CluelessAboutFossils Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 While I am more knowledgeable about fossils than when I joined, this thing is confusing me. It is porous with fine holes and appears to be bone, but it could be wood. Any clues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CluelessAboutFossils Posted September 20, 2019 Author Share Posted September 20, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CluelessAboutFossils Posted September 20, 2019 Author Share Posted September 20, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CluelessAboutFossils Posted September 20, 2019 Author Share Posted September 20, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FranzBernhard Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 @CluelessAboutFossils, maybe another Texas mystery object called rudist? http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/89929-rudist/ http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/98139-what-did-i-stumble-upon/ http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/97055-is-this-what-it-seems/ But I don´t really know, its a tricky item! Maybe other members can help, thanks! @erose, @grandpa, @JohnJ, @Uncle Siphuncle Franz Bernhard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandpa Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 9 minutes ago, FranzBernhard said: maybe another Texas mystery object called rudist Ah, invoking the @Rockwood principle I see. Well, it's as good a guess as any. I'm ready to go out on a limb (without seeing the item in hand) and say that the sample contains some rudist portion that is preserved in a piece of chert/agate. (But, if the sample is photoed wet, I cannot be near as certain about the "chert/agate" part of that statement. I actually have some W. Tx. Rio Grande agate from Eagle Pass with rudist inclusions that looks very much like this piece.) If that is the case there is not enough of the rudist preserved for me to ID it. Those familiar with the cellular differences in the various rudists might have better luck from the small exposure of shell cross-section that I think I see. I myself have to go by the macro-structure, however to ID rudists. Of course, this whole opinion is putting a lot of weight on speculation based on photos vs. hands-on examination. So take it for what it is worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 Almost pulled the trigger on this one myself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 The overall shape suggests no fossil that I have seen from the area. Close up photos (sub mm detail) might give us a better ID on the rock. I have seen no petrified wood or rudists in Post Oak Creek. I have seen a yellowish brown, well-cemented, vuggy silt/ sandstone that crops out in the creek above where most of the teeth and oysters occur in the creek. I believe that it is a piece of Bells Sandstone that is the probable source for most of the shark teeth in the creek. Bells Sandstone is sometimes called the fish bed conglomerate. See for more info on the sandstones: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/UnitRefs/LakeCrockettRefs_9228.html @CluelessAboutFossils can you see any phosphatic black nodules, sand grains, rounded coarse sand or rounded small gravel in the rock that might indicate that it is from the Bells Sandstone? 2 My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CluelessAboutFossils Posted September 21, 2019 Author Share Posted September 21, 2019 3 hours ago, DPS Ammonite said: The overall shape suggests no fossil that I have seen from the area. Close up photos (sub mm detail) might give us a better ID on the rock. I have seen no petrified wood or rudists in Post Oak Creek. I have seen a yellowish brown, well-cemented, vuggy silt/ sandstone that crops out in the creek above where most of the teeth and oysters occur in the creek. I believe that it is a piece of Bells Sandstone that is the probable source for most of the shark teeth in the creek. Bells Sandstone is sometimes called the fish bed conglomerate. See for more info on the sandstones: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/UnitRefs/LakeCrockettRefs_9228.html @CluelessAboutFossils can you see any phosphatic black nodules, sand grains, rounded coarse sand or rounded small gravel in the rock that might indicate that it is from the Bells Sandstone? There are no grains/ nodules of any kind- it is a solid piece. I keep trying to take photos of the areas that most strongly suggest that it was indeed “something”, but iPhone cameras just don’t capture it. I’m going to try and find a friend with a professional camera and have them photograph it. But yeah, no rudists or petrified wood that I’ve found. I’m just kinda clueless on it, but oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cck Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 Reminds me of a periotic from something? Just a vibe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldigger Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 11 hours ago, CluelessAboutFossils said: iPhone cameras just don’t capture it. I’m going to try and find a friend with an Android phone, they take better pictures. 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