Fossil?

[Kim Ellis]

Hi All,

Wondering if you could give me some feedback.

Is this a fossil, preservation? Cell plates are visible and imprints.

Photos taken wet.

Thanks!!

Kim

[izak_]

Where was this found? I don't see any fossils here, likely a piece of ironstone.

[caldigger]

Kim, what are we calling cell plates?  What sort of imprints?  I guess the photos aren't showing what you see.

Can you elaborate some?

[Kim Ellis]

Here is a closer pic.

[doushantuo]

I must agree with the other opinions:the biogenic origin is not immediately obvious(he said euphemistically)

[ynot]

This is an iron concretion. The patterns are from mineral dissolution.

I also see no fossils.

[Kim Ellis]

Here is another one

[Kim Ellis]

Thank you!

[ynot]

Last pic looks the same.

Can You post some pictures of it dry?

[doushantuo]

most (body)fossils show meristic/recurring structures ,caused by the dynamics and kinetics of accretionary growth(diffusion of morphogens*),which most of the

time results in some form of recognizable(radial or bilateral) symmetry,and/or at least regular spatial patterning.

In most fossils of course,the third dimension gets lost,which makes recogniton harder.

*mathematically/topologically speaking:Honda trees,Voronoi tiling,Koch curves/fractality,Korn***-Spalding patterns,circular reflectors/(caustics)),Fibonacci structures(PLANTS!)

***Not anything to do with the band

edit(hours later): in the first sentence  changed "patterns" to "structures"

[Ludwigia]

I agree with the others. Please describe "cell plates" and "imprints" in your own words and tell us where you found it. Just showing us photos isn't enough, since all we are seeing, even on the closeups, is an iron concretion.

[Rockwood]

It's not a coincidence that patterns like those in concretion resemble life forms. Life forms, the hard parts that are likely to fossilize in particular, are essentially the genetic taming of the same sort of physical processes. 

[MeargleSchmeargl]

Totally geological.