What is this unique fossils?

[ivigo]

Hello guys.

Before some years i found this unusual semi transparent rock in the beach .

In the photos is the front and the back side of the same rock .

Because i know is unique , now one believe this rock is full of sea fossil ( from photos )

The dimension of the rock is 18x 15 cm in general .

Is something like a electron with fossils inside but this time with silicon gel .

[ivigo]

This is the back side , i think this the side of fundus and you see some kind of MOLLUSCS

[jpc]

could this be a water worn coral?

[ivigo]

Yes i believe is worm , i don't know what is exacty.

If you look inside with microscopic zoom the worms looks like the worm in photo.

Looks like to have a hair ....

But the unusual is not the type of the worm , but the unusual way of petrified

Edited November 23, 2015 by ivigo

[jpc]

Worn... Not worm. Polished by the ocean...

[ivigo]

Is not only polished , is transparent and all this inside is a lot of something and not one thing

You can see it in the photo the quality is very good

[Rockwood]

I think what you're seeing is the shape of mineral crystals. It's a common problem when studying many preservations close up.

[ivigo]

Many times they have written about crystals. I would like someone if is possible to show me pictures of such mineral crystal that is almost identical and they make curves inside the rock , etc.

If is mineral crystal is easy to someone to find photos from those mineral crystal wish is inside in my rock....

The minerals and the knowing fossils always have the same shape....and looks.

Also now one tell something about the MOLLUSCS body in the down side of the rock.

Edited November 23, 2015 by ivigo

[ivigo]

I put this 2 photos together

One with the thing inside the rock and second one with a worm very similar with the things.....

And one photo with the Molluscs

[Auspex]

I am afraid you are seeing familiar but very unlikely things in suggestive shapes and patterns. This is a trick the human mind plays on us: <pareidolia>

[ivigo]

Dear Auspex, i understand what you say and mean, BUT (and big one) as you can see, i give a photo example with something very similar ( in live photo and not inside to a rock and fossil for a couple a million years) .

I expect from the other side to make the same ....something in photo with the mineral crystal similar with the things in my rock.

Also because i am not an expert ...please give me some information what examination is the best to make in the rock for the best answer- result.

Thanks Chris

Edited November 23, 2015 by ivigo

[ivigo]

The hypocrisy in all its glory.
Rather than write that in fact is something never before seen and is very interesting (because you have not seen before), you write things that you can not substantiate

The confidence that they are a mineral crystals, was not accompanied by any evidence.

I do not write anything else and I leave it to your judgement, if this is the right for the forum.

[Fossildude19]

The hypocrisy in all its glory.

Rather than write that in fact is something never before seen and is very interesting (because you have not seen before), you write things that you can not substantiate

The confidence that they are a mineral crystals, was not accompanied by any evidence.

I do not write anything else and I leave it to your judgement, if this is the right for the forum.

Chris,

Please do not accuse us of hypocrisy.

We are not experts (at least, most of us will not claim to be so. ). Many of us do this as a hobby.

We do not always get the ID's correct, as this is difficult to do from 2 dimensional photographs.

It may be something we haven't seen before, and yet, as such, we prefer to be sceptical until we have seen something similar.

Because we have not seen it before, that alone is not a reason to assign your item with a specific ID of worms, either.

They look similar, but are they really?

It MAY possibly be worms. Who knows? I don't.

I find however that it is preferable to be cautious of an unknown, and scientifically approach identifying the item.

I am not a geologist, so I cannot speak to the make up of the matrix.

I do not know where it was found, or in what context.

I have never seen anything like it.

My guess, and it is only that, a guess,... is that it looks more geological than biological in nature,... but I could be wrong.

It appears to me to be somewhat similar to what are known as Moss Agates. I am not saying that is what your item is, just that I am reminded of them by your piece - they appear similar. .

I am sorry that we were unable to provide you an answer to your liking, and that we were unable to provide any evidence to the contrary.

I think you are best served to bring your item to a geologist or paleontologist at a museum, and let them have a look at it.

Please remember we try to do our best, but we can only go from out individual experiences.

I do hope you are able to get your piece identified - either way.

Regards,

Edited November 27, 2015 by Fossildude19

[DeloiVarden]

Goodness...

[ivigo]

Chris,

Please do not accuse us of hypocrisy.

We are not experts (at least, most of us will not claim to be so. ). Many of us do this as a hobby.

We do not always get the ID's correct, as this is difficult to do from 2 dimensional photographs.

It may be something we haven't seen before, and yet, as such, we prefer to be sceptical until we have seen something similar.

Because we have not seen it before, that alone is not a reason to assign your item with a specific ID of worms, either.

They look similar, but are they really?

It MAY possibly be worms. Who knows? I don't.

I find however that it is preferable to be cautious of an unknown, and scientifically approach identifying the item.

I am not a geologist, so I cannot speak to the make up of the matrix.

I do not know where it was found, or in what context.

I have never seen anything like it.

My guess, and it is only that, a guess,... is that it looks more geological than biological in nature,... but I could be wrong.

It appears to me to be somewhat similar to what are known as Moss Agates. I am not saying that is what your item is, just that I am reminded of them by your piece - they appear similar. .

I am sorry that wewere unable to provide you an answer to your liking, and that we were unable to provide any evidence to the contrary.

I think you are best served to bring your item to a geologist or paleontologist at a museum, and let them have a look at it.

Please remember we try to do our best, but we can only go from out individual experiences.

I do hope you are able to get your piece identified - either way.

Regards,

Really thank you for your answer. Is very honest and right.

I don't expect for someone to tell me 100% this is worm or something else only from some photos , but i don't expect also from any one to tell me this is a mineral crystal or geological things without any evidence.

Before i decide to write and put any photos, i make a very good research in web and i look if i found something similar .

You can read me also in my previous post with the snake . I spend money and i go again there to see and take photos again and i have write the results .

I expect the same and from the other people who write in the post , positive or negative .

Edited November 25, 2015 by ivigo

[Herb]

that is a very interesting piece. Can you section a piece of it

[Rockwood]

The shape of mineral crystals often hamper attempts to identify specimens. That is a proven fact.

[ynot]

I think Your rock is a geologic piece and not a fossil of worms.

This is based on three things.

1) worms are a soft body animal that are rarely preserved in three dimensional form, and not in a three dimensional cluster.

2) the rock shows multiple Y shapes which are inconsistent with the shape of the sea slug that You are trying to pigeonhole this rock into.

3) the "MOLLUSCS" on the back does not have the proper shape to be either a clam or a brachiopod.

I can not show any pictures to provide "proof" of this, but (as with Your "snake" fossil) there are many "red flags" on this rock that indicate it is not a fossil.

Tony

[Herb]

beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as are fossils.

[ivigo]

I think Your rock is a geologic piece and not a fossil of worms.

This is based on three things.

1) worms are a soft body animal that are rarely preserved in three dimensional form, and not in a three dimensional cluster.

2) the rock shows multiple Y shapes which are inconsistent with the shape of the sea slug that You are trying to pigeonhole this rock into.

3) the "MOLLUSCS" on the back does not have the proper shape to be either a clam or a brachiopod.

I can not show any pictures to provide "proof" of this, but (as with Your "snake" fossil) there are many "red flags" on this rock that indicate it is not a fossil.

Tony

The secret of this fossilization, could be found in hydrothermal sources rich of silicon and shallow waters, which gradually evaporated completely.

Also about the mollusc in this photo i put you can see how similar looks with the thing in the rock....

Any mollusc of the class Gastropoda, typically having a flattened muscular foot for locomotion and a head that bears stalked eyes.

Edited November 26, 2015 by ivigo

[ynot]

The secret of this fossilization, could be found in hydrothermal sources rich of silicon and shallow waters, which gradually evaporated completely.

Also about the mollusc in this photo i put you can see how similar looks with the thing in the rock....

You are comparing living to fossil and looking for similar shape / pattern. When a biologic is buried there is a tremendous amount of weight on it that causes any soft body parts to be flattened. ( and most hard parts also.)

If the soft parts are exposed for any time after death they would rot away, even hard parts have to be buried fairly quick to prevent deterioration and allow for fossilization.

As with the "snake" fossil that You put in the other post, You see something that resembles a living animal and it is just a coincidence.

There are no fossils in this rock!!!

[ivigo]

You are comparing living to fossil and looking for similar shape / pattern. When a biologic is buried there is a tremendous amount of weight on it that causes any soft body parts to be flattened. ( and most hard parts also.)

If the soft parts are exposed for any time after death they would rot away, even hard parts have to be buried fairly quick to prevent deterioration and allow for fossilization.

As with the "snake" fossil that You put in the other post, You see something that resembles a living animal and it is just a coincidence.

There are no fossils in this rock!!!

Whatever you say .

Unlike you who does not give any evidence , about what can be the rock, me in the case of snake i researched the case again, I took photos and wrote something about my mistake.

We will learn newest about the rock soon. We will see.

Edited November 26, 2015 by ivigo

[ynot]

Show Me any known fossil that even remotely resembles the "worms" that You claim this to be and I will admit that I made a mistake.

You claim it is something fossilized but show only living things to back up Your claim, and refuse to listen to people that have a lot of experience with fossils and rocks when they say You are wrong!

Tony

PS The same thing was said about the "snake" and You denied that the answers were right until You went back and took a better look- which proved that the opinions of the replies were correct.

Edited November 26, 2015 by ynot

[oilshale]

Oh my gosh... better ban this guy.

Why is he asking when he already thinks to know everything better.

Edited November 27, 2015 by oilshale

[Auspex]

The hypocrisy in all its glory.

Rather than write that in fact is something never before seen and is very interesting (because you have not seen before), you write things that you can not substantiate

The confidence that they are a mineral crystals, was not accompanied by any evidence.

I do not write anything else and I leave it to your judgement, if this is the right for the forum.

I cannot see any evidence that the object is of organic origin; its visible features are inconsistent with any kind of fossil I have seen, and I (and all the others who have responded) have seen a few. Maybe you should take it to a qualified paleontologist at a museum; maybe something can be discerned in the hand that cannot be seen in pictures.

Having been called a hypocrite for my trouble, I am through trying to help.