Clubmoss Rootstock?

[Nomad Z]

While waiting for my rock pick to arrive (I'm a noob), I went for a recce to a site in Fife in Scotland, on the coast of the Firth of Forth. I gather the site is carboniferous limestone. While mooching about trying to work out how to tell the difference between rocks and fossils, I spotted this...

 

 

And an oblique view...

 

 

The regularity of the dimples is what caught my attention. The dimpled surface is pretty flat, and there are no similar features on any other surfaces. It was lying loose, roughly in the area shown here...

 

 

In other words, at the boundary between the high tide mark and the dryer stuff. I didn't need to clean it or anything - the photos show it in the condition in which it was found.

 

A bit of searching afterwards leaves me thinking that it's a fragment of clubmoss rootstock (Stigmaria Ficoides). Does that sound about right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TqB]

You're absolutely right.  (But, being pedantic, specific name first letters are always lower case so it's Stigmaria ficoides. And it's probably safer to leave the species out  anyway with a worn and fragmentary specimen. To further complicate things, Stigmaria is a form genus for the root structure, rather than the generic name of a whole organism.)

[doushantuo]

I read somewhere that the designation "morphotaxon" might be in order.

Always a nice find,Carboniferous vegetation

[TqB]

6 minutes ago, doushantuo said:

I read somewhere that the designation "morphotaxon" might be in order

Things sound so much better in Greek. 

[doushantuo]

They do

...Btw,prolly somewhere in the "Botanical Code"(shorthand)

edit: All anatomical proof that the organism was a living ,growing thing have to be taken into acount.

edit two: for a proper systematic placement.

 

[Rockwood]

58 minutes ago, Nomad Z said:

While mooching about trying to work out how to tell the difference between rocks and fossils, I spotted this...

Good eye. This is precisely how I recommend anyone get started.

[caldigger]

Ugh,  theres nothing like a nomadic moocher!  

[Nomad Z]

Thanks very much, folks - good to know it's not, say a bit of worked masonry.

 

On 10/14/2019 at 11:20 AM, TqB said:

You're absolutely right.  (But, being pedantic, specific name first letters are always lower case so it's Stigmaria ficoides. And it's probably safer to leave the species out  anyway with a worn and fragmentary specimen. To further complicate things, Stigmaria is a form genus for the root structure, rather than the generic name of a whole organism.)

 

Thanks for clarifying and duly noted for the future. Should it always be italicised as well? 

 

On 10/14/2019 at 11:58 AM, Rockwood said:

Good eye. This is precisely how I recommend anyone get started.

Spotting rocks that looks like rocks is easy; spotting rocks that look like fossils is maybe a bit harder, but I've still to work out how to spot rocks that look like rocks but might contain fossils.

 

On 10/14/2019 at 2:37 PM, caldigger said:

Ugh,  theres nothing like a nomadic moocher!  

Rather that than a static one.

 

I looked up 'mooch', and it apparently means something like 'scrounge' in US English. In the UK, it's more like 'loiter aimlessly'. In my locale (SE Scotland), we'd probably use the term 'sniffing about'.

 

[Coco]

21 minutes ago, Nomad Z said:

Thanks for clarifying and duly noted for the future. Should it always be italicised as well?

Yes, italic letters mean that it is latin language.

 

Coco

[Rockwood]

1 hour ago, Nomad Z said:

Spotting rocks that looks like rocks is easy; spotting rocks that look like fossils is maybe a bit harder, but I've still to work out how to spot rocks that look like rocks but might contain fossils.

You just put your finger on a very useful concept. Carefully note what the rocks that contain fossils look like, color, texture, bedding, etc.. It's a clue as to what rocks deserve a closer look going forward.