saysac Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Found these today also. Fossil wood?? Sherry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) Looks more like ripple marks to Me, the type that You see in a shore line. Definitely not wood. Tony PS I guess I was wrong. I still do not see wood but the others are saying it is. Edited September 8, 2015 by ynot Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Russell Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Looks like wood pieces that I've collected from Mazon Creek. I'll agree with wood. Finding my way through life; one fossil at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stocksdale Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) Definitely wood. Not sure what kind. Sigillaria maybe? Edited September 8, 2015 by Stocksdale Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.–Carl Sagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Would I be wrong to suggest that you are using the term wood perhaps a bit loosely here ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saysac Posted September 8, 2015 Author Share Posted September 8, 2015 Rockwood, what would you say it is? Sherry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stocksdale Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Yes, Rockwood, I think 'bark impression' is what I mean. Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.–Carl Sagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZiggieCie Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Would I be wrong to suggest that you are using the term wood perhaps a bit loosely here ? I agree, the term wood is too generic for this time period, as no "wood" as we know it now existed yet. We know what is meant by the term wood, but newer and younger people would be getting confusing information installed in their inner computer storage device, we used to call it the Brain. If this doesn't make sense, it's early yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 I totally agree that it is plant material. You can see the coalified layer that represents the periderm (or whatever...) very clearly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Perhaps Cordaites? "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...
Stocksdale Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Cordaites bark? That would make sense. Sherry has found a lot of Cordaites leaves at her location. Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.–Carl Sagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleoflor Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 [...] no "wood" as we know it now existed yet. [...] I'd say Dadoxylon-type woods come pretty close! Regarding the specimen at hand, I think it's too poorly preserved to allow confident identification. 3 Searching for green in the dark grey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saysac Posted September 8, 2015 Author Share Posted September 8, 2015 Sooooo, according to wikipedia, Dadoxylon is form genus of fossil wood,so was I correct calling it fossil wood? Sherry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard_l Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Pennsylvanian age material in Ohio, and all the other plant material you find, I am supprised you haven't been finding all kinds of wood. Howard_L http://triloman.wix.com/kentucky-fossils Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saysac Posted September 8, 2015 Author Share Posted September 8, 2015 Found small pieces before, but these 2 are the largest I have found there. Sherry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleoflor Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Sorry, I should have separated the two statements more clearly. Dadoxylon is a form genus for structurally preserved wood of unknown affinity (i.e. petrifactions preserving the wood cell structure). I mentioned the genus only in reply to the text that I quoted, basically to say that there definitely are Carboniferous woods. Your specimen, however, cannot be classified as Dadoxylon, for it lacks the structural preservation necessary for such a thing. When it comes to the specimen at hand, I'd stick with an epithet along the lines of "compression fossil of unidentified stem". Compression fossils of stems/woods are quite difficult to classify reliably (well, at least I find it difficult to do), as all you have is the external morphology, which in this case shows few usable characteristics (I wish it showed a couple Cordaicladus-scars or something!) 2 Searching for green in the dark grey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Rockwood, what would you say it is? Is rock and coal. Was plant material. It appears to me that wood has no scientific meaning. Yes, Rockwood, I think 'bark impression' is what I mean. I'm fairly sure bark is just plain incorrect. As I understand it lycopod periderm is a living photosynthetic tissue. Bark is neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleoflor Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 [...] I'm fairly sure bark is just plain incorrect. As I understand it lycopod periderm is a living photosynthetic tissue. Bark is neither. [...] Are you suggesting that the specimen at hand is unquestionably referable to the lycopods? On a side-note, isn't the term bark rather ambiguous anyway? It sometimes is considered to refer to the combined tissues that occur outside the vascular cambium, which would imply that the phloem is part of the bark. If we accept such a definition, then at least part of the bark would be a living tissue. Your "dead" definition of bark seems to reduce the term to mean rhytidome. 1 Searching for green in the dark grey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I guess I was the one not quite with the program paleoflor: Thank you for giving me a better way to think of it. Stocksdale: Please forgive the brashness of my remark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stocksdale Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) No worries, Rockwood. Precise terms are sometimes helpful. Just for kicks, I did find that even noted Paleobotanist Bill DiMichelle uses the term "Bark" when referring to lycopods in some of his scientific papers. Probably not the most precise term, but it works. He also uses the term "wood" for what grew inside the "bark" Edited September 9, 2015 by Stocksdale Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.–Carl Sagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stocksdale Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) I'd think the "wood" of Cordaites, Seed Fern and Cycads would look a lot like modern wood, right? Edited September 9, 2015 by Stocksdale Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.–Carl Sagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleoflor Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Depends on what you mean with modern wood, I guess, but I expect that most people would call the internal structure of the stems of the pteridosperms (e.g. Medullosa, Rhexoxylon) and cycads different from what they consider typical "wood" (similarly, palm wood is also considered atypical). The wood of Cordaites (Cordaixylon, Pennsylvanioxylon and Dadoxylon pro parte) looks quite similar to "wood", I guess, at least at first glance (but do mind the pith, which may have been quite large, considering Artisia-type fossils.) I'd agree with Rockwood, however, that the term wood is not very useful here (back on topic), for the fossil under discussion lacks any internal wood structure. All we have is an external cast/compression of some layer of tissue (decortication state?) of an unidentified stem. Further identification must be based on characteristics visible on that surface (difficult, if you ask me.) 1 Searching for green in the dark grey. 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