Plant? Sea bed?

[Ruger9a]

I purchased this fossil about 15 years ago because of the low cost.  But the low cost came with a complete lack of information, except "found in either NY or VT in the late 60s to early 70s".  I originally bought it for the sea floor side but when I received it I was intrigued with the reverse side.  So...….. I removed some matrix and found what looks like a plant.  Is this a plant?  Can it be identified? Is it a portion of sea bed?Puzzled.....

[Ruger9a]

Reverse (sea bed?) side

[Tidgy's Dad]

Not sure about the top surface, but the bottom picture I'll have a stab at. 

I can't see any zooecia, so I think it's a trace fossil, burrows of some kind. 

[westcoast]

Yes, nice trace fossils.

[Rockwood]

Agreed. I see no indication that the top is plant material.

[Ruger9a]

Great.  I have trace fossils for the actual front and nothing but "wishful thinking" for the reverse.  Another for display.  Thank you.

[Rockwood]

6 minutes ago, Ruger9a said:

nothing but "wishful thinking" for the reverse

I see the two sides as being equal in interest myself. It's the same, but different. 

[Ruger9a]

You have a point.  I think I'll just flip it over from time to time;)

[Randyw]

Are we sure about this?

when I look at the one side I also see what could be plant. And if you ever look at a puddle with small silt covered items ( sticks or what have you) it looks exactly like the other side.... not arguing with my learned betters but not convinced either....

[Rockwood]

2 hours ago, Randyw said:

And if you ever look at a puddle with small silt covered items ( sticks or what have you) it looks exactly like the other side.... 

The plane of cleavage would typically be between the plant and the silt, exposing the surface texture of the smoothest surface of the plant. You would need a mechanism to have formed such a cleavage plane between the silt and something else that was just slightly weaker than it to get this result. 

[Randyw]

Yes you would. First are we sure this is from under water and not from land...

the reason I mention it is I used to have a piece that looked similar and out of curiosity I broke open one of the “sticks” and there was another material inside. The piece has been lost to time and too many moves without fully unpacking but I seem to remember thinking it was coral (Or something like it) at the time but I was younger and dumber then so I don’t remember for sure...

 

[Randyw]

They have found both sea and land fossils there In Vermont  ( nothing Jurassic, Cretaceous or the like) but earlier and later after the ice sheets flooded it then receded again. So it was sea early (trilobites corals, etc) then land (this period missing from the geologic rock) then freshwater then sea again then land again. They’ve even found a few mammoth pieces

most of the rock in New York is over 190 mya

[Rockwood]

The point being ?