Petrified Wood questions

[Kato]

Contact Zone

 

[Kato]

Side view of small piece of contact zone material

[Kato]

Okay, I confess to going back to this location to try and get more info on what type of plant life it might have been.

 

This quartz sandstone contact piece has a semblance of a diamond pattern on the left side.

[ashcraft]

Do you know what kind of depositional environment it comes from?  I have seen Mississippian aged plant material, although ours are casts.  If I found that material around here, I would think stromatolite.

 

Brent Ashcraft

[Kato]

12 minutes ago, ashcraft said:

Do you know what kind of depositional environment it comes from?  I have seen Mississippian aged plant material, although ours are casts.  If I found that material around here, I would think stromatolite.

 

Brent Ashcraft

Yes, it is from the lower Pennsylvanian formation locally known as Gobbler. I have plenty of the permineralized material and have found where it contacted a quartz sandstone matrix, but nothing with clear indication as to what type of material it was. Due to the biggest piece being about 18" in diameter it most likely is some form of Lycopsid.

 

I've found Lepidodendron bark imprinted into the same quartz sandstone matrix in 2 other locations (but no permineralized material at either of them!). Thus, I spent several hours looking for some kind of contact imprint. The pic I most recently attached was the best I could find so far.

[Kato]

Updating with more info for permineralized material lovers. I've since found a 3rd and possibly 4th tree. Each one similar but distinct differences.

 

Site 3

 

Insect or rot damage? This specimen is 5" tall

 

Top view of damage area

 

Side view of damage area

 

Zoom to single 'tube' of top view

 

 

 

 

[Kato]

Site3 piece showing high iron content. As posted, this specimen is 7" wide (7" tall if vertical)

 

This one reminds me of a big hunk of good BBQ meat for some reason.

[Kato]

Possible Site4. I found this potential area, but did not investigate further. Note orange arrow at bottom of pic that I'm hopeful is an end view of a potential specimen.

 

[Kato]

From site4, small pieces (branches?? small trees?) had this interesting pattern similar to the damage in the pics above. 

 

 

[Kato]

Site2 pieces are darker and druzy in complexion. This one is 10" tall.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kato]

Site2 pieces are black with some brown mixed in. Most pieces are druzy and range from 4"-10" in length. Small roundish pieces suggest 'branches' or smaller plants. Very bright day and part of the site was in shade so not a good pic. Approximately 40 specimens bigger than 4" in length

 

[Innocentx]

Fun times for sure. I think you're right about the rot preservation which, to me, adds interest to the fossil.

 

[ynot]

2 hours ago, Kato said:

Insect or rot damage? This specimen is 5" tall

Looks like palm or fern wood.

[Kato]

On 2/1/2019 at 5:38 PM, ynot said:

Looks like palm or fern wood.

ynot, do you think that area is xylem?

 

Originally, I thought I was finding some small pieces that I thought might be associated with the final branching. Now I think I was finding standalone xylem.

 

Here is a specimen of potential xylem about 3" long. Left end about 1.25" wide, right end 1"

 

 

End view

 

[ynot]

57 minutes ago, Kato said:

ynot, do you think that area is xylem?

Sorry, but that is beyond My knowledge base. Maybe @Plantguy can answer this.

I have seen a bunch of petrified palm and fern wood and it often has this type of fibrous appearance.

[Plantguy]

1 hour ago, ynot said:

Sorry, but that is beyond My knowledge base. Maybe @Plantguy can answer this.

I have seen a bunch of petrified palm and fern wood and it often has this type of fibrous appearance.

Hey Guys, thanks Tony..interesting thread that I've missed again...I'm not a wood person and cant answer your question, but I am sold youve got some interesting pieces there, very likely showing the internal makeup of lycopods and who knows what else. The external remmants of leaf scars/textures in some of those shots is mighty cool. I could see me sleeping out there and not wanting to go home so I could explore till no light was left. Did the polar vortex effect you at all--that last statement about sleeping there may be foolish/crazy this time of year--some of you all were dealing with life threatening cold.--sorry. 

 

I'm watching the game right now and doing chores and looking at things here...if I get a chance I'll look around and see if there are any obscure pubs that may provide some help cause I'm certainly not much help here! Cool finds. 

Regards, Chris 

 

 

[Kato]

37 minutes ago, Plantguy said:

Hey Guys, thanks Tony..interesting thread that I've missed again...I'm not a wood person and cant answer your question, but I am sold youve got some interesting pieces there, very likely showing the internal makeup of lycopods and who knows what else. The external remmants of leaf scars/textures in some of those shots is mighty cool. I could see me sleeping out there and not wanting to go home so I could explore till no light was left. Did the polar vortex effect you at all--that last statement about sleeping there may be foolish/crazy this time of year--some of you all were dealing with life threatening cold.--sorry. 

 

I'm watching the game right now and doing chores and looking at things here...if I get a chance I'll look around and see if there are any obscure pubs that may provide some help cause I'm certainly not much help here! Cool finds. 

Regards, Chris 

 

 

Looking forward to any and all guidance and opinions. There is not quite enough fossil evidence to point explicitly to lycopods and/or ferns for the 3 different sites found.

 

According to local geological strat maps I am firmly in the middle of the lower Pennsylvanian (Gobbler) here. No chance that is wrong as the low marker bed for middle Pennsylvanian is 1/2 mile away and over 500 feet higher than the sites I am examining. Carboniferous but too early for palm trees. 

 

No polar vortex effect here so I've had plenty of time to return to expand my search pattern in this area. 

[Kato]

Hmm...I guess I found a small 'forest' today. Too many trees to upload images. I found so many permineralized plants and other types of fossils I basically left a few bucketful of brachiopods behind. 

 

At this new site I counted 10 separate specimen locations on this first visit. I was not able to spend satisfactory time making detailed notes.

 

These plants were shades of white-gray, shades of yellow and a solitary red location was found

 

Whitish material. Exposed width was 24"

 

This one approximately 14" x 16" as viewed

 

A yellow specimen that made it home. 16" long

 

The 'knot' on the lower end of the yellow one

 

A solitary 'knot' specimen found adjacent to the yellow specimen

 

[Kato]

a couple of red specimens that made it home about 6" wide

6"x6"

 

This odd almost charred looking specimen that butted up against the contact zone material I have been using as a marker to associate with permineralized material. Forgive me, when I see these I think BBQ meat.

 

and then these two pics from a white specimen (the white ones seem especially brittle and no long pieces found)

 

I wonder if this is where something branched off? Front and back pics

 

 

[ynot]

Nice finds. Beautiful colors.

[Kato]

Another location found with what appears to be Sigillaria. In this case, a number of black pieces with long parallel striations on the outside

 

 

and a few of these contact pieces at the same locations showing long parallel striations suggesting Sigillaria

 

 

 

 

[Plantguy]

More neat pieces! 

 

I"m not sure how much pub/document diving/reading you've already done. I was looking around at some pubs and I suspect youve seen this general pub below. If you are really into the geology of it all it might be interesting to visit the Gobbler Fm. type section as mentioned (if its even accessible--could be on private land/etc) and not already described in detail somewhere--I suspect it must be. Are you near it--Have you been?--might help in figuring out the beds/markers that are within and then compare to what you are looking at especially if you have topographic inhibitors/vegetation/faulting/igneous/metamorphic influences.. Might have thickness changes too but might provide some significant insight if there arent any other detailed pubs out there. I'll keep looking around...the references in the doc below might have some good leads...

 

The Pennsylvanian System in New Mexico— overview with suggestions for revision of stratigraphic nomenclature Barry S. Kues, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f647/650185608d9c39529a26cc6480c4208c5a9b.pdf

New Mexico Geology November 2001 

from page 117:

Sacramento Mountains The Pennsylvanian sequence of the Sacramento Mountains was divided into (in ascending order) the Gobbler, Beeman, and Holder Formations by Pray (1959, 1961), all based on a continuous type section near Long Ridge and Mule Canyon southeast of Alamogordo. There, the Gobbler Formation (?Morrowan or early Atokan–late Desmoinesian in age; Bachman and Myers, 1975; Wilson, 1989) is approximately 400 m (1,300 ft) thick, and the Beeman (Missourian–possibly early Virgilian in age; Bachman and Myers, 1975; Raatz and Simo, 1998) is 120 m (400 ft) thick. The Holder Formation (early–late Virgilian) attains a maximum thickness of approximately 275 m (900 ft) north of the type section.

 

Regards, Chris 

 

[Kato]

24 minutes ago, Plantguy said:

More neat pieces! 

 

I"m not sure how much pub/document diving/reading you've already done. I was looking around at some pubs and I suspect youve seen this general pub below. If you are really into the geology of it all it might be interesting to visit the Gobbler Fm. type section as mentioned (if its even accessible--could be on private land/etc) and not already described in detail somewhere--I suspect it must be. Are you near it--Have you been?--might help in figuring out the beds/markers that are within and then compare to what you are looking at especially if you have topographic inhibitors/vegetation/faulting/igneous/metamorphic influences.. Might have thickness changes too but might provide some significant insight if there arent any other detailed pubs out there. I'll keep looking around...the references in the doc below might have some good leads...

 

The Pennsylvanian System in New Mexico— overview with suggestions for revision of stratigraphic nomenclature Barry S. Kues, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f647/650185608d9c39529a26cc6480c4208c5a9b.pdf

New Mexico Geology November 2001 

from page 117:

Sacramento Mountains The Pennsylvanian sequence of the Sacramento Mountains was divided into (in ascending order) the Gobbler, Beeman, and Holder Formations by Pray (1959, 1961), all based on a continuous type section near Long Ridge and Mule Canyon southeast of Alamogordo. There, the Gobbler Formation (?Morrowan or early Atokan–late Desmoinesian in age; Bachman and Myers, 1975; Wilson, 1989) is approximately 400 m (1,300 ft) thick, and the Beeman (Missourian–possibly early Virgilian in age; Bachman and Myers, 1975; Raatz and Simo, 1998) is 120 m (400 ft) thick. The Holder Formation (early–late Virgilian) attains a maximum thickness of approximately 275 m (900 ft) north of the type section.

 

Regards, Chris 

 

Hi, Chris. Yep, I've essentially been using Pray as the bible for here and have at least half a dozen pubs on the local Mississippian and Pennsylvanian formations.

 

I've specifically been focused on the Gobbler due to fairly reasonable access. The Beeman involves ascending through all the Gobbler Formations including surmounting 2 formations that are cliff-like and a minimum of 10 feet high each. In some places the formations are over 50 feet thick each. This winter I am avoiding the Beeman due to that. Plenty to cover below that my first year here. Next winter after I've gained more familiarity with the area I will make that my first focus, followed by the Holder. The Holder will involved some 4WD and still plenty of uphill packing.

 

For me, the issue is the Penn Beeman is known to have permineralized materials but I've found no listings or findings for the Gobbler. I've developed a set of 3 formations and several critieria I use when I've found the correct sequence of formations...using them, I have now ID'ed about 20 unique specimen locations within 3 areas. Offhand, I know of at least another 6 areas where I know I've seen the formations.

 

At the time I was doing mega back country hikes looking for other types of fossils not necessarily knowing what I was looking at. I have pictures of quartz sandstone matrix with Lepidodendron imprints from two locations I have not returned to. 

 

The permineralized material I am finding is only occasionally present in the Gobbler. If you make note of the strat maps and geological descriptions of the Gobbler formations, they make no mention of camptonite or rhyolite intrusions but these are required to help zero in on finding material. The material bearing formation drifits in and out of existence. It is not ever present.

[Kato]

Add this 3" diameter and 4" long piece of xylem from one of the 8 specimen sites found today.

 

[ynot]

12 minutes ago, Kato said:

this 3" diameter and 4" long piece of xylem

This looks more like a mineral deposit than petrified wood.

Can You post additional pictures?Close ups and the other sides.