Texas Mystery

[Crewof72 0]

I'm a new member, so thanks for accepting me. My family and I have hunted for fossils, arrow heads, and sharks teeth for many years. It has been a way to pass the time on hunting leases and on the beach. It has always been a hobby, we have never worried about identification of any particular piece...until recently. Being retired, I started going through our collection, just for the heck of it. I found this piece that we have always been curious about.  It was found in a creek bed on a ranch near Sonora, Texas, in northern Schleicher County. It was found 6-7 years ago, we leased the property for deer hunting for four years.

 

With all that said, I posted pictures of it on a FB group. It has been called a "cone in cone" structure, an unknown type fossil, and a man made fake. The post on FB has been entertaining to say the least.  One person responding recommended this group so here I am. I am in the Houston area so I would be willing to take it somewhere for a better look.  Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.

[Al Dente 4,521]

Might be an imprint of Rastellum. Here's a link to a picture: http://www.northtexasfossils.com/bivalvia/dentureclam3.jpg

[MeargleSchmeargl 576]

3 minutes ago, Al Dente said:

Might be an imprint of Rastellum. Here's a link to a picture: http://www.northtexasfossils.com/bivalvia/dentureclam3.jpg

I second that, but not entirely sure...

[Aurelius 418]

The pictures aren't that good - it would help if you rotated either the rock or the camera, so that the object took up the whole frame, rather than being a small part of it. 

[Fossildude19 14,817]

+ 1 for Rastellum imprint. 

 

[ynot 7,240]

The rock looks like calcite to Me, could the "cone" shapes be dog tooth spar that has weathered?

Take a small piece (from an unobtrusive area) and crush it then place a drop of vinegar on it to see if it fizzes.

 

I think it is a non fossil rock.

[Herb 1,093]

I do not believe this is a fossil either, looks mineralogic

[Crewof72 0]

Here are a few more pictures. I'm not sure if they are any better.

[ynot 7,240]

5 minutes ago, Crewof72 said:

Here are a few more pictures. I'm not sure if they are any better.

Did You do the vinegar test? What was the result?

[Crewof72 0]

15 minutes ago, ynot said:

Did You do the vinegar test? What was the result?

I did, the vinegar did not fiz.

[abyssunder 5,573]

I suppose, the white little concentrically arranged cristal forms are beekite rings and that might be the reason why the material doesn't react to vinegar.

 

 

I just find Sophie's older post suggesting similarities.

 

Edited January 19, 2018 by abyssunder

[M Harvey 53]

Looks suspiciously man made.  Reminds me of kiln cones used in pottery.

A potter will line them up like dragon teeth embedded in a piece of clay and place them in the kiln during firing.  They melt when the proper temp is reached.  Fired clay would not fizzle with vinegar.  

I'm not saying that's what your specimen is without examining it.  Just throwing this idea into the mix.

 

 

 

  

[abyssunder 5,573]

Comparing these two images I'm pretty sure that everything is natural.

 

[Plantguy 728]

I am in the oyster Rastellum camp as well..thought that when I first saw it...Interesting mineral deposit also. Very cool! 

 

Regards, Chris 

[WhodamanHD 3,070]

For some reason I have a feeling it’s a mineral/geological product. However, My feelings are known to be wrong from time to time.

[ynot 7,240]

4 hours ago, Crewof72 said:

I did, the vinegar did not fiz.

OK, it is not calcite.

Is it translucent?

Can You scratch it with a knife?

Will it scratch glass?

Can You see if there are different rock types making up the whole stone?

 

I think @abyssunder has it right with beekite.

[KimTexan 1,743]

I’m glad to see you got it posted here and have gotten some constructive feedback.

There was part of it that I wanted to see a closer up pic of. 

This is a cropped portion of a pic you had on FB. I can’t tell if it is weird weathering or a tiny fossil, but it looked like a small fossil or fragment of one. See the red arrow below.

Could you take a pic zoomed in on that?

 

I don’t know what you use to take pics. I use my cell phone. I bought a little clip on wide angle/macro lense that works reasonably well for the price on Amazon for under $15 I think.

 

This is a link to the device in case you’re interested.

HAUTIK Clip-on Cell Phone Camera Lens Kit, 0.6X Super Wide Angle Lens + 12X Macro Lens for iPhone 8/8 Plus 7/7 Plus 6s / 6 Plus / 5s, Samsung Galaxy S8 and Most Smartphones https://www.amazon.com/dp/B074PS93N2/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_7yQyAb596SENA

 

[Crewof72 0]

12 minutes ago, ynot said:

OK, it is not calcite.

Is it translucent?

Can You scratch it with a knife?

Will it scratch glass?

Can You see if there are different rock types making up the whole stone?

 

I think @abyssunder has it right with beekite.

Here you go:

It's not translucent, I can scratch it with a knife, it appears to be one rock...but I'm unqualified to really answer that, and I haven't tried scratching glass.

[Crewof72 0]

14 minutes ago, KimTexan said:

I’m glad to see you got it posted here and have gotten some constructive feedback.

There was part of it that I wanted to see a closer up pic of. 

This is a cropped portion of a pic you had on FB. I can’t tell if it is weird weathering or a tiny fossil, but it looked like a small fossil or fragment of one. See the red arrow below.

Could you take a pic zoomed in on that?

 

I don’t know what you use to take pics. I use my cell phone. I bought a little clip on wide angle/macro lense that works reasonably well for the price on Amazon for under $15 I think.

 

This is a link to the device in case you’re interested.

HAUTIK Clip-on Cell Phone Camera Lens Kit, 0.6X Super Wide Angle Lens + 12X Macro Lens for iPhone 8/8 Plus 7/7 Plus 6s / 6 Plus / 5s, Samsung Galaxy S8 and Most Smartphones https://www.amazon.com/dp/B074PS93N2/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_7yQyAb596SENA

 

Ok, now that I know what you're referring to I'll definitely order the macro attachment and post more pictures. Thanks again KimTexan!

[ynot 7,240]

15 minutes ago, Crewof72 said:

Here you go:

It's not translucent, I can scratch it with a knife, it appears to be one rock...but I'm unqualified to really answer that, and I haven't tried scratching glass.

Thanks.

This rules out beekite.

Some rocks have to be looked at in hand to be sure of what they are. I suggest taking it to the geology department of a local university or museum.

 

[abyssunder 5,573]

What about gypsum?

 

Diagenetic evolution of Aptian evaporites in the Namibe Basin (south-west Angola). L. Gindre-Chanu et al. 2014. Diagenetic evolution of Aptian evaporites in the Namibe Basin (south-west Angola). Sedimentology 62: 204-233

[Tidgy's Dad 15,165]

I don't think it's Rastellum. 

Here's one of mine and it doesn't match for me.

Oh, it won't upload images. 

Terrific. 

 

[Max-fossils 2,075]

@Tidgy's Dad I'm having the same problem, meaning I can't show my Rastellum either. 

 

And honestly, (sorry for bringing a destructive ID instead of a positive) though I can clearly see how it could be Rastellum imprint (making it an ichnofossil), I just don't think that could be it! Never seen marks so distinct made by the side of a bivalve, unless the actual bivalve just got taken away from the rock. But that means that in that time it wouldn't have had time to grow crystals there, as it wouldn't have had enough time. So I am just thinking on a timing point of view, not really geologic, but I think my argument does make sense. 

 

This sure is a very intriguing piece!!! 

 

Looking forward to seeing other suggestions!

 

Max