Plants or bones?

[Baddadcp]

6 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

Yours doesn’t seem uniform enough (in shapes) to me to be cycad bark. Though I have (as you have seen) been wrong before.  

It's an interesting piece and I will try to scan further details as I am able. I sold you on the joint, after all, and the skepticism provides the motivation to research further.

[Baddadcp]

5 hours ago, Scylla said:

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.

Easy to say. You don't just walk in the door with a rock in your hand and ask for validation at the Natural History Museum. Suggestions in the Washington DC, Baltimore MD area would be appreciated. Or some way to proceed.

[Rockwood]

12 minutes ago, Baddadcp said:

It's an interesting piece and I will try to scan further details as I am able. I sold you on the joint, after all, and the skepticism provides the motivation to research further.

One of the most effective methods of research is to try to prove yourself wrong. 

Try the method on a similar looking area of the rock that you are convinced is not fossil.

[Miocene_Mason]

5 hours ago, Baddadcp said:

Easy to say. You don't just walk in the door with a rock in your hand and ask for validation at the Natural History Museum. Suggestions in the Washington DC, Baltimore MD area would be appreciated. Or some way to proceed.

CMM (Calvert Marine Museum) would try to ID it for you but they are more suited to the Cenozoic. Dr. Weems is usually at MGS (Maryland Geological Society) meetings, and he has worked with Cretaceous plants and dinosaurs and might be able to help, though next two MGS meetings I’ve heard will be packed with people because they are auctions. The best and easiest though would probably be to go to Dinosaur park and ask Dr. Kranz (white-bearded fellow) as dinosaurs are his job and he was originally from the ANHM in New York if memory serves. 

[Miocene_Mason]

5 hours ago, Baddadcp said:

It's an interesting piece and I will try to scan further details as I am able. I sold you on the joint, after all, and the skepticism provides the motivation to research further.

Skepticism is the basis of science. From it and curiosity springs the whole of human knowledge. Always be skeptical of any ID and confirm it to yourself, but allow your opinions to be changeable as stubbornness is what holds science back. Not that you are being stubborn, just skeptical 

You have no idea how many people post their “dinosaur eggs” here, and will defend it to the point where you wonder why they asked for our advice in the first place. They sometimes email a museum and don’t trust them either. It’s confirmation bias, which is easy to succumb to. 

[ynot]

14 hours ago, Baddadcp said:

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.

I am not convinced that this is bone.

I have seen similar patterns in non fossil cryptocrystalline quartz (chert and jasper), that are definitely not fossil.

Would like to see better pictures without the glare.

[EMP]

13 hours 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.

 

 

I've seen this kind of stuff in the Patuxent Formation before. My best guess is that it is indeed a botryoidal iron mineral, likely goethite. I do not think it is a fossil, sorry. 

 

As for the "bone," no dinosaur (or any other kind for that matter) bones have been recorded from the Patuxent Formation in Maryland, which your piece is almost certainly from considering that it is conglomerate. Now, Mr. Stanford did find one imprint of a dinosaur in a piece of ironstone from the Patuxent, but that's the only ""body"" fossil that's ever been recorded in the 150 or so years people have been studying the fossils of the formation. In Maryland, the fossils of the Patuxent Formation are almost exclusively plants except for ichnos. 

[Rockwood]

1 hour ago, EMP said:

As for the "bone," no dinosaur (or any other kind for that matter) bones have been recorded from the Patuxent Formation in Maryland, which your piece is almost certainly from considering that it is conglomerate. Now, Mr. Stanford did find one imprint of a dinosaur in a piece of ironstone from the Patuxent, but that's the only ""body"" fossil that's ever been recorded in the 150 or so years people have been studying the fossils of the formation. In Maryland, the fossils of the Patuxent Formation are almost exclusively plants except for ichnos. 

Just a note to anyone just starting to study these things: This does not mean that dinosaurs weren't around. It is quite likely that the environment was on the acidic side. It tends to favor the preservation of plant material over bone.

[Baddadcp]

5 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Just a note to anyone just starting to study these things: This does not mean that dinosaurs weren't around. It is quite likely that the environment was on the acidic side. It tends to favor the preservation of plant material over bone.

Sure are touting the dinosaur bones at the Dinosaur Park in Laurel Md. But calling it Arundel Formation. Reptilia and Saurichia are both cited at Branchville and Muirkirk. The formation is likely Arundel Clay. But I'm not tied to Patuxent by any means. Just using the term because of the differences in the types of specimens coming from the location.

[Baddadcp]

9 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

CMM (Calvert Marine Museum) would try to ID it for you but they are more suited to the Cenozoic. Dr. Weems is usually at MGS (Maryland Geological Society) meetings, and he has worked with Cretaceous plants and dinosaurs and might be able to help, though next two MGS meetings I’ve heard will be packed with people because they are auctions. The best and easiest though would probably be to go to Dinosaur park and ask Dr. Kranz (white-bearded fellow) as dinosaurs are his job and he was originally from the ANHM in New York if memory serves. 

Thanks. I will try to catch him there when I can.

[Miocene_Mason]

If your looking through “rock bars” then you could be getting float from several formations.

[Baddadcp]

okay. Serendipity handed me another copy of the "cycad bark" specimen. May not be bark, may be an unusual decay form. But it has happened twice, as you will see.

[Baddadcp]

9 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

Skepticism is the basis of science. From it and curiosity springs the whole of human knowledge. Always be skeptical of any ID and confirm it to yourself, but allow your opinions to be changeable as stubbornness is what holds science back. Not that you are being stubborn, just skeptical 

You have no idea how many people post their “dinosaur eggs” here, and will defend it to the point where you wonder why they asked for our advice in the first place. They sometimes email a museum and don’t trust them either. It’s confirmation bias, which is easy to succumb to. 

Fair enough. I relish in skepticism.

[Baddadcp]

9 hours ago, ynot said:

I am not convinced that this is bone.

I have seen similar patterns in non fossil cryptocrystalline quartz (chert and jasper), that are definitely not fossil.

Would like to see better pictures without the glare.

Can't find my microscope. But here are some moderate rez pics for the time being.

[Baddadcp]

5 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

If your looking through “rock bars” then you could be getting float from several formations.

I should just take a step back and say Potomac Group. Close enough for government work, no?

[ynot]

9 minutes ago, Baddadcp said:

But here are some moderate rez pics for the time being.

Pretty sure that is not bone.

[GeschWhat]

Back to your previous piece. I agree with the hematite forming a skin-like pattern. That is pretty common. This area looks interesting though - like an impression of some sort. 

[Miocene_Mason]

16 hours ago, Baddadcp said:

I should just take a step back and say Potomac Group. Close enough for government work, no?

I’d say so. 

 

16 hours ago, ynot said:

Pretty sure that is not bone.

Yeah, I’m with you now. The new pictures make me think we just have large grains or inclusions being cut through, giving the illusion of bone. Though it can’t hurt to have it checked out just in case.

[Innocentx]

2 hours ago, GeschWhat said:

Back to your previous piece. I agree with the hematite forming a skin-like pattern. That is pretty common. This area looks interesting though - like an impression of some sort. 

I was also wondering about that, as well as this impression in another picture posted on page 1. It may be just another hematite formed pattern, but just looks different.

[GeschWhat]

2 hours ago, Innocentx said:

I was also wondering about that, as well as this impression in another picture posted on page 1. It may be just another hematite formed pattern, but just looks different.

Yeah, I see what you mean, the striations on the other side do look like they could line up to form a similar pattern. 

[Baddadcp]

5 hours ago, GeschWhat said:

Yeah, I see what you mean, the striations on the other side do look like they could line up to form a similar pattern. 

Yes , you are 100 % correct. But based on the tendencies of the hematite in the area and the occurrence of other cycads in Arundel F my instinct says it's not mineral (alone). I believe this paper shows both the polygonal ends and the needle like structure associate with them. Unfortunately the spherical nature was lost when it was mashed flat. I was going to strip the plate out but don't want to run afoul of the law on a page that could be seen by the authors. "ANATOMICALLY PRESERVED WILLIAMSONIA (WILLIAMSONIACEAE): EVIDENCE FOR BENNETTITALEAN REPRODUCTION IN THE LATE CRETACEOUS OF WESTERN NORTH AMERICA" Did you want additional photos of the piece?

[Baddadcp]

On 7/30/2018 at 7:40 PM, ynot said:

Pretty sure that is not bone.

So we are at an impasse. The requirement of porosity was met, but isn't visible with the naked eye at a resolution capable of an Iphone. I will visit the resident expert at the Dinosaur Park at my earliest convenience. Until the we can continue flogging the cycad.

[GeschWhat]

4 minutes ago, Baddadcp said:

Did you want additional photos of the piece?

Sure. I'd love to see closeups of the banded/layered areas on both sides. Just curious. 

[Baddadcp]

15 minutes ago, GeschWhat said:

Sure. I'd love to see closeups of the banded/layered areas on both sides. Just curious. 

Limited in equipment, but I will do what I can. I will include some other detail too.

[Baddadcp]

54 minutes ago, GeschWhat said:

Sure. I'd love to see closeups of the banded/layered areas on both sides. Just curious. 

IMHO pic 2 shows the stem and oval shape of the "flower." Lump in the center is trash. The rays are the nature of Cycad reproductive organs. Polygonal surface pattern is well known. I could go on, but I was really hoping you all would tell me it was skin. Que sera, sera.