Jump to content

Fossil Pine Cone Impression


TimSPQR

Recommended Posts

First post. Hope I don't make any mistakes.

While building a house in Studio City (Los Angeles), while doing some heavy excavation, I found quite a few and diverse types of fossils (Fossils in LA? Aren't those just retired movie stars? :D). Crustaceans, fish, bones, etc. One of the fish was so impressive, I took it to the Natural History museum where they cut it to size (exposed beautiful strata on the sides of the sandstone), embedded it with some type of chemical for hardening, and were kind enough to classify it for me as a "sewer trout" (Lompoquia species). They said it was museum quality, so I'll probably donate it to them when I get tired of it (my house is my "museum", so I have lots of things like that around).

But one fossil is problematic. It looks like a negative impression of a pine cone and is "large" (21x10cm).

I've done a variety of Google searches with - fossil pine cone pinecone negative impression - and could only find a small example.

This particular specimen is in VERY hard and heavy ROCK, as opposed to the nice soft sandstone for the fish.

Would someone be so kind as to point me in the right direction for a good classification?

I thank you very much in advance.

post-14430-0-41424200-1392220317_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't point you in the direction but that sure is a neat impression. Welcome to the forum~!

" This comment brought to you by the semi-famous AeroMike"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice, that does indeed look like a pine cone impression to me. I'm sure someone from California will know and comment.

-Dave

__________________________________________________

Geologists on the whole are inconsistent drivers. When a roadcut presents itself, they tend to lurch and weave. To them, the roadcut is a portal, a fragment of a regional story, a proscenium arch that leads their imaginations into the earth and through the surrounding terrain. - John McPhee

If I'm going to drive safely, I can't do geology. - John McPhee

Check out my Blog for more fossils I've found: http://viewsofthemahantango.blogspot.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, it looks like more of an 'industrial artifact' than a fossil.

"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

Found this PDF online for you to look through. :)

Try googling "fossil+Pinecones+Southern California"

Also if you get a chance, can we see a pic or two of your fish??

Regards,

EDIT: Another LINK.

    Tim    -  VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  VFOTM  --- APRIL - 2015  

__________________________________________________
"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks."

John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~   ><))))( *>  About Me      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's huge. I was thinking scale impressions from Lepidodendron bark.

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

post-7201-0-36678800-1392229768_thumb.jpgThis was one I found along the Little Smoky River in Northern Alberta. Your impression is much more defined than my entire cone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the rock around the diamond-shaped whatsit limestone? A marine environment? Your fossil looks a little bit like honeycomb coral, maybe, genus Favosites Lamarck, 1816. But, that one is a matrix of hexagons, not diamonds. I'm not sure if your diamond thing is a fossil or, not.

Mike Olive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for all of your comments and links.

I'll spend some time with the pine cone texts.

Interesting idea about the possibility of coral. I'll have to look.

The "indentations" are clearly sharp at the tip, and diamond shape below.

All of the fossils from the strata I obtained are marine - most of the fish are in sandstone.

This "pine cone" is in HARD HARD rock - I'm not sure of the type.

Here is a picture of the Lompoquia.

post-14430-0-11605200-1392238617_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only organic fossil I've seen that begins to remind me of this is the trunk of a cycad. LINK

"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

From what I can discern, this is the problem I am having here on the FF. (IN REVERSE). I see many pieces that request an ID here on the forum. They may look familiar in paleozoic terms, but trying to put Paleozoic IDs on Miocene west coast fossils usually is not even close. Most of the paleozoic fossils you all are used to, do not occurr in the Los Angeles area

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think it could be, Paul? Do you see a fossil here?

"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

Looking at this artifact I am struck with the symmetry of the diamond patterns. It appears to be industrial maybe some old ceramic insulation. Just a guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yess, You have a nice example of a Miocene pinecone, from the Monterey shale

I finally found my pic of another similar and officially identified pinecone from the Monterey formation. What do you think?

post-9950-0-01159600-1392261679_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, what a great specimen!

It is a nice example of a Miocene pinecone, from the Monterey shale

Hey Paul, I agree with you I believe its the remains of a pinecone. I dont know what species come from the Monterey formation but present day pines easily reach that size and larger. We've got some monster long leaf pines down here that are that size--just around the corner...if it wasnt dark and rainy outside I'd go snag one.

To illustrate the similarity to a present day pine here's a 15 cm cone (from our Christmas decoration stuff still sitting open in the garage--uggh!) showing the same diamond shaped pattern of the scales seen in the fossil specimen.

post-1240-0-36888300-1392258743_thumb.jpgpost-1240-0-73554700-1392258737_thumb.jpg

On the other side of this cone you can see the cone scale rounded shapes flattening when they open that most of us are more familiar with.

Nice find! Hoping someone can dig up more specific info for you. Could very well be one of those listed in Axelrod's pub that Tim referenced. Did you ask the Museum folks about it as well? Thanks for showing us!

Regards, Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting update above. In PRK post

Hey Paul, another beauty from your collection! I know they existed..i only found clams further north in that formation, didnt know what to look for 40 years ago...oh dang!

Thanks for digging it out to show! Regards, Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting specimen. The fish specimen associated with it would eliminate "Lepidodendron and Lycopods I believe). Looks Paleogene to me. :popcorn:

"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

From what I can discern, this is the problem I am having here on the FF. (IN REVERSE). I see many pieces that request an ID here on the forum. They may look familiar in paleozoic terms, but trying to put Paleozoic IDs on Miocene west coast fossils usually is not even close. Most of the paleozoic fossils you all are used to, do not occurr in the Los Angeles area

Decades from now, future owners of my home will be posting pics of assorted fossil fragments found from nearly all periods from every corner of my property.

Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.
-Albert Einstein

crabes-07.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely Miocene pinecone!

Thanks, Paul!

"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

Just got back in town, and I cannot thank you all enough, for all of your comments.

When I get time, I'm going to make some detailed measurements of the impressions, and start investigating the "rock" portion.

I'll use a little Dremel-like tool to cut away a sliver of the outside and report back with my results.

Thanks VERY much again to you all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After searching through a few papers I found a very close look-alike with diamond-shaped cone bracts and large dimensions: Pinus truckeensis. The attached example is from the late Miocene of Reno, Nevada. The author mentions that the occurrence of a pine of southern affinity in western Nevada is not unique, although this group is more numerous in southeastern California. If not Pinus truckeensis, then it certainly appears to be something very close. You might try contacting the UC Berkeley paleo department to find out who is involved in the current research on these. Good luck getting a confident ID and please keep us posted with any exciting updates!

 

OPEN ACCESS LINK

 

Axelrod, D.I. (1986)

Cenozoic history of some western American pines.

Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 73(3):565-641

 

IMG1.jpg

 

 

 

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...