Looking For Help Identifying A Herbivore Tooth Found In West Kootenay Area Of British Columbia

[tmaier]

My first fossil actually was a perfectly preserved, beautiful brachiopod. I found it at a gas station parking lot when I was about seven, and it perfectly matched the drawings that I had seen in books. I got mad and threw it out into a corn field because I thought it was ridiculous that a kid could actually find a fossil. Nature was messing with me, and I was no fool! =-)

The Lying Stones of Exon. =-)

[ArrestedBeauty]

21 hours ago, fossiling said:

sorry, but the likelihood for fossils in quartzite is way less than 0.0000000000001(add more zeros here) so it is not likely that you will find any fossils in your local quartzite vein, even in hundreds of years of searching.

I'm so glad you said that...I have 2 quartzite rocks that look to have fossils in them. Please accept my apology ahead of time for the following comment...I have ano IQ of 152, and excellent inductive reasoning skills. I may be a lot naive when it comes to many things that are nary so quantifiable such as these. I asked for your opinions, because I browsed the forum...it is very unfortunate that neither were any of you honest, but I find now, that you are too terribly closed minded to be able to find anything outside of your very limited knowledge sets. I have recently come upon a startling statistic...approximately 2% of all fossils are discovered in igneous rock (e.g. basalt, marble, granite, andesite)...Rare, though absolutely possible. It is my understanding that  p

Paleontology is considered a science...hobby or no, science is based upon far fetched ideas, such as the discovery of the molecule and how they bond to form an innumerable amount of compounds. Hypothesis, research, findings made public and published. 

     I would definitely appreciate it if someone could correct me if I'm wrong there. it seems that I must find an institution the could use someone with a propensity to find igneous rock fossils so that they may be studied in depth as well.

Again, I apologize. Though a scientist I am not...a good scientist they make when they question even the most basic of ideas. 

 

     -Good Luck, as I likely will not be back...A "Collective Friend" I came to make, in a group who share the very same interest...Yet once again, I have found widespread disbelief, and others laughing. Ifor I wanted to be laughed at for asking for help, I could have just walked out my front door. 

[ArrestedBeauty]

Here is another, it is igneaose history c

[Fossildude19]

1 hour ago, ArrestedBeauty said:

I'm so glad you said that...I have 2 quartzite rocks that look to have fossils in them. Please accept my apology ahead of time for the following comment...I have ano IQ of 152, and excellent inductive reasoning skills. I may be a lot naive when it comes to many things that are nary so quantifiable such as these. I asked for your opinions, because I browsed the forum...it is very unfortunate that neither were any of you honest, but I find now, that you are too terribly closed minded to be able to find anything outside of your very limited knowledge sets. I have recently come upon a startling statistic...approximately 2% of all fossils are discovered in igneous rock (e.g. basalt, marble, granite, andesite)...Rare, though absolutely possible. It is my understanding that  p

Paleontology is considered a science...hobby or no, science is based upon far fetched ideas, such as the discovery of the molecule and how they bond to form an innumerable amount of compounds. Hypothesis, research, findings made public and published. 

     I would definitely appreciate it if someone could correct me if I'm wrong there. it seems that I must find an institution the could use someone with a propensity to find igneous rock fossils so that they may be studied in depth as well.

Again, I apologize. Though a scientist I am not...a good scientist they make when they question even the most basic of ideas. 

 

     -Good Luck, as I likely will not be back...A "Collective Friend" I came to make, in a group who share the very same interest...Yet once again, I have found widespread disbelief, and others laughing. Ifor I wanted to be laughed at for asking for help, I could have just walked out my front door. 

 

 

 

I am very sorry to hear that you feel this way.   We have, as far as I know, been nothing but honest with our opinions.  I see no posts mocking or laughing at you.

Fifbrindacier's post was showing a rock she thought was a fossil, before she discovered otherwise. I see no dishonesty evident.

 

The post from one of our youth members appears to be exaggerated, but he mentions Quartzite specifically - not metamorphic rock, in general. 

 

Identifying fossils from 2 dimensional pictures is a tenuous venture, at best. Nothing beats an in hand examination, with a loupe or microscope or magnifying glass to aid in seeing.

Less than high resolution photos add to the difficulty of  this process. 

 

I don't believe we are a close minded group. We have collective years of experience collecting fossils, and the knowledge and experience to go with those years. 

We try to answer to the best of our ability, and we are not always correct. Granted, not many of us look closely at metamorphic rocks, as the fossils they may contain are usually very distorted and unrecognizable.

 

Perhaps you can find someone who does specialize in memtamorphic rock fossils.  I hope you can. We are excited by new discoveries, and would actually welcome being proved wrong. 

I know I based my answers on what I see in the photos, and am just not seeing any fossils recognizable to me.  I have 21 years of experience collecting fossils, in all different rock types.

I even have some fossils from Ireland in marble.  But schists, granites and many other metamorphic/igneous rock types rarely offer readily recognizable fossils, so I do tend to be biased against them. 

 

That said, I hope you are able to bring your items to a museum or university and get them looked at. 

Whether you return here, or not, ... I  do wish you the best of luck with your search, and am sorry you felt that we were not helpful. 

Best wishes,

 

 

[abyssunder]

The last one of your specimens is Porphyry

Here is one of mine from Romania :

 

 

I recommend from the "oldies but goldies" this comprehensive work : pdf

 

 

" Texture. —The texture of an igneous rock means the size, shape, and mode of aggregation of its constituent mineral particles. Texture is a very important means of determining the circumstances under which the rock was formed, and hence great attention is paid to it. Since texture responds so accurately to the circumstances
of solidification, rate of cooling, pressure, etc., all the varieties shade into one another by imperceptible gradations and form a continuous series. Nevertheless, it is necessary to distinguish and name the more important kinds. (...)

Porphyritic. — In rocks of this texture are large, isolated crystals, called phenocrysts, embedded in a ground mass, which may be glassy or made up of small crystals. The phenocrysts may have sharp edges and well-formed faces, or they may have irregular and corroded surfaces. The porphyritic texture indicates two distinct phases of crystallization. The first is the formation of the phenocrysts, which remain suspended in the molten mass, or magma, and are often corroded and partially redissolved (resorbed) by it. These crystals are said to be of intratelluric origin, because formed before the eruption of the lava, and such crystals are showered out of certain active volcanoes at the present time.

Stromboli (see p. 75), for example, ejects quantities of large and perfect augite crystals. There is reason to believe, however, that not all phenocrysts are thus intratelluric, but that the first phase of crystallization sometimes takes place after the ejection of the molten mass. The second phase consists in the formation of the ground mass, which may be glassy, finely crystalline, or both. Mineral particles having distinct crystalline form are called idiomorphic. "

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by abyssunder

[fifbrindacier]

I am sorry if you felt i was kidding you. I showed this because i was strongly convinced that i had a fossil of shrimp. The laughing emoticons were for me, not for you.

 

Last year i "haunted" the members of a french forum with my shrimp and with another piece, it was a flysch with leather-like ichno-fossils and beside it, something that was some kind of calcified test or piece of test or, no fossil at all. They did laugh at me, one even had insulting and disrespectful words, as if i were a moronic. Some were very more respectful and kind.

 

I posted it to show that now, even if i am not at all an expert and if i sometimes am still misled by some stones (like grauwacke), i am more able to see stones in which there is really a fossil inside than a year before, to recognize for example an oyster, a pectinid, a terebratule or a diceras arietinum (a very strange bivalve), not the kinds for now, but i am learning here. I was unable to do that a year ago.

 

I really didn't want to upset you.

[fifbrindacier]

3 hours ago, ArrestedBeauty said:

You should wash this one softly with water and a tooth brush to see if those black traces remain or no. If they remain, they may be the result of a concretion but they also could be broken pieces of rudists or ichno-fossil traces. But they, non the less, would be impossible to identify properly.

 

This said, i agree with @Fossildude19, if there are fossils in granit, they must be crushed by the formation and the density of that rock. I did find ichno-fossils traces plus a brachiopod and a bryozoan imprint on a grauwacke (the fossils themselves had disappeared since a long time). It is a metamorphic rock that lured me because i thought it was a piece of wood.

My grauwacke contains schist and mica, but it is very, very fragile, i cannot touch it without bits of it detaching. I am very lucky to have some ichno-fossils in it, firstly because my husband sat beside it to eat, other wise we wouldn't have seen it, and also because this is something really rare, even if in that area it is known that a very, very, very few grauwackes still have traces of fossils.

 

So, yes, you could find some in metamorphic rocks, but i think you'll waste your time by looking for one in them. Maybe be you could look for information by consulting geologic maps concerning your area or sign in a fossil and geologic club where you'll find people who would share their experience with you. That's what i did, and it is very instructive and sympathetic.

[ynot]

Just to clear up some of the ideas of this thread.

Intrusive igneous rocks (granite, gabbro, etc.) will never have fossils! They form from a melted pool of minerals.

Extrusive igneous rocks (lava, pyroclastic mudstones.) will rarely have fossils, but some do. They can catch organics when they are deposited. (Vesuvius/Pompeii)

Metamorphic rock (marble, slate, shale.) can have fossils, but they are usually very distorted, while gneiss and schist will not have fossils. . This is dependent on how much metamorphism has taken place and what type of rock was changed.

 

All of the OP's rocks are intrusive igneous or metamorphic origin, and I see no fossils in them (as the others have said.).

Sometimes crystals that form in igneous or metamorphic can have the appearance of organic remains.

 

Some quartzite type rocks (chert, flint) form in/from sedimentary rock and can be fossiliferous.

 

To ArrestedBeauty, it is unfortunate that you come here wanting to be told you are right and get mad because we tell you the truth.

 

Tony

[fifbrindacier]

4 hours ago, ArrestedBeauty said:

 

Most of us are amateurs but some collect fossils since so long a time that they can be considered as expert in their domain. And some of us are scientists, geologists, archeologists or paleontologists. Maybe there are narrow-minded persons among us, but i don't feel those are numerous and since now i didn't encounter one.

[ArrestedBeauty]

I'm honestly hoping someone didn't spike my Wheaties with shrooms...cause I think this one is quite convincing. My photography skills are definitely lacking...and not just somewhat.

[ArrestedBeauty]

[DPS Ammonite]

Please take your rock out of the container and photograph it so that we can get a better look.

[ArrestedBeauty]

No problem  sorry.

[ArrestedBeauty]

[ArrestedBeauty]

I apologize for not having posted this one sooner...I just found it the other day and had yet to examine it closely.it may be easier to identify individual characteristics. 

[Kane]

First batch of photos appears to be possibly gneiss or granite (I think I spot at least one tiny speck of mica in it), followed by some organic material in the second of the first batch (the dark brown bit looks to be a section of desiccated cedar). 

 

Second batch of photos appears to be weathered quartzite with possibly some veins and flecks of iron pyrite (but that might be just lighting conditions).

[ArrestedBeauty]

Thank you Kane. I thought the brown spec was cedar as well, but I tried setting it on fire and it wouldn't burn...may very well still be. is there a way to test for organics aside from vinegar for limestone? Also, I've read that different compounds show differ color under UV light, is this indicative with fossils as well? 

[Kane]

Cedar leaves can be a challenge to be burn, even when dry (they tend to retain a bit of moisture). Not sure about the UV testing, though I've read that green-wave spectrometry at around 200-1000 nm wavelength can do it, but you might also require a bit of a lab to do this including some sodium hydroxide, sodium pyrophosphate(?), and hydrochloric acid in some quantity with deionized water. But I think that is for testing for organic matter in soils.

 

From chemistry, we know that something organic must have both carbon and hydrogen present, not just one or the other. For example, water (H20) is inorganic because it lacks carbon, limestone (CaC03) is inorganic because it lacks hydrogen, whereas something like sugar (C12H22011) contains both and so is organic.

 

Perhaps someone else here will be able to tell us a simpler method for determining whether the object be organic or inorganic

[fifbrindacier]

I agree with this statement, all the organic molecules are made with carbon and hydrogen. Without those two atoms, no life if possible (the only non organic element indispensable for our nutrition is the salt).

I know a method more simpler to see if something is organic or no, but it takes a bit of time, it is to let it corrupt by a way or another.

[ynot]

1 hour ago, ArrestedBeauty said:

o test for organics aside from vinegar for limestone? Also, I've read that different compounds show differ color under UV light, is this indicative with fossils as well? 

Vinegar is a test for calcite, not for organics. In fossils most organic material has been replaced by other minerals.

Many minerals will fluoresce under ultraviolet light, the color is do to the minerals present. Calcie will fluoresce red or orange, many agates from the western parts of North America will fluoresce a bright green due to traces of radioactive minerals in thier structure. Some living organics will fluoresce because of the minerals in thier structure.(Your teeth will fluoresce.)

Regards,

Tony

[ArrestedBeauty]

ZWith regardsThank you, all of afore mentioned information is definitely helpful; if for no other reason than my thirst for an explanation and understanding of the "cause" of an "effect"...if that makes sense...I not only desire to know the what, but the why/how. I in no way mean to diminish the value of the shared information , so much as my innate ability to blunder an inquiry to the point of  being unrecognizable.

 

That being said, I should have been more clear with regards to my line of questioning...I have recently found that using a "blood tracker" light illuminates certain rocks more than others. My fear of ridicule from most "mainstreamers" (present company not included in this statement), given my eccentricities has me a bit gun shy regarding the method in which I collect data. While searching for similar threads regarding the "BT" light online, I found this link from Painshill in another post...

He posted a link to a pdf of the findings from a field study performed on the effectiveness of uv light for finding fossils. Mind you, I only browsed the file, but I find myself somewhat optimistic that I will eventually be able to convince the concensus here, of my sould-deep confidence in my findings. 

The best things in life, are the hardest to attain. If I am to convince others of what I am so confident of, I must first work hard and prove the accuracy of my claims. It may take a while, but my addimacy is not without merit...

I do have 1 sedimentary piece that my husband and I cracked early this morning with what I believe to be, a beautifully preserved marine animal...

 

[fifbrindacier]

On 21 novembre 2016 at 0:51 PM, ArrestedBeauty said:

 

Could you wash off the lichen and the earth and take other pics when it is humid and when it is dry ? Because if there is something in it, we would see it better. All i can say with that photo is that it looks porous or maybe those little "holes" are traces of something like the lichen we see on it. Is it heavy ?

[Fossildude19]

15 hours ago, ArrestedBeauty said:

 

I do have 1 sedimentary piece that my husband and I cracked early this morning with what I believe to be, a beautifully preserved marine animal...

 

 

 

Sorry, but , ... again, this looks like a rock. Maybe a sandstone this time, but I am not seeing any marine mammal.  

Regards,

[fifbrindacier]

Yes, surely this is by no way a marine mammal.

[ArrestedBeauty]

Hello All, I am very sorry for having not responded further.I have yet to prepare the sample for its very first nude photo shoot.I have been quite ill and just today, I realized the root cause...my hair products including Shampoo & Conditioner . 

 

With re: to my mention of "marine Mammal" I fat-finger quite often, and seemingly more so with my most recent upgrade. Regardless, what I meant t ok say was animal. Generic, yes...but not so much so as to lack distinction of key features of said sample.

 

I have also been meaning to ask for any tips and/or tricks. Precautionary/cautionary  advice is more than welcome and appreciated. I am most definitely ornery  (as I find most redheads are), but I do also know that; the day that I stop learning something new...Is the day with which...I die...and wait for the beauty in my to be arrested...

 

In Sandstone! That way, my stalkers can kiss my arsenal for all eternity...in their leisure. lol

..)