@charles-du I don’t remember at this point. This was at UCMP Berkeley about 2 years ago. I would argue it doesn’t matter too much. Replicas allow more people to see something, are lighter and easier to store and ship. It’s always cool to see the “real” thing but replicas have a number of benefits.

@charles-du No problem. I’m viewing this on PC so the order might be different than on the app. I recommend creating a different post/upload for each specimen. That way to if you want they can become digital vouchers for the eMuseum.

@charles-du Oh, sorry for the confusion. The pictures can be curated here on the site if they are uploaded as specimens (see eMuseum if you are accessing this from a computer). ResearchGate is where scientists upload their published papers.

Rock, bone or wood all seem reasonable. I don’t have a strong conviction on this one.

@matthew-gramling I think it might be an Osmunda fern (family Osmundaceae).

@nick-white and @mackenzie-ross-2, @a-trilobite brings up a good point that it doesn’t resemble a typical horn coral (rugose coral). However, when I look at Calamites roots (I actually don’t know the morphogenus for the roots since technically Calamites only refers to the stems) there seems to be wide ribbing and here we see wide spacing between…[Read more]

@jules-schroeder This looks more coral like to me. The rocks surrounding San Saba are marine as well which is usually a good indication that it will be coral.

@chase-grim I think this is a tabulate coral like Favosites. Maybe not Favosites specifically but similar.

@drsukhendu-mukhopadhyay It’s easier to tell from a cross section as opposed to a longitudinal section. But to me it looks more bone-like.

Hi @chase-grim. I can see why you might think this is Lepidodendron. However, I’ve never seen one this small. I think @smudge-smith is right in that this is probably a sponge.

@cody-hart If you know there’s wood in the area then it probably is. It’s highly silicified with no cell structure so it can’t be ID’ed. However, it makes a good display piece. Wood can only be ID’ed if there are cells.

@rebecca-barnett, @Jim-barkley is correct, it is Pecopteris. I would hold off on putting it in an order though since Pecopteris is a morphogenus and does not belong to a any one group. It is a convergent form. @matthew-gramling is correct in that it could belong to Medullosales however it could also belong to Marattiales.

Hi @rebecca-barnett. For wood, it’s best to image what would give you a cross section so in this case the top or bottom. However, I think this is a sedimentary rock.

@jack-parker-tyreman It’s not wood. That much I can tell you. I don’t see grain.

Hi @rebecca-barnett and @smudge-smith. Where was this collected? Having the site can help narrow the ID because it can tell us what literature to look into if it has already been published. From a quick glance it looks like conifer leaves on a branch like @a-trilobite suggested.

@charles-du@matthew-gramling Sorry for the hiatus on the reply. I was teaching a very stressful online class last semester and I’m catching up on ID requests. @matthew-gramling You’re close, this is actually the formation above the Clarno. This is the Big Basin Member of the John Day Formation and is Early Oligocene. The first image is Platanus…[Read more]

Hello @charles-du and @daniel-park! The vast majority of these specimens are Metasequoia occidentalis (Dawn Redwood). Metasequoia is the state fossil of Oregon. It also looks like you have two other leaves both different angiosperms. One looks like it could be in Betulaceae (birch, hornbeam and alder family). I would recommend submitting each one…[Read more]

@daniel-park@chloe-geddes Yep, it’s wood. The problem with wood is that it has to be identified in a lab. We have to take cross sections of the specimen and then look at the cellular structure under the microscope so I can’t put a name on it. The only fun tid-bit I can add is that there were a lot of forest fires during the Cretaceous so it we…[Read more]