Jump to content
Napoleon North

Fossil fossil fossil

Recommended Posts

Napoleon North

Hi 

 

Is this :

1 and 2 and 3. Fossil wood?

4.Footprint ?

5.Track?

6.Track?

7.Track?

IMG_0024.JPG

IMG_0022.JPG

IMG_0023.JPG

IMG_0030.JPG

IMG_0027.JPG

IMG_0028.JPG

IMG_0026.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kane

You did not provide a precise location. Also, you may wish to use a ruler to provide accurate measurement, which may be much better than using one's hand ;) 

 

They look mostly geologic to me with the exception of the first one. :headscratch:

 

Do feel free, while you're waiting for more opinions on these pieces, to help out with other ID requests posted by our members. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot

6 and 7 do look like track marks, but I think they are fracture marks.

The other pieces look like non fossil rocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Napoleon North
5 minutes ago, Kane said:

 

 

They look mostly geologic to me with the exception of the first one. :headscratch:

 

 

Next  photo first specimen

IMG_0036.JPG

IMG_0035.JPG

IMG_0033.JPG

3 minutes ago, ynot said:

6 and 7 do look like track marks, but I think they are fracture marks.

The other pieces look like non fossil rocks.

first?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot

Definitely mineral and not fossil (Yes the first one, and new pictures.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Napoleon North
2 minutes ago, ynot said:

Definitely mineral and not fossil (Yes the first one, and new pictures.).

The first specimen has a jar like a tree and a core. Look closely

 
29/5000
 
What's the bottom of it? from the Internet

 

image.png.721076cade2007c0f0595b50eea0d5a1.png

 

953261775d6eab219156ccab0d227874--petrified-wood-fossils.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot
2 minutes ago, Napoleon North said:

The first specimen has a jar like a tree and a core. Look closely.

Sorry, but I do not see it. Just does not look like petrified wood to Me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Napoleon North
Just now, ynot said:

Sorry, but I do not see it. Just does not look like petrified wood to Me.

Now you can clearly see the jars of trees.

IMG_0045.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Napoleon North

better photo

IMG_20171002_173300.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kane

Allow me to reiterate for the benefit of future ID posting:

 

Please provide precise location and something to indicate scale other than hand/fingers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Napoleon North
12 minutes ago, Kane said:

Allow me to reiterate for the benefit of future ID posting:

 

Please provide precise location and something to indicate scale other than hand/fingers. 

Better pics. And I'm leaving the forum ...

IMG_0075.JPG

IMG_0076.JPG

IMG_0075.JPG

IMG_0073.JPG

Please delete my account. Thank you .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhodamanHD
4 hours ago, Napoleon North said:

And I'm leaving the forum ...

I must say I'm sad to see you go, but if you get a chance to read this: thanks for showing the paleontology of your area, it has been intresting. Good luck on continuing your fossil endeavors!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RJB

Me thinks that Napoleon North is not getting the answers he's looking for?  Good luck my friend.

 

RB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malcolmt

Ya have to believe in what you find... seems that he is a believer against the odds.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot

@Napoleon North

Sorry that You feel slighted.

If You had provided the better quality pictures of Your last post in the first post then I would have agreed with You, it is petrified wood.

Please remember that it is hard to make an id from a picture, and the worse the picture is the harder it is to make an accurate id.

I hope that You will continue to frequent TFF, and keep looking for fossils.

 

Good luck either way!

Tony

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CreekDawg

Not necessarily in this specific instance, but many times members of this forum get replies that are not relevant to the questions they ask, and are inaccurate and dismissive, as a substitute for not knowing the real answer.  I am sure I am not the only one here that can see this. No one here knows everything. I will not reply further on this subject. Napoleon, I hope you will stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobby Rico
11 minutes ago, CreekDawg said:

Not necessarily in this specific instance, but many times members of this forum get replies that are not relevant to the questions they ask, and are inaccurate and dismissive, as a substitute for not knowing the real answer.  I am sure I am not the only one here that can see this. No one here knows everything. I will not reply further on this subject. Napoleon, I hope you will stay.

I think CreekDawg hit the nail on the head. I have had replies that are inaccurate ,a little patronising and  abrupt. But in the same posts there been replys that becomes a treasure trove of knowledge. I real think sometimes it is also very easy to misunderstand the tone of somebody's  reply and then misjudge them too, I am to be blamed at this. As for photographs they are no replacement for the naked eye that views an object in 3D. What we can see with the eye can be very hard to photograph . So I try to take all my pictures in a good light, that works for me. By the way I can see the grains in the petrified wood in the last photo. I too hope you stay because this is just my opinion  but there is a lot of really knowledgeable and very kind people on this forum and it makes a really difference too me and my interests. 

 

Kindest regards Bobby 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kane

Not all our finds turn out to be what we want them to be. ;) However, one way to maximize the odds of a more precise identification is to read and abide as best we can with some of the basic rules for posting finds for ID, such as location, scale, and even geologic information (if known). The more information people provide, the more it helps our members, and as well the initial poster, to pinpoint an ID. Where something is found and how big it is should be pretty basic criteria to follow. :)

 

Photos alone don't always replace seeing the specimen in hand (in such cases, bringing the specimen to an expert helps!). Some members out of their best intentions may make inaccurate claims on the basis of their best guesses. It's all part of the learning process and the good intentions of our membership. Nowhere do we state that our ID is absolutely definitive. As a community, we do the best from what we see (generally photos and location information). 

 

TFF is a community of dedicated fossil enthusiasts - amateurs and professionals. It certainly never promised absolute 100% guaranteed identification since there are situations where that just isn't possible online. :) But note here what we are: a community. We come here to learn and share, not assume we'll just get some object identified. :) 

 

Yes, some members are abrupt in their comments. Others may seem condescending. It certainly isn't something we support, but we also understand that for some of our longstanding members that they have seen a lot of repetition in requests on items that are very obvious to them. It is a good reminder to our more seasoned members to remember that for our new members, this stuff isn't as obvious to them. And sometimes responses may seem abrupt because there are just so many ID requests being made at any given time!\

 

My view is this: let us admonish with kindness when someone errs, and provide helpful guidance at all times. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ludwigia

I must admit that I'm sometimes guilty of being somewhat abrupt, and probably increasingly with time with this member, since he has been asked politely innumerable times to give more details and make better photos with his finds and often doesn't even respond to the requests. You'd think that after over 800 posts he'd see the light, but either there's a language barrier playing a role or...? I think we usually nevertheless give him the benefit of the doubt, so I don't think we need to be too self-critical here. If he wants to leave, that's his choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×