Jump to content
ynot

Is it just a ROCK?

Recommended Posts

ynot

Just to do some nit picking, We should also refrain from saying it is "geological".

Paleontology is a specialization of the larger field of geology, just like volcanology, mineralogy and sedimentology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fossildude19

Unfortunately, not all of us have a great vocabulary for geologic terms. 

If refraining from using "rock", is there a better term we should use?

I don't know much about geological terms or types of rocks. Hard to put a correct name to things, sometimes. :( 

Also, geologic rather than biologic in origin makes sense to me. :unsure: 

I think that should be used as the qualifier. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot
9 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

Unfortunately, not all of us have a great vocabulary for geologic terms. 

If refraining from using "rock", is there a better term we should use?

I don't know much about geological terms or types of rocks. Hard to put a correct name to things, sometimes. :( 

Also, geologic rather than biologic in origin makes sense to me. :unsure: 

I think that should be used as the qualifier. 

 

I think that "a non fossil rock" works well, but there is nothing wrong with saying "geologic rather than biological", it works just as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sixgill pete
19 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

Unfortunately, not all of us have a great vocabulary for geologic terms. 

If refraining from using "rock", is there a better term we should use?

I don't know much about geological terms or types of rocks. Hard to put a correct name to things, sometimes. :( 

Also, geologic rather than biologic in origin makes sense to me. :unsure: 

I think that should be used as the qualifier. 

 

 

I have to agree with Tim on this. I could not tell you one type of "rock" from another for the most part.

 

However, I normally will not post a reply if I cannot offer something more than "sorry, it's just a rock" To me, that really adds nothing to the discussion. I will sometimes after seeing someones post that offers something concrete; agree or disagree, but only when I feel strongly about their response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sagebrush Steve
2 hours ago, ynot said:

Hey Hi Boys and Girls, Ladies and gentlemen, and all others!

 

I have noticed that the phrase "It is just a rock" is used quite often when a non fossil rock is posted for an ID.

I think that this is a bad choice of wording that can cause confusion.

Most fossils and all trace fossils can be described as being just a rock also. (lithified life)

I humbly request that We refrain from using this terminology to describe a non fossil rock.

 

Regards,

Tony

Yes, agreed.  And to those of us who are also rockhounds, dismissing our treasures as “just a rock” is discouraging.  :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caldigger
31 minutes ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

Yes, agreed.  And to those of us who are also rockhounds, dismissing our treasures as “just a rock” is discouraging.  :(

How does " just a plain 'ol not very interesting, blasé, would never make it on my shelf, not even fit for the garden, why'd you even pick it up, definately Leaverite type of rock" work for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad

"It's a very interesting/ pretty object, but I don't think it's a fossil, i'm afraid." 

And then the explanation if you have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mediospirifer
8 minutes ago, caldigger said:

How does " just a plain 'ol not very interesting, blasé, would never make it on my shelf, not even fit for the garden, why'd you even pick it up, definately Leaverite type of rock" work for you?

:rofl:

 

 

3 hours ago, ynot said:

Hey Hi Boys and Girls, Ladies and gentlemen, and all others!

 

I have noticed that the phrase "It is just a rock" is used quite often when a non fossil rock is posted for an ID.

I think that this is a bad choice of wording that can cause confusion.

Most fossils and all trace fossils can be described as being just a rock also. (lithified life)

I humbly request that We refrain from using this terminology to describe a non fossil rock.

 

Regards,

Tony

As someone who collects minerals as well as fossils, I agree. "Water-worn piece of (limestone, chert, etc.)" is better than "just a rock".

 

I do have to say, the phrase reminds me of something overheard at one of my mineral club's Open House events. An elderly woman with a walker came in with a younger man (possibly her son or grandson), walked one circuit of the room, looked briefly (maybe 2 seconds!) at each of the tables our members had set up, and walked out. A she was leaving, a fellow Club member heard her say to her companion "What's so interesting about a rock?" My friend's comment to me: "Boy, are YOU in the wrong room!" My response: "Boy, are you in the wrong MUSEUM!" The event was at the Museum of the Earth, in Ithaca NY. A wonderful place for learning what's so interesting about rocks, if you take the time to actually read anything!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sagebrush Steve
51 minutes ago, caldigger said:

How does " just a plain 'ol not very interesting, blasé, would never make it on my shelf, not even fit for the garden, why'd you even pick it up, definately Leaverite type of rock" work for you?

That describes most of what I find.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ludwigia

I guess I'll just have to start calling it a stone now :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnBrewer
1 hour ago, caldigger said:

I just want to show off my mineral collection.

 

IMG_0315.JPG

:rofl:

1 hour ago, Ludwigia said:

I guess I'll just have to start calling it a stone now :P

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot
1 hour ago, Ludwigia said:

I guess I'll just have to start calling it a stone now :P

You can only use that term if it is the corect size!

Rock/stone classification....

clay, silt, sand, pebble, gravel, stone, rock, cobble, boulder, monolith, batholith, continent and planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ludwigia
53 minutes ago, ynot said:

You can only use that term if it is the corect size!

Rock/stone classification....

clay, silt, sand, pebble, gravel, stone, rock, cobble, boulder, monolith, batholith, continent and planet.

Gotcha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian
4 hours ago, ynot said:

You can only use that term if it is the corect size!

Rock/stone classification....

clay, silt, sand, pebble, gravel, stone, rock, cobble, boulder, monolith, batholith, continent and planet.

Good one.. I would have thought gravel was a mix of anything from sand up to pebble or cobble size, and that rock/stone is any size (or maybe more a description of the material the piece is made of?).

 

I wonder how many of us collect minerals as well as fossils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot
26 minutes ago, Wrangellian said:

Good one.. I would have thought gravel was a mix of anything from sand up to pebble or cobble size, and that rock/stone is any size (or maybe more a description of the material the piece is made of?).

 

I wonder how many of us collect minerals as well as fossils.

As far as I know the boundary on most is a pretty subjective gray area. Rock and stone are also used as a material descriptive adjective.

A boulder, pebble, cobble or batholith can also be a rock/stone.

 

It can be quite confusing.:headscratch:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian

Yes, language is always so inexact unless you lay down definitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doushantuo

This is a piece of "rock" that allowed inferences to be made about geodynamic events in the Mesoproterozoic of the USA

fernariistlanthc.jpg

Every rock tells a story of the processes and material budgets of the atmosphere,lithosphere,hydrosphere and biosphere,and how these large domains interact

over time

Even the mere presence of a rock is informative...

Why has not it been subducted,or eroded,chemically or physically modified?

Has it always been where it is now,if not,why not?

What were the processes and agents of formation,modification,transport?

Rocks are parts of lithologies,which have a very specific distribution in time and space,usually.

If found outside of that usual distributional pattern,why is that so?

etc..

 

 

 

 

 

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.

×