hndmarshall Posted February 11, 2019 Author Share Posted February 11, 2019 16 minutes ago, JohnJ said: Wider shots of the fractured pieces are also useful. I'm still thinking cherty shell hash. ok working on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hndmarshall Posted February 11, 2019 Author Share Posted February 11, 2019 a not so close look at fractured rock...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 49 minutes ago, JohnJ said: I'm still thinking cherty shell hash. Gee, I'd like to say it looks like @ynot was wrong, but I'm not ready to throw in the towel myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Uh, yeah. It still looks like a piece of agate/jasper (low grade) to Me. I still see nothing that looks like fossil to Me. The shapes look mineral. But I will concede to @JohnJ and say it could be chert/flint with shell bits in it. 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...
JohnJ Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 The wide shots convince me more that this is a silicified shell hash. 30 minutes ago, hndmarshall said: a not so close look at fractured rock...... I see evidence of 3 - 4 rows of what look to be eroded, echinoid ambulacral pores in this view. If it is, then this is subsurface preservation, so the "test" is long gone. 1 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 He may have us with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hndmarshall Posted February 11, 2019 Author Share Posted February 11, 2019 2 hours ago, JohnJ said: The wide shots convince me more that this is a silicified shell hash. I see evidence of 3 - 4 rows of what look to be eroded, echinoid ambulacral pores in this view. If it is, then this is subsurface preservation, so the "test" is long gone. I dont think so look at all the pics posted up toward the beginning not sure what it is but I have doubts of an echinoid ..... I will keep searching online for something similar though have even searchd through echinoids not found a match though....if you look at the last two pics you will see where two are missing leaving an empty spot or cast?..not sure what you would call it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 It's not likely you would be able to find a match...even if it is echinoid ambulacral pores. The fossils within your rock a mix of broken bits and internal casts. The internal cast of an echinoid's pore pairs will not resemble external preservation. Look at these images and try to imagine sediment infilling the pores, minus the surface test (shell). It may not be residual evidence of an echinoid among the "hash", but it certainly has an echinoderm look to it. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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