wildchild33 Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 This looks an awful lot like a worn jellyfish fossil, however there are some stones with odd name that look similar, maybe trace fossil can't remember. The other side doesn't look like anything. North Texas Cretateous. Help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Looks like a concretion to me. Are jellyfish fossils known from the area? Let's wait and see what others have to say. Regards, Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER 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 More sharing options...
wildchild33 Posted September 27, 2016 Author Share Posted September 27, 2016 Found it, I think? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 younghagadorn_published.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oilshale Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Definitely not! North Texas is Cretaceous and not Ediacaran. Yours seems to be a concretion (geologic origin, not a fossil). Have a look at this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concretion Looks similar to Moqui Marbles from southeast Utah. Thomas 1 Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes (Confucius, 551 BC - 479 BC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Your photo is fuzzy, but I'll bet that your specimen is - rough sand - rather heavy - orange-brown-red These are iron concretions of sandstone, similar to this one I found in Utah... ............. Rats... I can't post photos anymore............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bone2stone Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Wildy, It looks like these guys are on the money. I have some of these found around here in Irving/Grand Prairie. It is a concretion. Chat later. Jess B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildchild33 Posted September 28, 2016 Author Share Posted September 28, 2016 I am not completely convinced, just so happens I collect concretions & ironstone. Here is a sampling, images are not good enough to show grain size but maybe the dif in color, the stone is more golden brown, very soft texture, if I had to compare it is more like hardstone which yes there are concretions of it also. So still on the fence, and a bit hard headed : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 Neat group of concretions. I agree that the original post is also a concretion. Difference in color can be caused by varying iron content and weathering. Tony 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...
Ted Tutor Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 just rocks, unfortunately. More Leaverites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossiling Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 the "trace fossil" is called a mawsonite. Scientists think they are caused by worm-like animals catching their supper. Keep looking! They're everywhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 I wouldn't be too shocked to find out that most concretions are actually unrecognized fossils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 A "nucleus" is needed to give the concretion something to form around, and a fossil can be that nucleus. It's like frost, if you have a perfectly flat and clean piece of glass then frost is inhibited from forming, but a scratch or a particle creates the nucleus, and BANG!, it becomes a frost crystal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 56 minutes ago, tmaier said: A "nucleus" is needed to give the concretion something to form around, and a fossil can be that nucleus. It's like frost, if you have a perfectly flat and clean piece of glass then frost is inhibited from forming, but a scratch or a particle creates the nucleus, and BANG!, it becomes a frost crystal. I can imagine a second stage biologic primer being present but undetected in some of the bangs. In fact I think it was brought up on here that algae are at least thought to be involved at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildchild33 Posted October 22, 2016 Author Share Posted October 22, 2016 I had given up on this forum but felt the need to defend myself due to someones opinion on several of my posts. That person should take their own advice and 'leaverite' it alone. As far as this, if you look at the first pic compared to the example you can see the outer ring, the middle ring, and the center ring. In the first 3 pics you can see the bar that goes from edge across middle ring, it shines from some kind of silica coating. This all could be coincidental but seems a stretch. Also like to add that just because a fossil isn't found in a certain area does not eliminate the possibility of it's existence. Iceburgs carried chunks of land hundreds of miles from their origin and fill dirt and gravel transport them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwigia Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 As far as I know, jellyfish are only preserved as imprints, and those are extremely rare. They are soft-bodied, so they can't fossilize 3-dimensionally. We are only stating our opinions here, which is what you asked of us. If you still are unsure, why not take it to a museum for an expert opinion? 1 Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger http://www.steinkern.de/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 Perhaps the photos are not doing it justice. Is there any chance you could bring it in person to an expert to confirm what it is? And, yes, it is true that rocks and fossils do travel with the recession of glaciers, but in terms of probability I think others are betting on it being local to the geology there, and jellyfish fossils are not very commonly preserved beyond impressions. So, as they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This might be a case where an expert examining this in person as opposed to a picture will clear things up. 2 ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildchild33 Posted October 22, 2016 Author Share Posted October 22, 2016 I was just explaining why I thought it was a possibility because of the similarities. It appears to be just impressions but happens to be on stone, I have seen numerous pictures of jellyfish fossils that exactly match that pattern and have raised areas so I was just comparing them which led to my guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 And I think it does remain a possibility. But there are always limits in visual comparison, and many of us have fallen prey on one occasion or another of a little pareidolia! But, that being said, it would be great to move from possibility to certainty. If an expert can confirm your find as a jellyfish, that would make this a real top-shelf find! ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 27 minutes ago, wildchild33 said: I was just explaining why I thought it was a possibility because of the similarities. It appears to be just impressions but happens to be on stone, I have seen numerous pictures of jellyfish fossils that exactly match that pattern and have raised areas so I was just comparing them which led to my guess. Nothing wrong with that!! 1 hour ago, wildchild33 said: I had given up on this forum but felt the need to defend myself due to someones opinion on several of my posts. That person should take their own advice and 'leaverite' it alone. As far as this, if you look at the first pic compared to the example you can see the outer ring, the middle ring, and the center ring. In the first 3 pics you can see the bar that goes from edge across middle ring, it shines from some kind of silica coating. This all could be coincidental but seems a stretch. Also like to add that just because a fossil isn't found in a certain area does not eliminate the possibility of it's existence. Iceburgs carried chunks of land hundreds of miles from their origin and fill dirt and gravel transport them. Sorry that someone has offended You. Please do not let that deter You from using this forum as the wonderful resource that it is. I agree that just because nobody has found something in a certain area that it can not be found there. Anything is possible, even the highly improbable. Tony 1 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...
tmaier Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 If everybody always agreed with each other then I would seriously doubt the veracity of the conclusion. There is an ancient tradion in Jewish culture that if a panel of judges is called to solve a problem and the whole panel agree, then the result is thrown out. That sounds odd, but the fact that it was a mystery, but there was so much agreement, then something must have gone wrong in the presentation and understnading of the issue. A mystery should have at least some contention. Some contention... that's science. It's OK for people to disagree with each other and debate, but the rules of debate are that everybody should behave themselves and present evidence for their opinions. It's like a jury trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bone2stone Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 Well guys, I took the opportunity to talk to her and discuss defending unfounded specimens. She was trying to be as understanding as her limited experience dictates. Her attempt to identify is limited to visual aids. Seeing something in a stone that others perceive as an anomaly is a common event that we see here and other forums as well. She has only begun to learn and I have been teaching (mentoring) her as well as other newbees. We have been out in the hunt only twice and she can see the good stuff. But I find it difficult to teach her what to ignore or what to bypass. She has a LOT to learn. She asked me to let you guys know that her defensive posture will be softened a bit she was just disturbed about the Leaverite comment. I admit that I had to be rather critical in my talks with her but she just needs guidance. She does accept knowledge if it is tempered with respect. See you guys in the field. Jess B. Bone2stone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 I believe Leaverite only applies people who live with someone who wants a lawn where the pile of rocks that await a closer look should be 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