Fossilized Pine Cone?

[NicolaiT13]

I found this today in a stream bed and I have no clue as to what it is. It resembles a pine cone but its hard and brittle like a rock. It also has a hollow middle. Any ID help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Nic

[NicolaiT13]

[NicolaiT13]

[GeschWhat]

Can we see the side? It looks like it could be a metasequoia.

 

[GeschWhat]

You beat me to it. I think it is a metasequoia cone. 

[NicolaiT13]

Well that's super neat. Thanks 

 

[ynot]

18 minutes ago, NicolaiT13 said:

It resembles a pine cone but its hard and brittle like a rock.

 

This picture makes Me wonder if it is recent.

Many conifer cones are much harder than regular wood is.

[NicolaiT13]

I found it in the Hell Creek Formation and after doing some research metasequoia cones seem to be somewhat common in that area. After a google search a few cones with a very similar resemblance popped up. I know its not a current day cone. 

[ynot]

16 minutes ago, NicolaiT13 said:

I found it in the Hell Creek Formation and after doing some research metasequoia cones seem to be somewhat common in that area. After a google search a few cones with a very similar resemblance popped up. I know its not a current day cone. 

Nice preservation on that piece.

[piranha]

Sequoia dakotensis Brown 1935

 

 

Brown, R.W. 1935 

Some fossil conifers from Maryland and North Dakota.

Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 25(10):441-450

[GeschWhat]

10 hours ago, NicolaiT13 said:

Well that's super neat. Thanks 

 

You are very welcome! I just love finding these little cones. They are usually found in the iron-rich Hell Creek outcrops that are similar in color to your cone.

[Troodon]

I also have had some success finding these cones.  Love to find plant material. Yours is a very nice example of one.

 

I am familiar with S. dakotensis but the Museum of Mines in Rapid City had this on display.  Not sure how to differentiate between species or the accuracy of their label

 

 

[RJB]

I concur with everyone else.  Ive even got some of these somewhere?  Nice find.

 

RB

[piranha]

6 hours ago, Troodon said:

I am familiar with S. dakotensis but the Museum of Mines in Rapid City had this on display.  Not sure how to differentiate between species or the accuracy of their label

 

 

Sequoia dakotensis Brown 1935 is the valid Cretaceous species.

'Sequoia langsdorfii' was recombined as a Tertiary species: Metasequoia occidentalis (Chaney 1951)

Meyer & Manchester 1997 have taken a more conservative approach referring it to: Metasequoia sp.  

 

Metasequoia sp. = 'Sequoia langsdorfii'

 

text from:

Chaney, R.W. 1951

A revision of fossil Sequoia and Taxodium in western North America based on the recent discovery of Metasequoia.

Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 40(3):171-263

 

(1) There are comparatively few specimens of S. langsdorfii figured from Europe (mostly drawings), and almost all of them show foliage only of the distichous type.  In spite of all its records outside of Europe in the literature (most of which are now known to be of M. occidentalis), true S. langsdorfii is too incompletely known to permit a comparison which will establish its specific identity with the American material.  (2) Absence of S. langsdorfii at high latitudes, where all of its records are in error, creates a break in its distribution around the northern Atlantic and provides a basis for the assumption that two geographic species of Sequoia may have developed during the Tertiary period.  (3) The name S. langsdorfii has been so long misused in North America that its continuance will cause further confusion; it seems highly desirable that it be restricted to western Europe where it was first used, and has since been correctly applied.

 

 

text from:

Meyer, H.W. 2005

Metasequoia in the Oligocene Bridge Creek Flora of Western North America: Ecological implications and the history of research. pp. 159-186

In: LePage, B.A., Williams, C.J., & Yang, H. (eds.) The Geobiology and Ecology of Metasequoia. Springer Scientific, Topics in Geobiology, 22:1-434

 

Even before his visit to the living M. glyptostroboides forest, Chaney had begun to consider both the taxonomic and ecological implications of this discovery to the Cretaceous and Tertiary floras of western North America.  On his return to America, he began a thorough re-examination of the published records for fossil Taxodium and Sequoia in these floras and re-classified many of them as Metasequoia. This work culminated in a monographic revision of much of the North American fossil material (Chaney, 1951), in which he recognized two species, one restricted to the Cretaceous and the other to the Tertiary.  He placed the Bridge Creek specimens of Sequoia langsdorfii and S. heerii into Metasequoia occidentalis, which was and generally still is considered to be a widespread species ranging from Paleocene to Miocene in age and from Alaska to California in distribution.

 

Metasequoia is known at Bridge Creek from foliage, cones, and seeds (Figures 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3). In the early literature, Lesquereux (1883) referred such material to Sequoia langsdorfii (Brongniart) Heer, and Newberry (1898) referred it to Sequoia heerii Lesquereux.  Following the discovery and description of the living M. glyptostroboides, Chaney re-assigned many of the North American fossils, including those from Bridge Creek, to Metasequoia occidentalis (Newberry) Chaney (Chaney, 1951).  However, the type specimen for this species (originally described as Taxodium occidentale Newberry from the Paleocene in the state of Washington) has shorter, wider and more apically rounded needles than the typical Bridge Creek specimens.  The Bridge Creek material, along with that from other middle Tertiary floras of western North America, appears to have characters that are nearly indistinguishable from modern M. glyptostroboides based on foliar and cone morphology, but the lack of epidermal features and cone anatomy makes such an assignment indefinite.  Meyer & Manchester (1997) referred the Bridge Creek material to Metasequoia sp., noting that a broader study of Metasequoia from North American Tertiary floras is needed to resolve some of the remaining nomenclatural problems.

[doushantuo]

can recommend:

(from Stockwell/1979):