MOROPUS Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Chaetetes coral????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 NO, no, no. If you have not see it you will not understand it, most of the time you can not even pick this stuff up. I falls apart. But that's not the point, we are talking abut the pattern, only.... But, this is limestone, not clay. That is significant! Perhaps, I am misconstruing what you are attempting to convey, but it appears, to me, that you are extrapolating two different ideals, that aren't necessarily compatible, into one process, to wit, that of "slickensides" as it is defined by pedology, and aragonite formation by precipatation. And they are not fossil mud cracks, they are not karstic processes, Formation of aragonitic flowstone, which you described earlier, is karstitic. have you ever seen this before, yes or no? No, but I must ask; are you familiar with styolites formation? It has been forming here for millions of years and you can see it in just about ever formation there is. When they were building the new side roads on 35 just 2 years ago, they moved most of the side of a hill and after a heavy rain most of the side of the hill was crystal. It was a solid mass sparkling in the sun. It just came apart to the touch. Exactly! This appears to be a well indurated rock, not associate with soils. But all of this means nothing anyway, "slickenside" has a lot of meanings and all are in use today but the one in use here is for the pattern only. Actually, "slickensides" has two meanings; that used by pedologists, and that used by geologists. In pedology, it refers dessication cracks in clay rich soils, and the precipitates that form in those cracks. In geology, it refers to a scoured surface. That Pattern is found in clay and limestone where ever, the man has a rock with a pattern in it, none of your ideas hold water, I beg to differ. I have explained my reasoning, and provided documentation to back it up. it was formed when it was still clay, folks calcium carbonate comes and goes, but the finger print remains...... That is a gross over simplification. Carbonates don't form from phyllosilicates. Carbonates "come" in only two ways-depositional, and/or precipitation. With precipitates comprising the vast majority of carbonates observed. They "go" by three process- weathering(chemical, and/or mechanical), pressure dissolution, and dissolution by weak carbonic acid. I am unaware of any other process. Once again, if you can provide a paper that describes the process that you describe, I will humbly submit to your interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron E. Posted July 21, 2009 Author Share Posted July 21, 2009 Let's try to narrow down what it is we're dealing with here. Put some acid on it, both on the patterned surface and on another. Might not tell us anything, but it might eliminate some loose ends.Any other simple mineral tests that can be thought of? I'll do the "acid test" when i get home from work this afternoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 so it was just a type of crystallized limestone..?a method of crystallizing, so to say? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 solius symbiosus, you have not been here to see what I am talking about, so breaking down my statement means nothing. But I did ask you if you had and you said no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 One last one real good picture The clay here has a good deal of calcium carbonate in it. It can have limestone on top of it and shale, gravel, and a freeway for that matter, but what he has is Slickenside, and that is not going to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 solius symbiosus, you have not been here to see what I am talking about, so breaking down my statement means nothing. But I did ask you if you had and you said no. Pat, answer my questions! Too, are you familiar with the stratigraphy, and petrology, of Chesterian sediments? I have, a somewhat, intimate knowledge of the processes that you describe; including sedimentary petrology. Provide documentation, and this will be settled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 oh, mr. symbiosus, i have you now! caught you in an inexactitude of beatifically humongous proportionalities! you said, in reference to carbonates, and i freaking quote - 'They "go" by three process- weathering(chemical, and/or mechanical), pressure dissolution, and dissolution by weak carbonic acid. I am unaware of any other process.' you omitted, and i freaking quote myself on what i'm saying at this instant - they also go by fossil hunters picking up pieces of them and taking them home and cuddling them and treasuring them and gently washing and picking at them, and...wait, um...hey, i just thought of something. are we weird? just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 they also go by fossil hunters picking up pieces of them and taking them home Ahem, that would be mechanical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Perhaps, you only read the title, and misconstrued the fallacy( that is why I added the addendum)??? IDK, but my arguments are known, and documented. I am through with this discussion, unless, anyone can find documentation supporting an alternative view. If so, I will submit, humbly. NO, you were right, never give up your guns for nothing. Never crack for anyone, not even an old goat like me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Come on! I am here for the knowledge; that I receive, and give. I love learning new things... especially, as it relates to soft sediment science. Heck, if it weren't for this forum, I would think that "vertebrates" were those things that go up your back. EDIT: Which, I might add, some on this forum have accused me of not having. OK, who made the "spineless" reference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 ...OK, who made the "spineless" reference? I meant it in the best possible way.... "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...
jpbowden Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Oh no! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron E. Posted July 21, 2009 Author Share Posted July 21, 2009 OK, guys, poured a little lime juice on the rock, saw a bit of fizzing. Definitely limestone! (edit: on the weird part of the rock, as well as on the classic limestone-looking part) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Great discussion guys. Thanks for the education. I have heard this term mentioned a few times before, but this was the best discussion so far. I believe I have some slickenside calcite I found in the North Sulphur River area and some smaller pieces of what may be the same thing that I found in Post Oak Creek (both areas somewhat north east of Dallas, Texas). I will post a pic later tonight for your opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 OK. Here are the pics. The big ones found near the NSR and the small ones at POC. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Mike, I agree you have calcite. The smaller ones may be fragments of calcite replacement of Inoceramus clams. Here are some examples of calcite from the Austin Chalk (Kau). An example of selenite (gypsum) from the Taylor Group clays (Knt) that fits this discussion. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Bowen Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 OK. Here are the pics. The big ones found near the NSR and the small ones at POC. What do you think? Left=calcite. These formations are formed by calcium precipitate settling between chalk layers. It's in every chalk formation in Texas that I've seen. Right= at least one of them (the big one on the far left of the pic) is, from what I understand, calcified shell material from a species of thick shelled clam. I find these in the sediment layers below the Austin chalk. I have pictures of a 3 foot wide clam shell that has that same calcified pattern in the edges. That's what I think made the impression on his rock. Dave Bowen Collin County, Texas. Paleontology: The next best thing to time travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Bowen Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 JohnJ, you beat me to the punch. lol. Dave Bowen Collin County, Texas. Paleontology: The next best thing to time travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron E. Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 Right= at least one of them (the big one on the far left of the pic) is, from what I understand, calcified shell material from a species of thick shelled clam. I find these in the sediment layers below the Austin chalk. I have pictures of a 3 foot wide clam shell that has that same calcified pattern in the edges. That's what I think made the impression on his rock. Wrong era for big clams. However, there is similarity between the calcite structure and that on this rock. But it fizzes, would calcite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeepinthemud Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Both Limestone and Calcite are CaCo3 ... so Yes, I suppose they both might fizz... though I have never tested.. See if it glows! Several types of calcite glow under a black light! Limestone does not.. (though if it doesnt glow, then we have not gotten anywhere... if it does... its probably calcite) "To do is to be." -Socrates "People are Stupid." -Wizard's First Rule "Happiness is a warm Jeep." -Auspex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron E. Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 Both Limestone and Calcite are CaCo3 ... so Yes, I suppose they both might fizz... though I have never tested..See if it glows! Several types of calcite glow under a black light! Limestone does not.. (though if it doesnt glow, then we have not gotten anywhere... if it does... its probably calcite) I'll see if my 21-year-old has one and report back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Ron E., the examples I've shown only point out the "visual" similarity between geologic features that have been mentioned, but may have been formed differently. Your rock is likely just what you originally noted: Boone limestone. You just happened upon a piece that exhibits one of the nuances of that formation. If you spend more time in the formation, you'll likely see more examples. Here is a link that may help - Boone Formation. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Right= at least one of them (the big one on the far left of the pic) is, from what I understand, calcified shell material from a species of thick shelled clam. I find these in the sediment layers below the Austin chalk. I have pictures of a 3 foot wide clam shell that has that same calcified pattern in the edges. I though about shell fragments after I posted the picture. That one piece had a grain on two different planes. I hadn't noticed that before. I found a lot of them in POC, but no one knew what they were. I have a cross section of an Inoceramus in a concretion and it looks kind of like that. I'll have to find it and look at it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron E. Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 Ron E., the examples I've shown only point out the "visual" similarity between geologic features that have been mentioned, but may have been formed differently. Your rock is likely just what you originally noted: Boone limestone. You just happened upon a piece that exhibits one of the nuances of that formation. If you spend more time in the formation, you'll likely see more examples. Here is a link that may help - Boone Formation. JohnJ, I would agree that the structure of what I'm looking at mirrors that of the examples you posted earlier, specifically the second one. I think I have a non-organic rock formation, but I'm DEFINITELY hanging onto it! I've found ten or so ultra-rare-in-my-area trilobites, but this is the only example of this gypsum-lookin' limestone that I've ever seen! I have an ace in the hole, I've gotten on e-friendly terms with an Arkansas state geologist. I'm going to refer her to this thread, if she has input, I'll share it. I'm pleased and honored to have spawned a thread with so much action! Approaching 750 views as of now! 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