palm tree bark?

[Innocentx]

I found this in a creek, eastern edge Flint Hills, Greenwood County, Kansas. The creek is in and drains through the Early Permian. Formation is unknown. It must be tree bark and I'm guessing some kind of palm because of the leaf scar. It curves only slightly so I would also guess it's from a large tree. I took a file to bottom of leaf scar and there are only faint lines revealed. This appears to be a sandstone and has tiny sparkly bits in it.

 

[Innocentx]

Interesting that certain words are automatically censored. For example the type of file I was using has a naughty name.

[ynot]

I do not see a piece of palm.

Palm trees do not have "bark".

The third pic shows a variable  "fiber"  thickness, which is inconsistent with the "end grain" of the last picture.  The fourth picture shows stratigraphic(?) layering (right side). The "end grain" in last picture looks very fine for a palm. (would like to see a better close up of the last picture.)

This makes Me think the resemblance to palm is superficial.

[Innocentx]

My close up (last picture) is best I can get. The interesting thing about this is that the surfaces of this piece seem to be underlain with a slightly different, softer material.

In this photo you can hopefully see that the grain on the inside runs parallel to the grain on the outside.

[abyssunder]

I suppose it is similar to the bark of this one:

 

"Petrified wood: tree stump and portion of trunk from the Flint Hills of Greenwood County, east-central Kansas. This remarkable fossil tree is early Permian in age." - as it is stated here .

 

[Innocentx]

@abyssunder. I don't see a similarity other than they both have a wood grain. That assessment might change as I may have a chance to view it in person tomorrow. Thanks for reminding me of it's existence. I've been to the museum, but not the rock garden. My friend has several fossil wood pieces that look to be of the same material as the above photo.

[Dewbunny]

Most fossil palm I've seen looks like uniform poke -a- dots in the cross section. Sry, I don't have a reference. But I don't see palm either. Definitely wood though.

[abyssunder]

I'm referring to the outer waving character of the specimens which might have a concordance. The cross section do not reveal this morphology , at least in your picture. Can we have a better resolution image of the cross section to compare with this?

 

 

[Innocentx]

I'm going to file off a bit more at each end and attempt a bit of polishing, then take the best close up I can. May take me a few days as my polishing tool has to be set up.

Thanks to all who have chimed in here.

I'll be back.

[Innocentx]

Unfortunately, further work on the ends revealed nothing. I'm pretty sure it won't be polishable because of grainy texture of this rock. Under magnification there are only sand-like grains to see, the rest is indistinct. Yes, it's not a palm.

After much looking I think it's more likely bark of Calamites that was damaged before fossilizing. It may also be a root flare and not a leaf scar. The inside surface must be a cast/mold of pith exterior.

 

Great photos and examples of Carboniferous tree fossils from Ukraine on this forum. Also this which looks similar to what I have:

 

https://www.fossilera.com/fossils/4-4-fossil-calmanites-trunk-section-west-virginia

 

[Bronzviking]

This is an interesting piece for sure, but I'm not seeing wood. I'm seeing weathered sandstone which can take on many different appearances even wood. Your last photo with the flat banded sandstone bottom is our clue.

Here is a good link about physical and chemical weathering. https://sciencing.com/physical-chemical-weathering-6468611.html

Also I found a post from the forum, fossil palm wood to make a comparison.

 

 

[Plax]

were palms around in the early Permian? We've determined that it's not a palm but am curious.

[Plantguy]

5 hours ago, Plax said:

were palms around in the early Permian? We've determined that it's not a palm but am curious.

Hey Don, Good question. Nope I think they showed up in L Cretaceous....so I'm curious and dont know that I noticed this thread before. I do think that first specimen/side is interesting...not sure I recognize the textures but it does have a Calamites type look parallel fine ribbing/possible nodes doesnt it. The other shots do have some resemblance to weathered decorticated layers of lycopods...Some of those stretched diamond shaped possible leaf scar shapes

You said it was found in a creek and not insitu...are we positive its Permian in age? My quick glance at the geologic map of Kansas shows Carboniferous aged material in eastern Greenwood county. Could this creek have Permian and Carboniferous aged material in it? Which way does the drainage go in that area? 

http://www.kgs.ku.edu/General/geolSheetMap.html

Cool material..not sure I have any more answers on the ID but the age makes me ponder what you have. Looks like an interesting place to maybe explore and look for better preserved examples if thats possible next season...Is it under a foot of snow now??? Be safe, that last storm looked pretty nasty! 

Regards, Chris 

[Innocentx]

@Bronzviking Thanks for renewed interest in this piece. 

@Plantguy. Thanks, Chris for lending your expertise to this post. Drainage is from west to east, Permian draining into Carboniferous. This piece was found downstream far enough for it to be upper Pennsylvanian. I've never found another like it.

15 hours ago, Plantguy said:

.Some of those stretched diamond shaped possible leaf scar shapes

I thought because of the curve, that this side you refer to was the interior.

 

 

Luckily we aren't under a foot of snow yet but plenty cold.

[abyssunder]

Finally, were the tree stump and the partial trunk from the Kansas Rock Garden determined?

[Innocentx]

@abyssunder They were not similar but I appreciated the suggestion to compare. They have a very fun museum there which I've visited many times. When I go next I think I'll try to meet up with the geology professor and see what he thinks.

[abyssunder]

4 minutes ago, Innocentx said:

When I go next I think I'll try to meet up with the geology professor and see what he thinks.

That will be a good idea, considering that the specimen in question might be transported material.