kingkimee
Tenderfoot
I found this speciman in Beaver County , Utah . I searched the web for anything that looks like it and found nothing . Today im headed to the geoscience dept at UNLV to see if they can help . Anyone have any ideas ?
Mushroom cluster fossil ???
- Thread starter kingkimee
- Start date
Jason in Enid
Gold Member
- Oct 10, 2009
- 9,581
- 9,202
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
There is no such thing as fossil mushrooms. You have a natural mineral formation.
Harry Pristis
Bronze Member
The mystery object appears to be a cave deposit specimen, a speleothem.
--------------
"The species of palm is called scientically, Palmoxylodon mohavensis."
Palm trees have no teeth ("-don"). The palm root pictured would be called Rhizopalmoxylon.
The common practice for petrified wood is to use "form genera" names for specimens, thus all petrified palm fiber is described as Palmoxylon sp and the roots as Rhizopalmoxylon sp. The reason for this convention is that the wood rarely gets as much attention as the foliage when plants are described and these components are rarely, if ever, found attached.
--------------
"The species of palm is called scientically, Palmoxylodon mohavensis."
Palm trees have no teeth ("-don"). The palm root pictured would be called Rhizopalmoxylon.
The common practice for petrified wood is to use "form genera" names for specimens, thus all petrified palm fiber is described as Palmoxylon sp and the roots as Rhizopalmoxylon sp. The reason for this convention is that the wood rarely gets as much attention as the foliage when plants are described and these components are rarely, if ever, found attached.
Harry Pristis is referring to a post where I called a petrified palm root from the late upper Miocene Dove Spring Formation, Mojave Desert, California, Palmoxylon mohavensis; HP pointed out that by convention the fossil palm root should be called Rhizopalmoxylon mohavensis.
To clarify: I am well aware of the current paleobotanical convention regarding "form" genera for fossil palm specimens. Yet, there is presently no known fossil palm root that paleobotanists would call Rhizopalmoxylon mohavensis. On the other hand, in the paleobotanical literature there are indeed petrified palm roots identified as Palmoxylon mohavensis, as named by paleobotanist Irma E. Webber in 1933.
Here's the salient quote, from Woods From The Ricardo Pliocene Of Last Chance Gulch, California, by Irma E. Webber: Contributions To Paleontology, Carnegie Institute Of Washington Publication 412, Issued in September, 1933; the words "palm root" in parentheses are mine, by the way, to help avoid confusion through Webber's repeated use of the pronoun "it."
"Palmoxylodon mohavensis (new species). Drabble has published descriptions of a number of modern palm roots, but none of the specimens described by him is identical with that of the fossil species under consideration. The species was compared with a number of roots of the modern Washingtonia. Since the Pliocene palm root differs somewhat from that of Washingtonia, and since it (palm root) was associated with palm stems that differ markedly from those of Washingtonia, it (palm root) is referred to Palmoxylon mohavensis, the species of palm represented by wood in the deposits."
The upshot is that through long-held established usage, Irma E. Webber's original descriptions of the Dove Spring Formation petrified palm roots as Palmoxylon mohavensis must retain paleobotanical, nomenclatural precedence.
Harry Pristis
Bronze Member
Yes, now I see that Inyo was the individual who abstracted the 1933 paper to post on-line.
He called it: Pertinent Passages From The Scientific Publication:
I guess that "Palmoxylodon" is Inyo's spelling error resulting from his transcription of the passages. Correct me if I'm wrong about that, Inyo. Will you go back to your "Pertinent Passages" site to correct the spelling to "Palmoxylon"? Or are you asserting the misspelling is Irma Webber's?
Pertinent Passages From The Scientific Publication:
Woods From The Ricardo Pliocene Of Last Chance Gulch, California
By Irma E. Webber [1933]
". . .
Palmoxylodon mohavensis (new species). Drabble has published descriptions of a number of modern palm roots, but none of the specimens described by him is identical with that of the fossil species under consideration. The species was compared with a number of roots of the modern Washingtonia. Since the Pliocene palm root differs somewhat from that of Washingtonia, and since it was associated with palm stems that differ markedly from those of Washingtonia, it is referred to Palmoxylodon mohavensis, the species of palm represented by wood in the deposits. . . .
"The relative abundance of specimens of the various species found in the deposits corresponds to that which would be expected under conditions similar to those suggested above as already stated; the numerous stumps at the Saltdale Petrified Forest all represent Robinia, although Palmoxylon roots occur in a position indicating that this species also grew at the locality. The other species are known only from relatively few and comparatively small specimens in the collections. . . ."
He called it: Pertinent Passages From The Scientific Publication:
I guess that "Palmoxylodon" is Inyo's spelling error resulting from his transcription of the passages. Correct me if I'm wrong about that, Inyo. Will you go back to your "Pertinent Passages" site to correct the spelling to "Palmoxylon"? Or are you asserting the misspelling is Irma Webber's?
Pertinent Passages From The Scientific Publication:
Woods From The Ricardo Pliocene Of Last Chance Gulch, California
By Irma E. Webber [1933]
". . .
Palmoxylodon mohavensis (new species). Drabble has published descriptions of a number of modern palm roots, but none of the specimens described by him is identical with that of the fossil species under consideration. The species was compared with a number of roots of the modern Washingtonia. Since the Pliocene palm root differs somewhat from that of Washingtonia, and since it was associated with palm stems that differ markedly from those of Washingtonia, it is referred to Palmoxylodon mohavensis, the species of palm represented by wood in the deposits. . . .
"The relative abundance of specimens of the various species found in the deposits corresponds to that which would be expected under conditions similar to those suggested above as already stated; the numerous stumps at the Saltdale Petrified Forest all represent Robinia, although Palmoxylon roots occur in a position indicating that this species also grew at the locality. The other species are known only from relatively few and comparatively small specimens in the collections. . . ."
kingkimee
Tenderfoot
- Thread starter
- #10
I appreciate everyone's help . ! I was told yesterday that it needed to be tested more but that they werent totally ruling out the possibility that it could be a fungi fossil . one of them said it looked like a fossil of a honey mushroom cluster. i am adding some closer photos as well as a photo i found online of a fungi fossil stem . Once again thank you for your input.
Attachments
austin
Gold Member
Better listen to Mr. Pristis. He is right on the money. UNLV will agree, I;m sure. If the geology dept. can't confirm, try biology.
DDancer
Bronze Member
- Mar 25, 2014
- 2,339
- 2,003
- Detector(s) used
- Current Equinox 600
Past Whites DFX Garret GTI 2500 and others
Prospecting Minelab GPZ 7000
Past SD 2100 GP 3000 (retired)
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Harry is correct. That is a speleothem. Natural formation. The mushroom shape is due to where the material came in contact with water as it formed.
It's calcite. Basically a stalagmite or stalactite. Calcium-rich water dripping over years leaves behind a film of calcium carbonate. Mushrooms decay too rapidly to fossilize.
Put it in vinegar, or pool acid, and watch it bubble, if you want proof.
Look around for the source, has it been carried from a cave by a river or something? These can cut and polish very nicely, definitely worth investigating.
Put it in vinegar, or pool acid, and watch it bubble, if you want proof.
Look around for the source, has it been carried from a cave by a river or something? These can cut and polish very nicely, definitely worth investigating.
Top Member Reactions
-
3480 -
1986 -
1912 -
1160 -
1090 -
1010 -
889 -
864 -
860 -
795 -
759 -
676 -
659 -
567 -
508 -
453 -
447 -
410 -
401 -
E
398
