z10silver Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) I wasn't sure if this thing could be a piece of petrified wood or just a weird looking geofact. The concentric rings visible in the first photo below reminded me of growth rings. Found in southern CA near the CA/NV border. Edited September 18, 2012 by z10silver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 I don't think it's petrified wood but the only good way to tell is to look at it under very high magnification, preferably a polished face across the "rings." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ailsa Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 I think it looks like a stromatolite? But Im not a expert i'd wait to get more opinions from people familiar with the area. Intresting find whatever it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurassic Jim Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Resembles stromatolite to me more than petrified wood or could just be an interesting rock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 If it's not wood, it's a darn good impersonator! Look closely at the left side of the last picture, down in the recess: looks a lot like a knot from a branch to me. "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 September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 My votes for fossil wood. When I zoom in, I think I can see some large cell structures in the second photo. Cuting or grinding a edge might help. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moahunt1 Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Im sure it looks like wood to me too!!! Hunted for fossils in:UK - Lyme Regis, Charmouth, The Thames and Hampshire (two trips) Egypt - Desert somewhere near Giza - Nummalites and petrified wood Australia - Lightening Ridge opal fields - opalised things!!!!USA - Florida- Gainesville creeks and Diving in the Santa Fe river Meg teeth and 10 000 year old mammalsNew Zealand- Around 30 sites visited and collected from. Including Chatham Islands. and now Canada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashcraft Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 my vote is stromatolite. Notice how it is wearing, from between the growth rings, indicating it is (or was) a different material. I have never seen petrified wood weather like that, but fairly common amongst the stromatolites in this area. Brent Ashcraft ashcraft, brent allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hamilton Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 My vote is for rock. That area had a lot of volcanic activity as evidenced by the lava fields you can see from the highways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cvi huang Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 very clear, petrified wood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cvi huang Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) red= 'opalized' (i dont know that word) wood very worn, so here was a river, (also reason your fossil-snail before this topic) the stomalite is maybe more 'homogeneous' Edited September 18, 2012 by cvi huang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Its obvious the feautures initially bring wood to mind However, in my opinion, its a rock with familiar features and not wood Flash from the Past (Show Us Your Fossils)MAPS Fossil Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cvi huang Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) it is so easy, wood in river-gravel are lot of same Edited September 18, 2012 by cvi huang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashcraft Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Here are pics of two stromatolites, they are from the Ordovician, St. Peter sandstone. Pretty similar. ashcraft, brent allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z10silver Posted September 19, 2012 Author Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) red= 'opalized' (i dont know that word) wood very worn, so here was a river, (also reason your fossil-snail before this topic) the stomalite is maybe more 'homogeneous' Thanks, but I was told that snail was marine, not freshwater... Here is another piece that is very clearly wood in my opinion. I can see the knot where a branch was coming from. Edited September 19, 2012 by z10silver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cvi huang Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Hi ashcraft, maybe your first pic, is not stromatolite Hi z10silver, my all marine fossils was from freshwater! (miner river); Your first piece was more clearly wood, and more beauty with smooth surface Edited September 19, 2012 by cvi huang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashcraft Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Hi ashcraft, maybe your first pic, is not stromatolite Wooohooo! I have just discovered the first wood ever in an Ordovician deposit! Brent Ashcraft ashcraft, brent allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herb Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 my vote is stromatolite. Notice how it is wearing, from between the growth rings, indicating it is (or was) a different material. I have never seen petrified wood weather like that, but fairly common amongst the stromatolites in this area. Brent Ashcraft The rings look too random to me to be wood, without a polished cross section I'd go with stromatolite also. "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...
z10silver Posted September 20, 2012 Author Share Posted September 20, 2012 So if it was petrified wood, about how old might it be, considering the region it was found? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashcraft Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Being a water find can make aging challenging. You need to find a geologic map of the area found and see what age it is, and also note upstream geologic formations. Brent Ashcraft ashcraft, brent allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) We all have to remember that we are not electing an identification: the number of votes does not settle what an object is. For this to be confidently IDed as fossil wood it can only be done with very high power magnification - zooming in on the photo will do nothing. Also, stromatolites are very hard to confidently ID by anyone but a stromatolite expert - stromatolite structure (being sedimentary and not anatomical) is even more subtle than that of fossil wood. And it can be said with near certainty that there was no wood in the Ordovician - the oldest known record of land plants goes back to the Silurian and the oldest trees known are Devonian. Edited September 21, 2012 by Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herb Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) We all have to remember that we are not electing an identification: the number of votes does not settle what an object is. For this to be confidently IDed as fossil wood it can only be done with very high power magnification - zooming in on the photo will do nothing. Also, stromatolites are very hard to confidently ID by anyone but a stromatolite expert - stromatolite structure (being sedimentary and not anatomical) is even more subtle than that of fossil wood. And it can be said with near certainty that there was no wood in the Ordovician - the oldest known record of land plants goes back to the Silurian and the oldest trees known are Devonian. True, but nothing really looks like a stromatolite, but a stromatolite (except some banded algaes)that's as good as an iD as you are likely to get on a stromo. Cutting and polishing a surface a surface ,even with emory cloth and finishing cloth would help on the ID. Edited September 21, 2012 by Herb "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...
Auspex Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Is this not a knot? "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...
Scylla Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I don't know your geology so I will withold my vote in this discussion. However I must point out to everyone that extensively metamophosed gneiss can have this banded appearence. On my local beaches we find many examples of pseudo-wood from glacial transport and weathering and all three fossil experts (I being the least knowledgable) all agree that we would call them pet wood if they were found in a different geological setting. So break out a hand magnifier and see if there are small shiny specs of mica in the dark bands. If there are, then you have a very convincing pseudo wood chunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashcraft Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 We all have to remember that we are not electing an identification: the number of votes does not settle what an object is. For this to be confidently IDed as fossil wood it can only be done with very high power magnification - zooming in on the photo will do nothing. Also, stromatolites are very hard to confidently ID by anyone but a stromatolite expert - stromatolite structure (being sedimentary and not anatomical) is even more subtle than that of fossil wood. And it can be said with near certainty that there was no wood in the Ordovician - the oldest known record of land plants goes back to the Silurian and the oldest trees known are Devonian. As Sheldon would say "0-1 on sarcasm" in relation to the ordovician wood. It is not true that high magnification is required to identify petrified wood, unless you are talking to species level. Family and genus often can be identified based on a blown up photograph. Attached is such a photo, of the genus Quercus, or whatever they call the Cretaceous variety. And who says I am not a stromatolite expert? King of the Stromatoites Brent Ashcraft ashcraft, brent allen 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