Jump to content

round walnut looking rocks


john h dalton

Recommended Posts

I researched a little and there were seven species of maclura pomifera and fossils have been found all the way up into Canada. There is an article called the trees that miss the mammoths and another called Osage orange in defense of plants. There is a type that grows in clusters that fit the size. Is it possible that these are those?

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Malone said:

Also Aka Wyoming golf balls?

Well those sure look like what they are calling Dahllites. Did you find any pictures of what they look like petrified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Malone said:

Oops 

IMG_3669.PNG

 

I know exactly what you are referring to, because I have three of Maclura pomifera in my vicinity (100m by my home) and many times I was amazed by their strange fruits. Timisoara, Romania had lots of them, unfortunately some were destroyed. I'm wondering how they are here.

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

In a quick search on Google I've found the answer:

" M. pomifera is cultivated in Italy, former Yugoslavia, Romania, former USSR, and India. " - Wikipedia

 

Looking at the ecological aspects of historical distribution, I could agree with that, but I can't see it in a  Late Jurassic - Late Cretaceous realm.

 

 

Edited by abyssunder
  • I found this Informative 1

" We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. "

Thomas Mann

My Library

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, john h dalton said:

Well those sure look like what they are calling Dahllites. Did you find any pictures of what they look like petrified?

No I didn't. I could only find very limited information.

 

1 minute ago, abyssunder said:

 

I know exactly what you are referring to, because I have three of Maclura pomifera in my vicinity (100m by my home) and many times I was amazed by their strange fruits. Timisoara, Romania had lots of them, unfortunately some were destroyed. I'm wondering how they are here.

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

In a quick search on Google I've found the answer:

" M. pomifera is cultivated in Italy, former Yugoslavia, Romania, former USSR, and India. " - Wikipedia

 

 

There's very limited information on the internet that I could access on the seven types. Even less on the fossilized record.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, abyssunder said:

 

I know exactly what you are referring to, because I have three of Maclura pomifera in my vicinity (100m by my home) and many times I was amazed by their strange fruits. Timisoara, Romania had lots of them, unfortunately some were destroyed. I'm wondering how they are here.

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

In a quick search on Google I've found the answer:

" M. pomifera is cultivated in Italy, former Yugoslavia, Romania, former USSR, and India. " - Wikipedia

 

Looking at the ecological aspects of historical distribution, I could agree with that, but I can't see it in a  Late Jurassic - Late Cretaceous realm.

 

 

The article " the trees that miss the mammoths " suggests they have been around a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being extant, they can't be older than Quaternary, in my opinion. :)

" We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. "

Thomas Mann

My Library

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, john h dalton said:

lol unfortunately i don't have any here.  I thought about that after I said that. I keep meaning to polish some for my self but every time i go see my buddy in Thermop I never remember to take any with me.  I will now!!! lol

Thank you for the photo. I've "prepped"  it to see the resemblance with the one from D. McConnell's document.

 

a.thumb.jpg.88cd62aab6368cddb969f671aea42b05.jpg5aa07129b623a_SPHERULITICCONCRETIONSOFDAHLLITEFROMISHAWOOAWYOMING.thumb.jpg.8710358d65a10314c6a3e1ebf9f2278b.jpg

 

  • I found this Informative 2

" We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. "

Thomas Mann

My Library

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't have time to review this whole conversation but I am definitely with the folks who say this is geological rather than paleontological. I have found these in the Morrison of Wyoming as well and up close they do better as crystal in origins instead of fossils.

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, abyssunder said:

Being extant, they can't be older than Quaternary, in my opinion. :)

I am unsure of which species/types  are extant and which are extinct. The image reminded me of a hedge apple. I thought it could be a mineralized variety of that type of plant. Science regularly revises staunchly held beliefs. At least that's been the reality since I have been alive. These beliefs are only revised due to continued inquiry and/or new discoveries. I am glad that people aren't getting their heads chopped off for not blindly holding to certain beliefs. That being said you are probably right, and that's not sarcasm!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2018 at 5:11 PM, john h dalton said:

Those are two individual stones in question on the bottom left, even though they appear to be one. But a friend of mine   does have a couple that are conjoined.  

IMG_6676.jpg.75a29c6f0fe806b832c21832f1de5e62.thumb.jpg.3f91487d3302b3a5dca40214bc2fe101.jpg

 

 

" We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. "

Thomas Mann

My Library

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Malone said:

I thought it could be a mineralized variety of that type of plant.

 

4655642.jpg.becf621db39654b893474a50ae40faec.jpg

comparative picture from here

 

I'm pretty sure they are concretions/nodules, not fossils. I just read again the whole topic. :)

Some of them are conjoined. This excludes M. pomifera.

  • I found this Informative 1

" We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. "

Thomas Mann

My Library

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, abyssunder said:

 

4655642.jpg.becf621db39654b893474a50ae40faec.jpg

comparative picture from here

 

I'm pretty sure they are concretions/nodules, not fossils. I just read again the whole topic. :)

Some of them are conjoined. This excludes M. pomifera.

Not really 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Malone said:

Not really 

 

Not sure why you think these are tiny "horse apples"....  They are apparently locally common and well known in the local rock and mineral community.  Dahllite nodules were unfamiliar to most of us on the Forum, but not any longer.

 

Thanks, @abyssunder

:1-SlapHands_zpsbb015b76:

  • I found this Informative 2

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

 

Not sure why you think these are tiny "horse apples"....  They are apparently locally common and well known in the local rock and mineral community.  Dahllite nodules were unfamiliar to most of us on the Forum, but not any longer.

 

Thanks, @abyssunder

:1-SlapHands_zpsbb015b76:

I don't! I just said because they were conjoined that wouldn't rule out maclura pomifera. I have seen many uncomformities in maclura pomifera. I only stated that there was a resemblance. That there could be a possibility. There isn't any definite origin that I am aware of. 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2018 at 4:21 PM, Malone said:

The article " the trees that miss the mammoths " suggests they have been around a long time.

Bodark trees are pretty cool trees. They were planted in many areas in the Southwestern US during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s because they were so harty and drought resistant. They were often planted to serve as fence posts. I think I read somewhere that they have the height BTU of any wood. Evidently it burns long and hot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2018 at 7:24 AM, abyssunder said:

Thank you for the pictures. It's clear they have iron content, but they might be something else. I change my ID leaning toward Dahllite. Take a look here: SPHERULITIC CONCRETIONS OF DAHLLITE FROM ISHAWOOA, WYOMING

 

" The dark material in the center of the concretions (Fig. 1) is translucent in thin sections and contains iron and a small amount of manganese, as indicated by microchemical and blowpipe tests, but it cannot be referredt o any mineral species a nd probably represents a mixture of oxides. Within this material calcite occurs, filling interstices, and in the dahllite, calcite occurs at the margins of cavities to a Iesser extent. The dark material seemst o be later than the dahllite and the calcite is probably still later. "

 

Dahllite nodules

CF3_11148.jpg.ff610e6a2496206cb0a1c76fb8207b57.jpgEF2_10086.jpg.6a7c6028747fb081c20f6422053e8ff8.jpg1435952577.png.9ecedef04ce2dcf7142a15944f189140.png

 

 

EF2_10091.jpg

Those are just cool looking. I’m a concretion collector, but I’ve never seen any like that. Gotta get me some of those one of these days for my collection.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KimTexan said:

Bodark trees are pretty cool trees. They were planted in many areas in the Southwestern US during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s because they were so harty and drought resistant. They were often planted to serve as fence posts. I think I read somewhere that they have the height BTU of any wood. Evidently it burns long and hot.

Yeah that's the only wood a friend of would burn ( pardon the pun) I read Osage orange/ aka multiple names. Was the choice wood for farm implements and the bows were the highest valued bows to attain. Actually worth a horse and saddle. They contain a chemical called elemol that's as effective as the chemical deet the main chemical in off bug spray. 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, JohnJ said:

 

Not sure why you think these are tiny "horse apples"....  They are apparently locally common and well known in the local rock and mineral community.  Dahllite nodules were unfamiliar to most of us on the Forum, but not any longer.

 

Thanks, @abyssunder

:1-SlapHands_zpsbb015b76:

It was my pleasure, Sir. I'm glad I can help! :)

" We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. "

Thomas Mann

My Library

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, abyssunder said:

It was my pleasure, Sir. I'm glad I can help! :)

Still no definite origin but as long as you feel good about each other. And what exactly did you help with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Malone said:

Still no definite origin but as long as you feel good about each other. And what exactly did you help with?

I have to agree with @abyssunder - These are dahllite nodules  / concretions.

They are from the creatatus, so can not be the type of tree You suggest.

They have no organized patterning and have random size to the surface features, so does not fill the bill for any type of seed cone.

Also when looking at the inside there is a consistent radiating pattern with no spaces for seed placement, so does not fill the bill for any type of seed cone.

 

Abyssunder gave a specific and definite identification to the concretions in question.

  • I found this Informative 2

Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys."

Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough."

 

My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection

My favorite thread on TFF.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a friend who knows minerals here look at this discussion.  He sits very firmly in the dahlite camp.  

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2018 at 9:55 PM, KimTexan said:

Those are just cool looking. I’m a concretion collector, but I’ve never seen any like that. Gotta get me some of those one of these days for my collection.

Take a trip out here to NW Wyoming and we will load you up with some. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ynot said:

I have to agree with @abyssunder - These are dahllite nodules  / concretions.

They are from the creatatus, so can not be the type of tree You suggest.

They have no organized patterning and have random size to the surface features, so does not fill the bill for any type of seed cone.

Also when looking at the inside there is a consistent radiating pattern with no spaces for seed placement, so does not fill the bill for any type of seed cone.

 

Abyssunder gave a specific and definite identification to the concretions in question.

Once again I only suggest the possibility. Also if you research the origins of maclura you will find the fossils found to date are documented to the neotropic. Also they just discovered millions of penguins that are existing. If the great God of science doesn't know what, is then how can you assume it does now? I don't assume to have all the answers, and I am skeptical of people who think they do! Anyway cool stuff to be interested in. I believe there is a possibility that the origin of these things in the pictures have an organic origin, but really what doesn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Malone said:

Once again I only suggest the possibility. Also if you research the origins of maclura you will find the fossils found to date are documented to the neotropic. Also they just discovered millions of penguins that are existing. If the great God of science doesn't know what, is then how can you assume it does now? I don't assume to have all the answers, and I am skeptical of people who think they do! Anyway cool stuff to be interested in. I believe there is a possibility that the origin of these things in the pictures have an organic origin, but really what doesn't?

Making an unfounded guess is one thing, repeatedly making the unsupported comment makes it seem that You are arguing for that id.

When the evidence is in perpondence against a certain ID it is counterproductive to make repeated insistence of the incorrect ID.

Several of the posts in this thread have explained why these concretions is not of organic origin, but You keep insisting that it has an organic origin (without any supporting evidence).

If You can find any evidence to support Your assumption of an organic origin- I would love to see it.

Also, Neotropic has nothing to do with the existence of a genus during the cretaceous.

  • I found this Informative 4

Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys."

Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough."

 

My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection

My favorite thread on TFF.

 

 

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...