Coprolite, fossil plant life, or leaverite?

[MedicineHat]

Perhaps I have found something fossil or perhaps it's just eroded ironstone matrix looking like fossil.

[ynot]

Looks like it could be a coprolite, or a shrimp burrow.

Let's see what @GeschWhat and @Carl think.

[MedicineHat]

[Troodon]

Nice

Pinecone?

[MedicineHat]

Thanks for the help. Found in dinosaur park formation near lots of vertebrate fossils. Ive seen these often enough, always cylindrical and rugose, I believe ironstone?

I thought pinecone when I picked it up but I really don't have any deceny reference to give me any confidence yet.

[MedicineHat]

This matrix appears very different from the fossilized wood we find. 

[GeschWhat]

I'm thinking shrimp burrow (Ophiomorpha). From what I can see, it looks like little fecal pellets on the surface. 

[Carl]

Hmmmm... I'm a bit lost on this. Thinking not Ophiomorpha because the surface is a but to irregular (fyi: the pellets on the surface of Ophiomorpha are sediment rather than feces). But it also looks a bit odd for a coprolite. But it still could be some other kind of trace fossil.

[jpc]

I usually agree with Carl, but I will not this time... I am in the Ophiomorpha camp.  

[doushantuo]

[KimTexan]

I’m in the burrow camp. Not sure from what species though, but I lean towards a crustacean of some kind. I’ve seen similar stuff to that in marine environments of lower Cretaceous and in Pennsylvanian formations.

It does resemble a modern pine cone though.

[Plax]

chimney crayfish burrow

[abyssunder]

Almost looks like that, but I suppose in this case it should be from mud, which does not seem to be proper for the specimen in question.
The sediments in the area also contain Gymnosperm fossils. Also, cupulate cones of Bennettitales  were described from Horseshoe Canyon Formation (Upper Cretaceous) of Alberta. 

I go with the assumption that it could be a 'cone'.

If you seen these often enough, maybe you can make a longitudinal section through it (or through another specimen from the same location), to see how's the internal structure. Maybe it could lead to a better conclusion.

 

What could I say with certainty is that is not a leaverite.

............................

Edit: I can see a good resemblance between the specimen in question and the specimen b from the comparative image below. What do you think?

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by abyssunder

[MedicineHat]

Very interesting indeed. Thanks everyone for the comments. I'm very appreciative of the information. This specimen is strange. I will collect more for examination the next time I'm out hiking. When I see the picture of the Morrison pinecone im almost convinced.

[doushantuo]

a cone(botanical one)should show a helical arrangement of the bracts/scales.

[doushantuo]

Astre's figuration of "Lunulichnus "(as a sabellelid("worm") tube

 

Mayoral et al(who,on the basis of a detailed analysis of microfacies came to the conclusion that the ichnoculpirit was probably arthropodan)

Fig 7 part of a recent Sceliphron burrow):

(8:Eocene(Ilerdian)root traces,black dots:root scars,so: a form of rhizolith)

 

 

microfacies(x 100)biopelsparite,organic rich)Fig 4:subangular quartz grains

 

Gross morphology can be a dubious indicator of the systematic affinities of the tracemaker .

miscellaneous rhizoliths:

 

rhizoliths in the making:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[minnbuckeye]

6 hours ago, MedicineHat said:

 I will collect more for examination the next time I'm out hiking. When I see the picture of the Morrison pinecone im almost convinced.

 

If you are capable of collecting similar unknowns, slice one longitudinally like pictured in figure 2a. This I am sure will be a big help in identifying your specimen.