fossil guy Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Found this strange fossil in a creek in south central missouri. Itsabout 2 feet wide and is a piece of a much larger piece that is the bed rock of the creek. I have no idea as to what it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luluboo1 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Looks more geological than fossil but I really don't have a clue. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tethys Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 It is a fossil called Lepidodendron. An early tree sized plant related to club moss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil guy Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 Looks very similar, but i cant find any pictures that look like this one. This one isnt very symmetrical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rejd Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I agree that it does not look like a fossil to me. Look geological or possibly man made. A fossil hunter needs sharp eyes and a keen search image, a mental template that subconsciously evaluates everything he sees in his search for telltale clues. -Richard E. Leakey http://prehistoricalberta.lefora.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I see nothing resembling Lepidodendron. Bear in mind that the specimen is 2 feet wide, so the individual square-shaped structures (which I assume Tethys is confusing with Lepidodendron leaf scars) would be at least six inches across. Lepidodendron leaf scars are not more than 1/3 to 1/2 inch, are quite regular in arrangement, and have a very different shape and structure. I do not think the specimen is a fossil. Possibly it may be mud cracks or the impressions of large halite (salt) crystals preserved in sediment deposited on a tidal flat or lagoon type environment, but I'm not very sure about that. However, it lacks the regular/symmetrical structure one would expect if it had a biological origin. Don 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossil guy Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 The main piece is about 25 feet by 15 feet. All of it is very unsymmetrical. If i can get more pictures of it i will post them, but do to high water level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeymig Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I agree - fossilized mud cracks. Many times I've wondered how much there is to know. led zeppelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tethys Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) I see nothing resembling Lepidodendron. Bear in mind that the specimen is 2 feet wide, so the individual square-shaped structures (which I assume Tethys is confusing with Lepidodendron leaf scars) would be at least six inches across. Lepidodendron leaf scars are not more than 1/3 to 1/2 inch, are quite regular in arrangement, and have a very different shape and structure. Don Excellent point. Illustrating yet again why scale* is so important in attempting to ID from photographs. I have seen lepidodendrons with scale scars larger than 1/2 inch, but it is from France and does not resemble the above rock slab. It does look like mudstone, with signs of soft sediment deformation. Those must have been some impressive halite crystals. *I can't resist a pun. Edited February 25, 2015 by Tethys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I think these may be an ichnofossil, maybe Planolites. Fodichnia or feeding burrows. The specimen appears to have high-points sheared away. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossilcrazy Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Textbook example of Pseudofossil Descication Mudcracks. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Desiccated mud-cracks is probably correct. Too many sharp angles and level intersections to be trace fossils, I think. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 MudcracksCentripetal.JPG Textbook example of Pseudofossil Descication Mudcracks. (but please ignore the theropod track in the center...) 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