmenite frequently occurs as weathered sand and quartz-cemented sandstone deposits.

The rock is also broken and weathered to the extent that there is no reason to believe it would have retained any of the characteristic shapes of crystalline ilmenite, even if started life as a crystalline deposit. In addition, ilmenite is a mineral, not a rock. There is a wide variety of possible appearances within the ilmenite-bearing group of rocks and no reason why it could not be ilmenite quartz or ilmenite sandstone or a number of other possibilities.

However, the question here isn't whether or not this is a chunk of ilmenite, but whether or not this is a fossil (fruit, nut or otherwise). The probability of it being a fossil - as claimed - is not increased just because it's not ilmenite. The probability is not even improved if it can't be tied down to a specific rock or mineral group (in the absence of full analysis). The probability is only raised if it actually has any identifiable features consistent with an organic origin... which it doesn't. "Nut-shaped" isn't good enough (and it isn't really even that).

That is a good argument and I will say it could be ilmenite. I did not say this was a nut and it don't look like a nut to me, more like a avocado pear. When I was living on a banana farm, we had avocado trees. And when they dropped on the ground, the skin would wrap around the seed the same way. After they dried out the bottom and top would look the same as my specimen and some would have little weevil holes in them, that's why I thought it was petrified fruit. At the smaller end, there is a mark that looks like a pip mark. Could ilmenite fill a cavity or mineralize a fruit and make a fossil? I do not wish to get bogged down on one specimen, as I have many more ink blots for you to have a look at and give me your opinion, if you are interested. But if I cut it in half what will I see on the inside if it is ilmenite? What test can one do to find out if it is ilmenite? Also, you have an interest in one of my specimens. Do you wish to have a closer look at it, as I will get a permit and send it to you.

Edited August 16, 2012 by dinolol