kmt_sesh Posted September 5, 2016 #151 Share Posted September 5, 2016 (edited) Second warning. Posters, keep it civil. We're adults. There's no reason for all of this bickering. One more infraction and I'll lock this thread. Edited September 5, 2016 by kmt_sesh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geonerd Posted September 5, 2016 #152 Share Posted September 5, 2016 Its a piece of chert (silicate). The inclusions are a diagenetic effect caused from the percolation of groundwater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted September 5, 2016 #153 Share Posted September 5, 2016 49 minutes ago, geonerd said: Its a piece of chert (silicate). The inclusions are a diagenetic effect caused from the percolation of groundwater. That's a very definitive identification.. - I think we need to ask you to show your work.. Ie, can you tell us how you came to this conclusion, and can you show us something similar (with particular note to the repeating patterns shown in the OP)? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back to earth Posted September 5, 2016 #154 Share Posted September 5, 2016 (edited) Well, if it isnt too 'bullying' of me to ask ... is that just an idea or do you have some more to back up your assertion? and for clarity; I am nit that much of a 'black or white guy' , like I said, I am thinking the fossil idea , as outlined above, is the best option yet, do I have to make a definitive statement at this stage and answer 'which is it ?' Why is that such a hot issue ? People are making , what reads to me, like outright assertions just based on the fact that are valid because they wrote them down . Like the above one in post 152 , that's how that statement reads to me . However, if more relevant information and evidence can be given for this, I might think that this idea above is more likely . I even started off thinking it was a carving , a shop object, a ..... as more info comes in . Why is this so bamboozling to some ? Edited September 5, 2016 by back to earth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted September 5, 2016 #155 Share Posted September 5, 2016 6 hours ago, geonerd said: Its a piece of chert (silicate). The inclusions are a diagenetic effect caused from the percolation of groundwater. So "percolation" cause's a carved border around the diagenetic effect of the bubbling ground water? Really! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted September 5, 2016 #156 Share Posted September 5, 2016 Chert is not only a silicate, it is microcrystalline quartz. It's not limestone. Groundwater isn't going to have that effect on it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted September 5, 2016 #157 Share Posted September 5, 2016 39 minutes ago, Socks Junior said: Chert is not only a silicate, it is microcrystalline quartz. It's not limestone. Groundwater isn't going to have that effect on it. ....Unless it was originally included with calcite: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crinoidal_vuggy_chert_(Carboniferous;_limestone_quarry_near_Komsomolske,_southeastern_Ukraine)_-_2.jpg (Be sure to read the description) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted September 5, 2016 #158 Share Posted September 5, 2016 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Oniomancer said: ....Unless it was originally included with calcite: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crinoidal_vuggy_chert_(Carboniferous;_limestone_quarry_near_Komsomolske,_southeastern_Ukraine)_-_2.jpg (Be sure to read the description) Good point. I spoke hastily. If diagenesis of a protolith to chert was being suggested I'd be a little more receptive. However, chertification doesn't really explain the pattern. The rock in question doesn't resemble chert, also. EDIT: Additionally, chertification takes place on carbonate seds - a transformation, not a diagenetic on the chert itself. The formation of the chert is facilitated by groundwater, not later alteration of the chert itself. Edited September 5, 2016 by Socks Junior 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted September 5, 2016 #159 Share Posted September 5, 2016 5 minutes ago, Socks Junior said: Good point. I spoke hastily. If diagenesis of a protolith to chert was being suggested I'd be a little more receptive. However, chertification doesn't really explain the pattern. The rock in question doesn't resemble chert, however. Referring back to the Wooster pics, you'll see that the matrix and the interior patterns appear to be the same material while the rest of the infill between is clear calcite. I think something like that is going on here, leaving the insides standing out the same as the spaces between the crinoid segments in the above, only less so. Chert is widely variable. But, it could as easily be calcite in more resistant limestone. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted September 5, 2016 #160 Share Posted September 5, 2016 7 hours ago, Oniomancer said: Referring back to the Wooster pics, you'll see that the matrix and the interior patterns appear to be the same material while the rest of the infill between is clear calcite. I think something like that is going on here, leaving the insides standing out the same as the spaces between the crinoid segments in the above, only less so. Chert is widely variable. But, it could as easily be calcite in more resistant limestone. Indeed. I believe in the Wooster pics that the matrix and interior in question may be the carbonate seds/limestone that the fossil was deposited in. I agree that we're probably seeing the same thing here. I just don't think it's chert, although I agree chert is variable in appearance. Hard to tell a whole lot from the provided photos, of course. It's weathered and rounded, which could...possibly...mean that it started as more nodular... Dang, I'm convincing myself that I'm not sure. I'd love to have it in my hand - could tell pretty quick with a couple scratches if it was limestone or microcrystalline quartz. Regardless, I lean towards the calcite in the a carbonate sed protolith (limestone of some variety). It's odd though, every weird rock that gets brought up here is always limestone. The seds will get you every time. Why can't they be igneous rocks, the superior variety? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Oard Posted September 6, 2016 #161 Share Posted September 6, 2016 On September 4, 2016 at 6:14 AM, ouija ouija said: I wonder if the OP's stone looks carved/etched because different substances erode at different rates? I agree with you completely. Differentially etching beacuse of differential erosion is a very likely explanation. As far as what the rock and fossil are composed of is difficult to say with any certainly without being able to personally inspect the specimen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Oard Posted September 6, 2016 #162 Share Posted September 6, 2016 (edited) On September 4, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Zenith said: I don't know anything about this stuff tbh but just reading some of the posts, is the Bactroptyxis something that would be found in Texas? The samples shown here and there seem to be from France.. or have I missed something somewhere? Go look at "Studies of some Comanche pelecypods and gastropods," (of Texas) by T. W. Stanton, U. S. Professional Paper 211, at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0211/report.pdf and https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp211 Go look at Plate 61, no. 6, Nerinea volana. It is vary similar to the specimen under discussion. A person has to remeber that there exists a fair range of natural variability, including internal structure, between individual animals even within a species. For example, the variation between fingerprints is the type of variability that can be expected. Edited September 6, 2016 by James Oard add missing word 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted September 6, 2016 #163 Share Posted September 6, 2016 James, thanks for the excellent links you have posted. For those of a lazy nature (usually that's me), here are a couple quick selections from that last link you supplied. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmccr8 Posted September 7, 2016 #164 Share Posted September 7, 2016 A dremel with the right bit,a bench vice and media blasting, the effect could be relatively easy to produce. jmccr8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted September 7, 2016 #165 Share Posted September 7, 2016 I'm finding out that a few "neat rocks" I've found in the past and misplaced could have been fossils. As I mentioned earlier, I've found a few that really look like what was in the op. The last little embers I have in my heart from wanting to be a rockhound as a kid are sobbing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgv007 Posted September 7, 2016 #166 Share Posted September 7, 2016 15 hours ago, shadowsot said: I'm finding out that a few "neat rocks" I've found in the past and misplaced could have been fossils. As I mentioned earlier, I've found a few that really look like what was in the op. The last little embers I have in my heart from wanting to be a rockhound as a kid are sobbing. Keep your eyes open and you'll be surprised the things you can find. I found this suspect meteorite in a field outside the city limits . Never is too late to start looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted September 7, 2016 #167 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Nice. Not a lot of rock hunting to be done in Florida, mostly spend my time on history and at work really. When I am able i try to get down to the sorings, there great fossil hunting to be had there. Have a nearly intact fossil of a sea urchin and peace of a rib bone of a dewgong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ell Posted September 7, 2016 #168 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Can it be a fossil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back to earth Posted September 7, 2016 #169 Share Posted September 7, 2016 (edited) 57 minutes ago, shadowsot said: Nice. Not a lot of rock hunting to be done in Florida, mostly spend my time on history and at work really. When I am able i try to get down to the sorings, there great fossil hunting to be had there. Have a nearly intact fossil of a sea urchin and peace of a rib bone of a dewgong. Edited September 8, 2016 by back to earth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted September 8, 2016 #170 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Dugong, damgit. I've. Got the spelling for he Pokemon stuck in my head. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ouija ouija Posted September 8, 2016 #171 Share Posted September 8, 2016 On 05/09/2016 at 4:20 AM, kmt_sesh said: We're adults. Define 'adults'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back to earth Posted September 9, 2016 #172 Share Posted September 9, 2016 On 9/8/2016 at 10:28 AM, shadowsot said: Dugong, damgit. I've. Got the spelling for he Pokemon stuck in my head. You mean Pukemon ? You can find him via Fecebook . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted September 9, 2016 #173 Share Posted September 9, 2016 Oh yeah. Totally. Pokemon is such a kids game and no serious adult would play it. I certainly don't have Pokemon Go or a Gameboy advance emulator and various roms on my phone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soul71 Posted September 27, 2016 #174 Share Posted September 27, 2016 Dude you found the remains of a gargoyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now