richardfulton Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Sub fossils <- I must to too old school! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 What does the hot needle determine? Whether it is highly mineralized, or still composed of organic material. Does it seem "woody"? My working hypothesis is that it is a mushroom "mummy". "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...
Auspex Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Its older than a few summers ago. If you read the very first post, my Dad found it 15 years ago. Hasnt been any big rains the whole time my family has had the farm. Forgive us; in the context of fossils, 15 years ago is yesterday. When on this forum, our minds operate in deep-time. "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...
Boneman007 Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) Google it. Since when does the prefix "sub" mean "non"? After reading about it, basically a subfossil is not a fossil. It is just old, but not yet fossilized. There is a better way of stating this. In coon Creek, the remains are cretaceous, but not fossils. They are just simply 68+ million year old natural shells and snails. Calling them subfossils is just dirtying up the clean water. Edited March 15, 2012 by Boneman007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I think it looks like a mummified mushroom. I don't think it could survive 10,000 years in the soil anywhere that crops could grow, but a subfossil is possible. If I was a scientist that did such things, I would DNA test it and check its carbon date age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenjen14 Posted March 15, 2012 Author Share Posted March 15, 2012 I think it looks like a mummified mushroom. I don't think it could survive 10,000 years in the soil anywhere that crops could grow, but a subfossil is possible. If I was a scientist that did such things, I would DNA test it and check its carbon date age. The land was not used for cropping at the time of the find. It was in the process of being cleared for cropping. Do you know if it is possible to carbon date it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Since when does the prefix "sub" mean "non"? After reading about it, it basically a subfossil is not a fossil. It is just old, but not yet fossilized. There is a better way of stating this. In coon Creek, the remains are cretaceous, but not fossils. They are just simply shells. Calling them subfossils is just dirtying up the clean water. Since when does the prefix "sub" mean "non"? After reading about it, it basically a subfossil is not a fossil. It is just old, but not yet fossilized. There is a better way of stating this. In coon Creek, the remains are cretaceous, but not fossils. They are just simply shells. Calling them subfossils is just dirtying up the clean water. Do not make the common mistake of thinking fossils have to be mineralized. Amber is not mineralized, bone, frozen mammoth meat,etc but they are all fossils. A 9,000 year old skull would qualify as a sub-fossil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 When did I say sub meant non??? Today, fossil means the remains of blah, blah, over 10,000 yrs old. 'Fossilized' is generally meant as bone/shell, etc, replaced by minerals. 'Fossil' does not mean mineralised though. KOF, Bill. Welcome to the forum, all new members www.ukfossils check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenjen14 Posted March 15, 2012 Author Share Posted March 15, 2012 For an update: I emailed a Dr at Natural History Museum of LA who is from Australia. He agrees with the SA museum that it is a subfossil (only through photos). He gave me the contact details of a world recognised authority of fossil plants, who I have emailed and may take it in for him to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 http://www.radiocarbon.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boneman007 Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Duh! I just had a idea that will end this argument. Put the specimen in a glass of water. If it looks exactly the same in the morning, it's no longer a mushroom. That isnt to say its a fossil, its just not a dehydrated mushroom. If it is just a old mushroom, it will rehydrate and you will know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 and if it's a 10,000 year old, dehydrated mushroom, it won't be much longer. KOF, Bill. Welcome to the forum, all new members www.ukfossils check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Having re-read this topic, I must also say, 65myold shells are fossils. KOF, Bill. Welcome to the forum, all new members www.ukfossils check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 The definition I find most useful for fossils is the age-based one, not the mineralogy-based one. A fossil need not be mineralized, merely older than 10k years old. It's no more arbitrary than deciding where the ends of a day or a year are. coon Creek shells are most certainly fossils in my eyes. Since when does the prefix "sub" mean "non"? After reading about it, basically a subfossil is not a fossil. It is just old, but not yet fossilized. There is a better way of stating this. In coon Creek, the remains are cretaceous, but not fossils. They are just simply 68+ million year old natural shells and snails. Calling them subfossils is just dirtying up the clean water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herb Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 WOW! Back to back , walk 20 paces, turn and fire. I would think that if jellyfish, which have no hard parts at all can fossilize in the Cambrian, and bark,roots and leaves can fossilize in the Penn. than a woody mushroom could fossilize if buried in an anarobic (sp?) environment. They rot quickly so they would have to be burried fast. But seems possible to me. I'm rooting (no pun intended) for it to be a fossil, but in my heart I think it is mummified. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"_ Carl Sagen No trees were killed in this posting......however, many innocent electrons were diverted from where they originally intended to go. " I think, therefore I collect fossils." _ Me "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."__S. Holmes "can't we all just get along?" Jack Nicholson from Mars Attacks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raistlin Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 So what were to over all results of this? I am dying to know LOL. I found this searching about storage (weird I know) read the thread and I have no ending It looks cool regardless if it is mummy or fossil. RobertSoutheast, MO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullsnake Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 (edited) I'd guess the original poster wasn't into fossils, but just curious as to what she has. It's not uncommon for someone to join looking for answers, then bowing out when satisfied, or not. If she followed through with what she said in her last post, she probably got her answer, and really has no obligation to come back to update us, but that would be cool if she did! BTW, I stand by my previous post, as well as those that were along the same lines. Particularly Interpaleo's technical way of saying the same thing. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know. Edited April 29, 2012 by Bullsnake Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painshill Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I don’t believe this a fossil, but I do believe it is a fungus. I suspect it’s an example of a rather obscure modern fungus known colloquially as the “stone-making fungus”, which occurs only in Australia. I have put the original item (left) alongside a picture of this fungus (right) for reference. It has now been assigned to Polyporus, but the original nomenclature “Laccocephalum basilapiloides McAlpine & Tepper, 1895” takes precedence. The find area for the specimen (sandy soil, dry South Australian outback) correlates well with its principal habitat (Mallee scrub, South Australia). The morphology looks good too, and…. …. this fungus has an unusually hard and woody pileus. The name “stone-making fungus” derives from its habit of forming a mycelial ball of cemented soil and sand grains which have the appearance and consistency of a sandstone concretion. More here, in wiki: http://en.wikipedia...._basilapidoides Painshill 1 Roger I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew);Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who [Rudyard Kipling] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacialerratic Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Great job on the ID and research, painshill -- looks like you solved it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenjen14 Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 Hi, I never replied because I never found out any more information. Thanks for that about the mushroom. But does that explain why it's lasted for so many years? I know it's not a fossil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painshill Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Hi, I never replied because I never found out any more information. Thanks for that about the mushroom. But does that explain why it's lasted for so many years? I know it's not a fossil. I would say so. Once dry, it will pretty much last forever as long as it doesn't get infested with insect larvae. The "stone" portion is close to indestructible. Some species of these fungi are fireproof and actually need a brushfire to reproduce. They produce new fruiting bodies from the underground cemented mycelial mass. Roger I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew);Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who [Rudyard Kipling] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Damned fine sleuthing, Painshill!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Top drawer research; thank you, Painshill! "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...
Bullsnake Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 :bow: Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raistlin Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Wow, great job. Fantastic research skills. RobertSoutheast, MO 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