|
Post by fernwood on Dec 6, 2019 5:42:50 GMT -5
After the discussion on another thread, am going out on a limb and reclassifying some of my finds. Let me know if my logic is correct. Coral. It is about 6.5 hardness. This one is tricky, as it retained the white color. Would it be considered a fossil or a preserved coral? Shark teeth. The top one is about 7 hardness. Obvious mineral replacement. The bottom one has mineral replacement for the root area. The tooth area retained its original appearance. The root area is about a 7. The tooth area about a 6. Would the top one be considered a fossil? Bottom one not? Shells. Since the shells themselves have no mineral replacement and retained their color, would they be considered preserved shells? The matrix is rock of about 6.5 hardness. Thanks
|
|
Fossilman
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2009
Posts: 20,680
|
Post by Fossilman on Dec 6, 2019 10:29:31 GMT -5
Yes they would be considered fossils...
|
|
|
Post by rmf on Dec 6, 2019 10:45:02 GMT -5
The coral carcas shown above is secreted from the critters themselves so I would not term that a fossil. Many of these shark teeth are partially mineralized so typically called fossils unless recent. The shells I would also call fossils though they are not mineralized but they are incased in sediment (Pleistocene?). There are also unmineralized fossils oysters and clams in the Coon Creek Formation (Cretaceous) with the original nacre still intact and they are fossils. But opinions vary.
|
|
|
Post by fernwood on Dec 6, 2019 19:31:04 GMT -5
Thanks.
|
|