lorney
having dreams about rocks
Member since December 2020
Posts: 59
|
Post by lorney on Jul 14, 2022 14:13:47 GMT -5
 i am wondering if anyone has an idea of what this is. I have never found anything like it before. Found in southern Alberta. Don’t know exactly what formation it is from because the area is a pit dug along a river bank and I have found other fossils here that are not normally from the area. I have been told that some of the fossils I have found were probably brought down by glaciers from higher up north the mountains. Just looking for a general idea of what it is from someone that has seen something similar. Thanks in advance for any info provided. |
|
|
|
Post by Son Of Beach on Jul 14, 2022 14:48:58 GMT -5
I'm no help, it's cool. Not saying someone here won't chime in, these guys nerd out. www.mindat.org/ |
|
|
|
Post by rmf on Jul 16, 2022 4:47:07 GMT -5
The rock looks like a sandstone with some iron content. My guess is that they are worm tubes, plant/animal buried and filled with sand. The tube looking stuff on top looks like it has more iron. so maybe pyrite that was in the original material and converted to hematite.
I would have said the stuff on top is coprolite but I can't figure out how all the "suppliers" would have known to line up in the same direction. Though it could be a flow thing. I have seen schools of cephlopods deposited like that up in Iowa. so don't think it is poop.
Not pahoehoe due to the basalt material would have vesicles which this does not have.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller 
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Jul 17, 2022 8:14:48 GMT -5
It does look like a cast of bore paths of a clam or other boring creature. Also resembles a surface cast of coarse palm roots or other plant root. These are probably mangrove root casts at Suwannee River in Florida   |
|
|
|
Post by rmf on Jul 17, 2022 12:01:28 GMT -5
The rock looks like a sandstone with some iron content. My guess is that they are worm tubes, plant/animal buried and filled with sand. The tube looking stuff on top looks like it has more iron. so maybe pyrite that was in the original material and converted to hematite. I would have said the stuff on top is coprolite but I can't figure out how all the "suppliers" would have known to line up in the same direction. Though it could be a flow thing. I have seen schools of cephlopods deposited like that up in Iowa. so don't think it is poop. Not pahoehoe due to the basalt material would have vesicles which this does not have. Not all basalt is vesicular, nothing under that surface supports the fossil possibility if you look closely. ETA your ID is one of the most confusing uncertain guesses I’ve ever read, but you’re certain it’s not basalt LOL! Pahoehoe is viscicular, I have a piece down stairs. As always you have the right to believe or trash any opinion offered. It is offered freely and is based on education and experience and what I can figure out from an online image. Also I am not infallible. |
|
