Baddadcp Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 Good day of collecting after the heavy rains on the east coast. Found these gems. See what you think. I would swear the one is a knee articulation and the other is skin. Probably just bark and a stick. What say you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 Can we get a better picture of here? There is usually a kind of “spongy” texture inside bones. If there is no bone structure, it’s not a bone. “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baddadcp Posted July 29, 2018 Author Share Posted July 29, 2018 9 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said: Can we get a better picture of here? There is usually a kind of “spongy” texture inside bones. If there is no bone structure, it’s not a bone. as soon as I can, but not tonight, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 Just now, Baddadcp said: as soon as I can, but not tonight, sorry. That’s fine “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innocentx Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 That's some interesting material. I shall stay tuned. "Journey through a universe ablaze with changes" Phil Ochs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 I think both are minerals not fossil. First looks like a conglomerate with a chert nodule. The second looks like an iron concretion with some crystallization (oxidized pyrite) showing. Skin does not have random cubic shapes. 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 More sharing options...
Baddadcp Posted July 29, 2018 Author Share Posted July 29, 2018 There is porous, and then there is porous. I will get pics as soon as I can, but until then, the polished one came out of Pax from Laurel dino park. The other two for discussion/reference. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baddadcp Posted July 29, 2018 Author Share Posted July 29, 2018 6 hours ago, ynot said: I think both are minerals not fossil. First looks like a conglomerate with a chert nodule. The second looks like an iron concretion with some crystallization (oxidized pyrite) showing. Skin does not have random cubic shapes. Oh they are fossils. Whether plant or animal is the debate. Pyrite is not uncommon in these formations, but the crystals are small and show up in the marine clays, not the siderite. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 16 minutes ago, Baddadcp said: Oh they are fossils. Whether plant or animal is the debate. Pyrite is not uncommon in these formations, but the crystals are small and show up in the marine clays, not the siderite. I don't have the geologic experience that Tony has to identify this, but I do firmly agree that there seems to be no evidence that it is of biologic origin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minnbuckeye Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 I know nothing about skin or bones but in the skin pictures the skin is in layers, which seems to lean me away from fossil and towards geological. I hope I am wrong. Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baddadcp Posted July 29, 2018 Author Share Posted July 29, 2018 Can't find my Celeston, but got these with a phone magnifier. Not going to be much help. Of the indicated notch in round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baddadcp Posted July 29, 2018 Author Share Posted July 29, 2018 24 minutes ago, minnbuckeye said: I know nothing about skin or bones but in the skin pictures the skin is in layers, which seems to lean me away from fossil and towards geological. I hope I am wrong. Mike Yes, one might think that, but the nature of these conglomerate/siderite fossils is like that. The whole Patuxent, Arundal, Patapsco, and Aquia Formations are typically described as "undifferentiated". Clay mess with some mineralized fossils. Whether plant or animal, I am 99% sure it's fossil. But that aside. Here is a (poor) pic of the opposite, which has keys to both plant and animal. IMO Also, the lower reddish part is sandstone matrix. Common of the siderite in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 That will be hematite or some other iron mineral, the example you showed from Dino park is still porous it’s just mineralized, it has the structure but it’s filled with a blueish calcite, well that’s what I thought it was filled with. The fossil that you jut posted might be the cross section of a tree. “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 The "knee bone" is not bone and I don't see any wood grain or plant texture so I'm in the geofact camp on that one. The "fossil skin" is a strange pattern, but skin should be fossilized as one layer and iron deposition could give you multiple layers. I think I see multiple layers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 The fact that it is closely layered to the iron concretion does support it being a fossil. There is still not enough detail to say more for certain though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 2 hours ago, Baddadcp said: /siderite fossils Siderite is a mineral that has a psyado cubic crystal. Sometimes the concretions it forms can have fossils in them. I do not see that in Your piece. I see a partially crystalized concretion. No wood or animal patterns are showing in the pictures presented here of Your pieces. 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 More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 The “skin” is a pattern that happens with iron minerals. 1 “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baddadcp Posted July 29, 2018 Author Share Posted July 29, 2018 11 hours ago, WhodamanHD said: That will be hematite or some other iron mineral, the example you showed from Dino park is still porous it’s just mineralized, it has the structure but it’s filled with a blueish calcite, well that’s what I thought it was filled with. The fossil that you jut posted might be the cross section of a tree. You are a hard group, but it tells me what you expect to accept it as fauna. Follows are two (mostly) polished ends from the "joint" piece. IMHO, they have the aspect of the Polished park piece. (Must say I was surprised at how well it shows) Once again, my equipment is subpar, apologies. I will address the other piece later. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 8 minutes ago, Baddadcp said: You are a hard group, but it tells me what you expect to accept it as fauna. Follows are two (mostly) polished ends from the "joint" piece. IMHO, they have the aspect of the Polished park piece. (Must say I was surprised at how well it shows) Once again, my equipment is subpar, apologies. I will address the other piece later. Is this the piece you found?!? That looks like bone. “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baddadcp Posted July 29, 2018 Author Share Posted July 29, 2018 43 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said: Is this the piece you found?!? That looks like bone. That's what I've been trying to say. But having you guys keep me honest. The other piece looks like banded hematite with some odd crystalline aspect. Two down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baddadcp Posted July 30, 2018 Author Share Posted July 30, 2018 Okay. Here's my final thought. Unusual preservation of cycad. Photo two from the interwebs, Photo one, original piece. Cycads are know in the formation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Baddadcp said: That's what I've been trying to say. But having you guys keep me honest. The other piece looks like banded hematite with some odd crystalline aspect. Two down. Yeah, it’s not the typical bone. It hard to deduce things about fossils from photos, easier in hand. Also not a typical bone, but it is an awesome find. It could use some prep. Might be identifiable. We have a few resident dinosaur experts on the forum if you do end up prepping it or getting it prepped! 11 minutes ago, Baddadcp said: Okay. Here's my final thought. Unusual preservation of cycad. Photo two from the interwebs, Photo one, original piece. Cycads are know in the formation. Here is a picture of a hematite concretion from Here 1 “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baddadcp Posted July 30, 2018 Author Share Posted July 30, 2018 13 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said: Yeah, it’s not the typical bone. It hard to deduce things about fossils from photos, easier in hand. Also not a typical bone, but it is an awesome find. It could use some prep. Might be identifiable. We have a few resident dinosaur experts on the forum if you do end up prepping it or getting it prepped! Here is a picture of a hematite concretion from Here Yep, I saw that too, and was ready to concede mineral until I noticed that the bumps had depth. Then I really was ready to concede it to be crystalline hematite. I was so sure I searched for an example on the web. Please note that at about 10 O'Clock on the image there are some long crystals. Your image is skin deep. Mud cracks essentially. Look at crystalline hematite, then cycad fossils. You should end up in the same place. But if you can find a crystalline hematite with this pattern....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, Baddadcp said: Yep, I saw that too, and was ready to concede mineral until I noticed that the bumps had depth. Then I really was ready to concede it to be crystalline hematite. I was so sure I searched for an example on the web. Please note that at about 10 O'Clock on the image there are some long crystals. Your image is skin deep. Mud cracks essentially. Look at crystalline hematite, then cycad fossils. You should end up in the same place. But if you can find a crystalline hematite with this pattern....... Yours doesn’t seem uniform enough (in shapes) to me to be cycad bark. Though I have (as you have seen) been wrong before. “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 The polished bone is looking a lot more bone like in the newer pics. Time to take it to a museum and get an in-person opinion I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.c92634cf0727ecfa05ac715760bd43c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now