Fossil Or Mineral

[collector]

Hey, I was wondering if anyone could tell me if what looks like fine roots are fossil or mineral? I haven't come across any other rocks that look like this. It is ~3inches X 2inches and ~ 1inch thick.

Thank you for looking.

Patti

[Auspex]

Do they stand up to scrubbing with brush and water? They look like roots, but non-fossil.

[enoscrawler]

Neat find was it found in a fossil rich area

[collector]

Do they stand up to scrubbing with brush and water? They look like roots, but non-fossil.

Yes Auspex I have scrubbed them with soap and water. I have picked at them and are convinced that they are part of the rock. If you blow up the picture it is easier to tell. Could the brown band at the bottom be fossilized wood? I will take a picture of the end and post it.

Neat find was it found in a fossil rich area

It was found in a creek bed that does have many fossils but I have only found one plant fossil there.

[collector]

Here are some more pictures that hopefully will help to ID what this is.

Patti

[Auspex]

I'm not much of a rock guy, but they do not look like any mineral formations I've seen...

What other fossil material do you find there?

[collector]

Mostly corals Auspex, especially horned coral. I am posting my only plant fossil and another not wonderful picture of what does look kind of like bark. I don't have it right to hand but is about 2 x 2 inches

Patti

[John K]

I don't think it's fossil. Rather, it looks more to me like a metallic mineral inclusion (such as iron or maganese) in some sort of fledspar rich igneous rock. I've found a number of these; the inclusions can take on some really weird and suggestive forms.

It looks almost like it could be glacial (?)

Edited June 16, 2014 by John K

[collector]

I don't think it's fossil. Rather, it looks more to me like a metallic mineral inclusion (such as iron or maganese) in some sort of fledspar rich igneous rock. I've found a number of these; the inclusions can take on some really weird and suggestive forms.

It looks almost like it could be glacial (?)

Thanks of the reply John. I could be wrong but I don't think that we have any igneous rocks in this area. You are probably right that it isn't a fossil though. It looks like brain synapses in spots.

[quietfocus]

Consider breaking a piece off to see a fresh surface. It is a really interesting sample. My guess is a gneiss or maybe a mica schist. But every time I go back to the photos I have a hard time imagining the interior to look the same as the exterior. It looks discolored from something. I've got some other thoughts I will follow up on with some research.

[Fossildude19]

Geologic gets my vote too.

As John stated, it could be a glacially transported stone.

Regards,

[John K]

I bumped up the contrast a bit and circled a couple interesting inclusion - these look to be some sort of crystalline mineral, apart and very different than the metallic "threads" and the thicker layer of what looks to be hematite. My guess is if you looked at them with a hand lens, you'd see defined crystal structure of something like garnet - whatever they are, this is a very cool specimen...

[collector]

Consider breaking a piece off to see a fresh surface. It is a really interesting sample. My guess is a gneiss or maybe a mica schist. But every time I go back to the photos I have a hard time imagining the interior to look the same as the exterior. It looks discolored from something. I've got some other thoughts I will follow up on with some research.

Thank you for you input quietfocus. Much as I didn't want to I did chip off a piece and am uploading the pictures. To me it seems pretty much the same if a little lighter than the outside.

post-13012-0-59964600-1402940189.jpg

I bumped up the contrast a bit and circled a couple interesting inclusion - these look to be some sort of crystalline mineral, apart and very different than the metallic "threads" and the thicker layer of what looks to be hematite. My guess is if you looked at them with a hand lens, you'd see defined crystal structure of something like garnet - whatever they are, this is a very cool specimen...

I have zoomed up the pictures in iphoto and there is a lot of red. Minerology isn't my strongest suite or even to be honest my weakest one but it does resemble the garnet I see in rocks in the Adirondack mountains. There are a few bits that look mica like and many of the "threads" are red in color. You are right in that it was probably carried by a glacier. It isn't similar to any of the surrounding rock face. One off the tributaries to this creek has walls that look to be all stones held together with a little soil. Thanks for taking the time to look at it.

Patti

[Auspex]

OK, to me, it is a metamorphic material, possibly schist, and possibly containing garnets.

[Herb]

I would go with mineral also, but it is interesting looking.

[collector]

OK, to me, it is a metamorphic material, possibly schist, and possibly containing garnets.

I looked up pictures of schist and found a couple that looked a bit like this. I have one question for you about schist. In the pictures the schist looks shiny. This rock isn't except for a few flecks. Can schist not be reflective?

After seeing this rock with it's fine "root-like" look it made me wonder, even though this isn't a fossil, how fine a material has become fossilized. Have you Auspex ever seen anything thread fine that have become fossilized?

Thank you for the help. I like the rock even if it isn't a fossil and it helps to have some idea of what it could be.

Patti

[Plax]

I would say weathered schist

[Auspex]

...In the pictures the schist looks shiny. This rock isn't except for a few flecks. Can schist not be reflective?...

It could be low in mica content, or it could be the weathering; I suspect the latter (or both).

[collector]

Thank you

[Magicman]

Hi,

I didn't see any mention of where you found this specimen. I didn't see any real evidence of garnets. Nor do I see any mica. It is interesting and I might guess, if it was from around the Genesee River glacial flood plain, it might be organic (tree roots are a possibility) from about 35,000 years ago (the middle Wisconsion glacial period). See the following article...Page 9... just a guess.

http://www.rasny.org/publications/youngonline.pdf

Bob

[collector]

Hi,

I didn't see any mention of where you found this specimen. I didn't see any real evidence of garnets. Nor do I see any mica. It is interesting and I might guess, if it was from around the Genesee River glacial flood plain, it might be organic (tree roots are a possibility) from about 35,000 years ago (the middle Wisconsion glacial period). See the following article...Page 9... just a guess.

http://www.rasny.org/publications/youngonline.pdf

Bob

That is an interesting article Bob. I scanned through it but will have to go back and read it more fully. The rock was found in Conesus creek, Avon which puts it a little further east of the Avon landslide mentioned in the article. To me ( ) it seems like these like the "threads" are mineralized. It sure would be interesting though to be preserved wood from the Wisconsin glacial period. I tried to get closer up views of the sections of the rock and am attaching them to see what you think. Thank you for taking the time to research this out. I appreciate it.

Patti

[Magicman]

It's definitely fascinating. I've seen hundreds of different rocks and minerals ... but I haven't seen one like this. Garnets are not common in your area and I don't see any signs of mica plating in the pics.It isn't a dendrite mineral formation either in my opinion. At this point, anything I say is pure guesswork.

Guess one, it could be coprolite but the texture is too well defined, so my guess is it might be regurgitalith. My second guess is it may be a fossilized fine root systems of underwater plants - my reasoning - the tendrils appear to branch out from a stalk or base and this does adhere to the descriptions in the article I linked.

The cleavage makes me think it is some form of sandstone with calcite and possibly some very small rhodochrosite crystals. All of these can occur in fossilized material.

I do think it deserves a visit to the local museum/university where a geologist can make a more educated guess.

Smiles

Bob

[collector]

It's definitely fascinating. I've seen hundreds of different rocks and minerals ... but I haven't seen one like this. Garnets are not common in your area and I don't see any signs of mica plating in the pics.It isn't a dendrite mineral formation either in my opinion. At this point, anything I say is pure guesswork.

Guess one, it could be coprolite but the texture is too well defined, so my guess is it might be regurgitalith. My second guess is it may be a fossilized fine root systems of underwater plants - my reasoning - the tendrils appear to branch out from a stalk or base and this does adhere to the descriptions in the article I linked.

The cleavage makes me think it is some form of sandstone with calcite and possibly some very small rhodochrosite crystals. All of these can occur in fossilized material.

I do think it deserves a visit to the local museum/university where a geologist can make a more educated guess.

Smiles

Bob

Those are interesting educated guesses. Now I NEED to find out what it is. I will get someone to look at it and will report back.

Patti

[collector]

I finally was able to ask my neighbor who is a geologist at Geneseo State college about the rock and his first comment was that it wasn't from around here and probably came down from Canada with a glacier. He thought that it could be gneiss and that it was a stage of pressure and heat where it was almost melting and that caused the thread-like appearance. He discounted schist because of the lack of mica. Pretty interesting.

Patti