Petrified Mushroom/ fungus

[doushantuo]

UH,this forum has knowledgeable people,and sometimes science advances by combinations of sound hermeneutics,intuiton,creative reasoning ,collating circumstantial evidence,educated(or not)guesswork,sheer luck & persistence,and reasonable discussion.

Some people might be taken aback by your lack of documentation and general tenor.

Just saying

 

[ynot]

6 minutes ago, Kennymaan said:

But it seems like this forum is all about guessing.

You have shown nothing but have made some extraordinary claims.

There have been no guesses as far as I can see, just some doubt as to the validity of Your claim (do to the rarity of fossil mushrooms).

I am still waiting for the pictures of the fossil "mushrooms" from an active mine.

 

Tony

 

PS The mine looks like salt or borax. (That is a guess.)

[Kennymaan]

33 minutes ago, doushantuo said:

Fungi are preserved in,e.g.,the Rhynie Chert,Alava Amber.

Im just guessing,but maybe some recent(Holocene) mushrooms got mineralized by cave drip?

For fossil fungi,check the collected wrtings of Dotzler/Krings et al  

http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/100980/1/655358.pdf

 

In case anyone is wondering: funnily enough the Geologica Acta link isn't working

So what your saying is, if it's not in cased in amber then it's not a Fungi or mushroom?

[Fossildude19]

We really need to see well lit detailed pictures of the items. 

Until we do, all we can say is that fungus fossils as far as mushrooms go are quite rare. 

No guesses really. Just statements of facts, as we know them.  

 

[Kane]

Science is about making educated guesses on the basis of available evidence, and then committing these to stringent testing. Making definite or absolute claims is outside the methodology of empiricism. At best, one can speak to probabilities, not certainties. The domain of making absolute statements would be the disciplines of many strains of philosophy and theology. In the case of "petrified mushrooms," the available evidence in the known fossil record shows a strong precedent for how these are preserved. This is not to say that what you and your friend have found are definitely not mushrooms, but the probability given available evidence is very low. As they say, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Once we finally see some photo evidence, then we can start to rule out a number of other possibilities such as mineral deposition patterns, ichnofossils, fossil sponges, etc., and by process of elimination we might come to determine what these objects actually are - and they might be mushrooms (or something else!). 

 

What we do here on the forum, particularly in the ID section, is provide our best guesses on the basis of photographic and geologic evidence and our collective years of experience. There are quite a few members of the forum who are paleontologists with long and significant careers and associated experience. Of course, if no one's educated guesses seems to satisfy, your next step would be to consult a paleomycologist so that s/he can examine the object in hand.

[jpc]

37 minutes ago, Kennymaan said:

 

And the white mineral show in the photo have a preserve property on the periodic table. 

Yup... a lot of guessing... Most of our guesses are based on a ton of knowledge and experience, and pictures provided by folks who want things identified.  (Still waiting).  Part of our cumulative knowledge does tell us that mushroom fossils are indeed incredibly rare, and found in amber.  I just added to my knowledge...now I know that they are also found in the Rhynie Chert, famous for very old microscopic fossils. 

 

And what are you trying to say in this last sentence?  "a preserve property on the periodic table"... that does not make sense in the English language.  

[JohnJ]

Also, keep in mind that many minerals naturally form unusual shapes...many of which are mistaken for fossils.  Calcite in particular, where underground water is present, can form spectacularly suggestive shapes.

[Kennymaan]

32 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

Also, keep in mind that many minerals naturally form unusual shapes...many of which are mistaken for fossils.  Calcite in particular, where underground water is present, can form spectacularly suggestive shapes.

I'm fully aware what water can and can't do. That's simply elementary. I've been in the mining industry and have countless hours of cave diving. I'm also a seasoned freediver. So I fully aware. But thank you for your educated guess. 

[Ludwigia]

[EMP]

I'll throw my hat in the ring and go with that they're probably stromatolites or some other type of algal mound. Of course, pictures would help.

[doushantuo]

i mentioned luck & persistence:

 

fear0049.pdf

[Kane]

Was just reading about speleotherms today... eerie parallel wavelengths!

[Peat Burns]

[EMP]

It sounds like this comes from a salt/borax mine, since those are the only minerals in the area that have "preservatives" in them. I guess other salt minerals like potassium chlorides or lithium minerals are possible as well (which might explain why you don't want to give up the location). 

 

At any rate these may be preservatives, but it would be incredibly rare for anything to really be fossilized in them as the conditions at which these form tend to be opposed to life, especially things like fungus that require a basic level of humidity to survive. I'm not even sure these exist at this point. Until we get some kind of evidence to even show that there even are shapes like this all we can do is state the facts that fungi are very rare. Please try and get some pictures because that will help A LOT. 

[ynot]

On 2/20/2017 at 0:54 PM, Kennymaan said:

I will post pictures later this week. Thanks 

 

On 2/20/2017 at 1:50 PM, Kennymaan said:

I will take the best pictures I can.

 

 

On 2/20/2017 at 4:46 PM, Kennymaan said:

 I'll post the pictures tmrw Evening to back up my claim.

 

 

On 2/20/2017 at 5:24 PM, Kennymaan said:

 

...I can't wait to show everyone.

 

On 2/20/2017 at 5:33 PM, Kennymaan said:

 And photos before they were taken down. 

 

22 hours ago, Kennymaan said:

 I will take photos of the actually petrified fungus/ mushroom.

 

22 hours ago, Kennymaan said:

 

 I'll have detailed photos later.

Still waiting for the promised pictures!

Tony

[Fossildude19]

23 hours ago, Kennymaan said:

 

But it seems like this forum is all about guessing. I haven't seen any petrified fungi or mushrooms in here...how can someone claim what's not if that person never seen? I'll have detailed photos later.

 

Guessing is what we are left with when no evidence or photographs are presented.

Please post photos. Sooner, rather than later.  

 

[fifbrindacier]

On 21 février 2017 at 4:39 PM, Kennymaan said:

 

That's a good guess. But it seems like this forum is all about guessing. I haven't seen any petrified fungi or mushrooms in here...how can someone claim what's not if that person never seen? I'll have detailed photos later. I maybe the first to actually show petrified fungi. And the white mineral show in the photo have a preserve property on the periodic table. 

 

Hi, welcome here.

You have seen something that, according to your senses and opinion, are petrified mushrooms. But, we don't have see them and you don't have provided photos. So we only can have guesses.

The processus of fossilization works better when it concerns animals with a skeleton, a shell or a test because those are calcified and hard surfaces. That is because leaves of plants are more rarely fossilized. Mushrooms, for the most of them, just appear a few days even if some are visible more longer.

So, except when they are recovered by amber or, maybe, covered by powered limestone like for a travertine (i don't know if this is the right translation for the french word travertin) i don't see how they could fossilize.

On 21 février 2017 at 4:43 PM, doushantuo said:

UH,this forum has knowledgeable people,and sometimes science advances by combinations of sound hermeneutics,intuiton,creative reasoning ,collating circumstantial evidence,educated(or not)guesswork,sheer luck & persistence,and reasonable discussion.

Some people might be taken aback by your lack of documentation and general tenor.

Just saying

 

I am far from educated enough, but i learn really a lot on that forum.

On 21 février 2017 at 5:26 PM, JohnJ said:

Also, keep in mind that many minerals naturally form unusual shapes...many of which are mistaken for fossils.  Calcite in particular, where underground water is present, can form spectacularly suggestive shapes.

 

On 22 février 2017 at 0:48 AM, EMP said:

I'll throw my hat in the ring and go with that they're probably stromatolites or some other type of algal mound. Of course, pictures would help.

Sure, see the fairy stones for example.

On 21 février 2017 at 5:21 PM, jpc said:

And what are you trying to say in this last sentence?  "a preserve property on the periodic table"... that does not make sense in the English language.  

Neither in French.

 

On 21 février 2017 at 1:10 AM, ynot said:

I have seen some really nice fossil mushroms from Spain, but that is the only place I have ever heard of them comming from.

Looking forward to seeing Yours!

Tony

Photos, please, Tony and all the others are right, we do need your photos, because, even if those are minerals they can be very, very interesting.

[westcoast]

Is this the longest topic in the history of Fossil ID without an image?

[Fossildude19]

19 minutes ago, westcoast said:

Is this the longest topic in the history of Fossil ID without an image?

 

 

I don't think so. For that, you would have to see this thread.   

[ynot]

23 minutes ago, fifbrindacier said:

Photos, please, Tony and all the others are right, we do need your photos, because, even if those are minerals they can be very, very interesting.

Sorry, the mushrooms from Spain that I saw were in a rock shop and I do not have any pictures of them. There were 2 examples of them and the leeser was priced at just over 500 US$ (beyond My price range).

If memory serves Me, they were found in a volcanic ash fall and were agatized with wood. The mushrooms had grown in a clump on a piece of wood and each individual was about 3 inches tall with 1 inch wide cap.

[ynot]

18 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

 

I don't think so. For that, you would have to see this thread.   

But the OP showed His item on page 2 of this thread...

On 1/31/2015 at 7:31 PM, Fossildude19 said:

I have cropped and brightened your pics which, clearly , at least to me, show a concretion.

It looks like the outer rind looks like chert or agate of some sort, but a concretion, none the less.

Sorry, not a peach.

Regards,

 

[Fossildude19]

6 minutes ago, ynot said:

But the OP showed His item on page 2 of this thread...

 

Sorry, that was the wrong thread. I corrected the link 24 minutes ago.  

The original thread, way back in 2011,  (May 12, 2011)  I believe, never did get any photos. 

The thread you reference was posted by the same member, in January of 2015, sooooooo,,...  = 3+ 3/4 years before pictures showed up.  

[Kane]

40 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

Sorry, that was the wrong thread. I corrected the link 24 minutes ago.  

The original thread, way back in 2011,  (May 12, 2011)  I believe, never did get any photos. 

The thread you reference was posted by the same member, in January of 2015, sooooooo,,...  = 3+ 3/4 years before pictures showed up.  

 

Both are "TFF Classics"

[EMP]

Holy cow that thread was both painful and hilarious to read at the same time. 

 

Thanks for posting it Fossildude, do you have any others? 

 

 

It's been close to three days. I don't think we're getting any kind of pictures on these. 

[Kane]

There are some "legendary" ones here. Probably would be best to PM each other with our "favourites"