Eocene Fossilized wood?

[Mantelliceras]

Hello everyone,
I went to a fossil hunting trip in Alicante, Spain and I found this weird shaped rock. I dont know if it could be fossilized wood or just a funny shaped rock. It's from the eocene and the place around it was full of nummulites. You could also find some echinoids and gastropods but more rarely. Thanks for your help!

 

[Rockwood]

All I can say is the word palm.

[Mantelliceras]

Just now, Rockwood said:

All I can say is the word palm.

As in "face palm" cause I'm completely wrong? or because you think it could be from a palm tree?

[RyanDye]

50 minutes ago, Mantelliceras said:

As in "face palm" cause I'm completely wrong? or because you think it could be from a palm tree?

I'm pretty certain he was referring to a palm tree, after looking at petrified palm wood I would agree; also, welcome to TFF! 

[DPS Ammonite]

Palm "wood" is very distinctive; it has many dots.

 

We need an up close, clear photo of the ends of the pieces to determine if this is palm.

 

See: https://geology.com/gemstones/states/louisiana.shtml

[Lone wolf]

Looks like petrified wood to me just not palm wood. DPS is correct we need more pictures. 

[Rockwood]

10 hours ago, Mantelliceras said:

As in "face palm" cause I'm completely wrong? or because you think it could be from a palm tree?

The surface texture looks like that of a fossil palm frond.

Sorry, but it's all I have.

[RyanDye]

11 hours ago, DPS Ammonite said:

Palm "wood" is very distinctive; it has many dots.

 

We need an up close, clear photo of the ends of the pieces to determine if this is palm.

 

See: https://geology.com/gemstones/states/louisiana.shtml

Yes that's correct, I forgot to mention that my opinion is definitely not 100%, just clarifying what rockwood was saying.   

[Rockwood]

27 minutes ago, RyanDye said:

just clarifying what rockwood was saying.   

You should be careful. I have a tendency to think the way I do when backing up a trailer. Start with a small act then react to what happens. Thinking it through just takes too long. 

[RyanDye]

3 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

You should be careful. I have a tendency to think the way I do when backing up a trailer. Start with a small act then react to what happens. Thinking it through just takes too long. 

Thanks for the laugh, I'll take note of that! 

[Mantelliceras]

21 hours ago, RyanDye said:

I'm pretty certain he was referring to a palm tree, after looking at petrified palm wood I would agree; also, welcome to TFF! 

11 hours ago, Rockwood said:

The surface texture looks like that of a fossil palm frond.

Sorry, but it's all I have.

 

I know, I was just trying to be funny thanks for your help guys.

 

21 hours ago, DPS Ammonite said:

Palm "wood" is very distinctive; it has many dots.

 

We need an up close, clear photo of the ends of the pieces to determine if this is palm.

 

See: https://geology.com/gemstones/states/louisiana.shtml

I just took few more photos from the 4 sides. I dont see any dots, maybe it's just my unexperienced eye though:




 

[Rockwood]

Have to ditch the palm, but I could easily go with wood.

[paleoflor]

Based solely on the photographs, I lean towards some sedimentary structure, rather than petrified wood. This because 1) the colouration pattern is strongly linked to and organized in layers that are of variable thickness, 2) parts of the sample ends that are not covered in dark mineral scale show no signs of structure, tracheid or otherwise, 3) the radial sections show no structure but considerable roughness. All this fits much better with a planar organisation (due to sedimentary layering) than with a fibrous texture one would expect to see in petrified woods. Then again, you generally see fewer details from photo than with the piece in hand. Creating a cut, mineral scale-free cross-section of the specimen could perhaps provide more conclusive evidence...

[Rockwood]

1 hour ago, paleoflor said:

parts of the sample ends that are not covered in dark mineral scale show no signs of structure, tracheid or otherwise

Would I be mistaken in thinking that the presence of mineral scale is an indication favoring the wood identification because of it's tendency to shrink and crack with age ? 

[paleoflor]

5 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Would I be mistaken in thinking that the presence of mineral scale is an indication favoring the wood identification because of it's tendency to shrink and crack with age ? 

Interesting thought, but I would say mineral precipitation can occur in fractures of any origin. Geological fracturing is more likely here, because the surfaces covered in mineral scale do not fit wood shrinkage in terms of their orientation. Wood shrinkage usually causes radial cracks, rather than disc cracks, because wood is anisotropic and drying causes it to shrink substantially more in the tangential and radial directions than in the longitidinal direction.

 

 

 

 

[daves64]

+1 for sedimentary. No indication of rings on the ends & edges & the inside section looks more like something poured into a mold than it does grown. Interesting looking though. 

[Rockwood]

1 hour ago, paleoflor said:

Interesting thought, but I would say mineral precipitation can occur in fractures of any origin. Geological fracturing is more likely here, because the surfaces covered in mineral scale do not fit wood shrinkage in terms of their orientation. Wood shrinkage usually causes radial cracks, rather than disc cracks, because wood is anisotropic and drying causes it to shrink substantially more in the tangential and radial directions than in the longitidinal direction.

 

 

 

 

On a centimeter scale this obviously true, but sections of petrified logs tend to be on a meter scale. Perhaps the degree of permineralization is insufficient to record the smaller scale cracks ? 

[andreas]

part of a big shattercone(cone in cone structure) I would say

[paleoflor]

2 hours ago, Rockwood said:

On a centimeter scale this obviously true, but sections of petrified logs tend to be on a meter scale. Perhaps the degree of permineralization is insufficient to record the smaller scale cracks ? 

Not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you suggesting that large logs of petrified wood get broken up into metre scale segments due to shrinkage-induced longitudinal shortening, rather than simply due to bending moments imposed by tectonic forces experienced? Wouldn't the latter readily explain how large logs get broken up after petrification, i.e. embrittlement of the wood material? Conversely, in order to explain logs breaking up by internal shrinkage processes, I would think you either need to invoke strong differential stresses, or somehow manage to clamp the ends of the log in place, in order to prevent strain accommodation by simple shortening. Both appear rather implausible, to me at least. Or did I misinterpret your text? 

[Rockwood]

2 hours ago, paleoflor said:

Or did I misinterpret your text? 

I think you understood the argument correctly, but either way you get a bigger crack for minerals to settle into.

Super sized septarian cone in cone seems quite plausible, and really cool too. 

[abyssunder]

On 8/22/2018 at 12:13 AM, Mantelliceras said:

It's from the eocene and the place around it was full of nummulites. You could also find some echinoids and gastropods but more rarely

Are you sure of the geological settings of the area? Marine or terestrial? The specimen in question looks like a rudist lower valve fragment, to me, but I could be wrong.

[KimTexan]

I think it looks like cambium. I could be wrong. Cork and vascular cambiums do not have growth rings. They are part of a tree’s secondary growth.

Heartwood and sapwood have growth rings.

I have no idea about shrinkage of cambium though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cork_cambium

You’ll have to go to the link to see the pic of cambium cellular structure.

 

Pic from here.

http://ibonsaiclub.forumotion.com/t14173-air-layer-question 

[KimTexan]

1 hour ago, abyssunder said:

Are you sure of the geological settings of the area? Marine or terestrial? The specimen in question looks like a rudist lower valve fragment, to me, but I could be wrong.

Now that you say that it does actually look like a rudist fragment. I have a couple fragments that bear some resemblance to the OP from the North Sulphur River in Texas though. Mine still have calcium carbonate shell on them though.

[DPS Ammonite]

Better photos might show cellular texture that rudists have in cross section. I do not see any. See photos of Durania rudist from the Cretaceous of the Austin Chalk of North Texas. 

[paleoflor]

6 hours ago, KimTexan said:

I think it looks like cambium. I could be wrong. Cork and vascular cambiums do not have growth rings. They are part of a tree’s secondary growth.

Heartwood and sapwood have growth rings.

I have no idea about shrinkage of cambium though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cork_cambium

You’ll have to go to the link to see the pic of cambium cellular structure.

 

Pic from here.

http://ibonsaiclub.forumotion.com/t14173-air-layer-question 

The radial thickness of cambium/bark is generally much less than that of the specimen here, though exceptions do occur (e.g. cork oak). However, in general the cambium/bark is rarely fossilized, as it is way less durable than xylem. What observable characteristics did you use? I cannot distinguish any sieve tubes, etc.