|
|
Post by tandl on Sept 8, 2011 9:18:26 GMT -5
Not sure about it being fossil but does resemble sponges i find. First thought was picture mudstone . looks silicified to a extent. Minnesota picture rock ;D
|
|
stubbyholders
off to a rocking start
Member since September 2011
Posts: 4
|
Post by stubbyholders on Sept 8, 2011 12:54:16 GMT -5
I think it is a treasure or it looks like a fossil.
|
|
Minnesota Daniel
freely admits to licking rocks
A COUPLE LAKERS
Member since August 2011
Posts: 891
|
Post by Minnesota Daniel on Sept 8, 2011 16:41:38 GMT -5
It's completely silicified, the lighter stuff in the middle is even translucent if you look at a thin edge of it. The picture doesn't show the grain well. It's very 3d, almost more like swirling tubes. Here's another pic: The two images are the same stone, but with the sunlight coming from opposite directions to highlight as much of the grain as possible.
|
|
|
Post by tandl on Sept 8, 2011 17:35:21 GMT -5
Im definetly going with fossil . Coral or sponge . check out stromatoporoid sponges . see what you think . Good pictures , still hard to say for sure.
|
|
|
Post by tanyafrench on Sept 9, 2011 9:20:04 GMT -5
What ever it is it sure is a pretty colorful stone. Great find!
Tanya
|
|
Minnesota Daniel
freely admits to licking rocks
A COUPLE LAKERS
Member since August 2011
Posts: 891
|
Post by Minnesota Daniel on Sept 9, 2011 15:28:01 GMT -5
In the same landscaping rock/same house I also found a piece that with a hand lens looks like it might be (not pet wood) plant material. About thumb sized and thoroughly agatized, it is comprised of orangish blocky cells interspersed with much smaller nearly clear round cells. There are no rays like in some corals, or in wood either. The round cells seem to almost form patterns of lines or arcs, and I think when I look at what I'm assuming is the end grain/cross section, they are actually forming circles -- exactly like vascular bundles in dicotyledons. I'll try to get a pic after I cut off a small piece and polish the end.
This makes the third completely agatized fossil I've discovered in glacial outwash in Minnesota while looking for (and finding) Lake Superior agates. I am having a hard time comparing them to pictures of fossils online, because most of them seem to have been extracted from or mixed in with sedimentary rock and the pictures aren't very comparable. I think eventually I'll have to pay a visit to the Natural History Museum to see what I have.
|
|
|
Post by tandl on Sept 9, 2011 16:24:04 GMT -5
your plant sounds like a small log of wood i have . the pattern anyway . it is black with white flower like jobs on the end , ive seen nothing like it . find a good many quartz replaced fossils here , but as you say hard to research . i think the glaciers took away more than is thought from up north, it`s here now, but where was it from ? it aint there to tell ;D anticipating your plant pics
|
|
Minnesota Daniel
freely admits to licking rocks
A COUPLE LAKERS
Member since August 2011
Posts: 891
|
Post by Minnesota Daniel on Sept 9, 2011 17:42:25 GMT -5
Yes. The really beautiful and finely detailed fossils I've seen, the ones most easily identified, look like they would have been pulverized by a glacier. The ones I'm finding though are 100% chalcedony, worn by glaciation, and the details just aren't there. Even if you cut them it's hard to make out a lot of detail. On the other hand, there are actually millions of these fossils laying around all over the place, unrecognized and unnoticed (among trillions and trillions of other rocks). Somebody must have seen and identified this stuff already!
|
|
|
Post by tandl on Sept 9, 2011 18:08:56 GMT -5
Not all is known . Not all were pulverized . Some made it. some are sand .i better stop ;D keep rockin ;D O and show pics of the plant . i have tried to take photos of the wood i spoke of but the detail is fine , i could draw a picture , maybe ;D
|
|