Help for identification

[Innocentx]

@daves64. No matter how I look at this (enlarged) I can't see the shadows you're speaking of. 

[Rockwood]

You need to think small scale. At the end of these little ruffles.

[daves64]

1 hour ago, Innocentx said:

@daves64. No matter how I look at this (enlarged) I can't see the shadows you're speaking of. 

This help any?

[abyssunder]

Question: Is the holding rock an igneous rock like granite?

[Rockwood]

4 minutes ago, abyssunder said:

Question: Is the holding rock an igneous rock like granite?

I could counter offer hornfels, but I don't think it will go granite.

[abyssunder]

" Large and small igneous stocks and bosses are found scattered, particularly in the central part of Langkawi Islands. Out of these there are two larger igneous stocks namely the Gunung Raya and Bukit Sawar stocks. Other bodies including the Kuah, Tuba and Dayang Bunting stocks are comparatively smaller than these two. The Langkawi igneous bodies have been collectively named as the Gunung Raya Granite, which has been dated by Bignell & Snelling (1977) as Late Triassic. Granites of Langkawi are predominantly made of porphyritic granites with some coarse- and fine-grained equigranular granites and rare dyke- and sill- forming pegmatite and aplite. The granites of Langkawi intrude several types of host rocks, transformed them into various types of metamorphic rocks, and bringing along with them some minerals such as tourmaline, ilmenite, zircon and garnet. " - from here

[Rockwood]

That clears it up ?

[abyssunder]

13 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

That clears it up ?

I think, yes.

It may suggest that the hard substrate is a rock, so the encrusting might be recent.

[Rockwood]

6 minutes ago, abyssunder said:

I think, yes.

It may suggest that the hard substrate is a rock, so the encrusting might be recent.

Then you are referring to these igneous and metamorphic rocks as being the exclusive make up of the islands ?

[Plax]

I really don't think we have an argument here fellows. We don't have enough information from the OP.

[abyssunder]

14 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

Then you are referring to these igneous and metamorphic rocks as being the exclusive make up of the islands ?

I'm thinking, that the rock, which has the barnacle attachment scar, is older than the detached barnacle.

[Rockwood]

6 minutes ago, abyssunder said:

I'm thinking, that the rock, which has the barnacle attachment scar, is older than the detached barnacle.

As long as the barnacle is 10,000 years old what difference does it make how old the rock is ?  

[abyssunder]

55 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

As long as the barnacle is 10,000 years old what difference does it make how old the rock is ?  

I think, a 10,000 years old barnacle attachment scar may not look like the specimen in question, considering the quantum of the possible weathering process which may affect the exposed surface of the rock which might be from Triassic - onward.

 

In other words, if the barnacle scar may be from the same age as the host rock, it should have the same erosion level, which I can't see in the OP's picture.

Edited November 29, 2018 by abyssunder

[Innocentx]

I firmly and unquestionably believe!!! that

abba dabba dabba dabba dabba dabba dabba
said the monkey to the tree

I'll never know for sure.

[Rockwood]

1 hour ago, abyssunder said:

the exposed surface of the rock

What if it's been resting peacefully in a nice bed of clay since the beach the barnacle settled onto the already ancient rock on was buried until last Thursday when it fell to the beach ?   

[Innocentx]

6 hours ago, abyssunder said:

I think, a 10,000 years old barnacle attachment scar may not look like the specimen in question, considering the quantum of the possible weathering process which may affect the exposed surface of the rock which might be from Triassic - onward.

 

5 hours ago, Rockwood said:

What if it's been resting peacefully in a nice bed of clay since the beach the barnacle settled onto the already ancient rock on was buried until last Thursday when it fell to the beach ?   

 

Both excellent arguments gentlemen. I'm impressed. ?

[Al Dente]

Fossil barnacles can look modern. Here are some partial Oligocene barnacles attached to a chunk of rock that I photographed in a quarry here North Carolina.

[abyssunder]

8 hours ago, Al Dente said:

Fossil barnacles can look modern. Here are some partial Oligocene barnacles attached to a chunk of rock that I photographed in a quarry here North Carolina.

I agree, but it was found in Oligocene sediments, in a quarry, while the specimen in question looks to be attached to a worn , water/sand polished big rock with rounded margins, which could be from a beach.

-------------------

Now, where was it found and in what geological context?
Was it loose or was extracted from sediments?

[Rockwood]

20 hours ago, Plax said:

I really don't think we have an argument here fellows. We don't have enough information from the OP.

Plax's face about now ?