Is this a pearl fossil?

[mehran]

Hello
I have found this white stone along with some shell fossils in the Middle East. I live there . The length of the stone is about 6.5 cm and its width is about 5.5 cm. If it is clear in the pictures, the structure of the stone is layered. I looked at pictures of pearl fossils and some of them can be similar to this stone. I would be grateful if anyone could help.

[Fossildude19]

Looks like a chert nodule to me. Maybe quartz.

Not a fossil, in my opinion.

[mehran]

6 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

Looks like a chert nodule to me. Maybe quartz.

Not a fossil, in my opinion.

Thank you for your comment. Certainly, the structure of quartz is not layered.

[Fossildude19]

I do not see layering. I do see spalling, which can be a characteristic of quartz.

[Mahnmut]

Hello and welcome.

Although I agree there are similar structures to be found in quartz, agate, chalcedony and other minerals, I wonder if this may be a worn fragment of a very thick bivalve shell.

Best regards,

J

[mehran]

33 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

I do not see layering. I do see spalling, which can be a characteristic of quartz.

Maybe so. You don't think it is important to be found with a number of fossils.

 

[Fossildude19]

No.  Chert is often found in conjunction with fossils. 

 

[mehran]

38 minutes ago, Mahnmut said:

Hello and welcome.

Although I agree there are similar structures to be found in quartz, agate, chalcedony and other minerals, I wonder if this may be a worn fragment of a very thick bivalve shell.

Best regards,

J

Thank you for your kindness. Maybe so. In the third photo, it is clear that the stone is divided into 2 parts by a gap. Do you think this stone can be a big fossil pearl?

[mehran]

7 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

No.  Chert is often found in conjunction with fossils. 

 

Thank you for your help and thank you for your time.

[Fossildude19]

I don't believe this to be any kind of fossil pearl.

[mehran]

8 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

I don't believe this to be any kind of fossil pearl.

Unfortunately, there is little information about fossil pearls. Based on the pictures on the internet and their similarity with this stone, I guessed that it might be a pearl. Your experience and opinion is valuable for me.

[Brandy Cole]

The brown piece that you found appears to be an impression fossil of a bivalve or brachiopod in sandstone to me.

Edited August 7 by Brandy Cole
Left out important description

[mehran]

17 minutes ago, Brandy Cole said:

The brown piece that you found appears to be an impression fossil of a bivalve or brachiopod in sandstone to me.

Thank you very much, what do you think about the white stone in the first few photos? Is a pearl a fossil?

[Isotelus2883]

It is not a pearl. It is a large bivalve where a lot of the shell has been weathered away.

[FranzBernhard]

1 hour ago, mehran said:

Do you think this stone can be a big fossil pearl?

No.

But it could be a partial oyster.

Franz Bernhard

[mehran]

1 hour ago, Isotelus2883 said:

It is not a pearl. It is a large bivalve where a lot of the shell has been weathered away.

Thank you very much

[mehran]

12 minutes ago, FranzBernhard said:

No.

But it could be a partial oyster.

Franz Bernhard

Thank you very much

[Brandy Cole]

22 hours ago, mehran said:

Is a pearl a fossil?

I agree that it is not a pearl and not a fossil pearl.

 

I also agree that it could be a very worn fragment of a bivalve because it starts to have some symmetry, and the color looks consistent with something like milky quartz to me, not a pearl.

[mehran]

3 hours ago, Brandy Cole said:

I agree that it is not a pearl and not a fossil pearl.

 

I also agree that it could be a very worn fragment of a bivalve because it starts to have some symmetry, and the color looks consistent with something like milky quartz to me, not a pearl.

Thank you Brandy
Colleagues had the same opinion. It is most likely a bivalve. Because of the gap in it. I am sure that it is not quartz, because it does not have a crystalline structure and is less hard than quartz. Instead, it has a layered structure that is slightly clear in the images. Also, I searched a bit on the internet and found some examples of pearl fossils that are very similar to this stone.

[FranzBernhard]

1 hour ago, mehran said:

Also, I searched a bit on the internet and found some examples of pearl fossils that are very similar to this stone.

For sure! There is essentially no difference between an oyster shell and an oyster pearl. A pearl is just an irregular growth of shell substance.

Franz Bernhard

[mehran]

14 hours ago, FranzBernhard said:

For sure! There is essentially no difference between an oyster shell and an oyster pearl. A pearl is just an irregular growth of shell substance.

Franz Bernhard

Please pay attention to these pictures, these are fossil pearls. The layered structure is clearly visible in one of them. I was almost convinced that this piece was not a fossil pearl, but as I found it with some marine fossils and it was different from the rest, I assumed it was a fossil pearl.

[Mahnmut]

Hello again.

You seem to be quite fond of the idea that you found a pearl, which I can understand.

I can not completely rule out it is a pearl, but still think hatt is the much less likely explanation.

The layering you point out is typical for all parts of bivalve shell, only well visible in big/thick examples.

What is typical of a pearl is concentric layers surrounding a nucleus and forming something more or less round.

Thats what I can not clearly see in your find. It may be a fragment of a big pearl, or a fragment of thick shell, so call it a possible pearl fossil if you like. Or take it to a museum. Its possible. Its just that there are other possibilities also.

Best regards,

J

Edited August 9 by Mahnmut
clarification

[mehran]

2 hours ago, Mahnmut said:

Hello again.

You seem to be quite fond of the idea that you found a pearl, which I can understand.

I can not completely rule out it is a pearl, but still think hatt is the much less likely explanation.

The layering you point out is typical for all parts of bivalve shell, only well visible in big/thick examples.

What is typical of a pearl is concentric layers surrounding a nucleus and forming something more or less round.

Thats what I can not clearly see in your find. It may be a fragment of a big pearl, or a fragment of thick shell, so call it a possible pearl fossil if you like. Or take it to a museum. Its possible. Its just that there are other possibilities also.

Best regards,

J

Thank you very much
Man instinctively likes to hear a positive answer. I am convinced that this piece is not a pearl fossil. I asked this question based on the initial similarities and luckily I got my answer. Thank you very much to you and the rest of the respondents.
But with all this, there is a point in this piece that has caught my attention.
Basically, the pearl is formed by a foreign body like a grain of sand, which the mollusk puts layers of material around it. It seems that there is a stone in this piece and its surroundings are covered with layers. I would be happy to know your opinion on this matter. thanks

[Mahnmut]

Is this the same specimen as in the first pics or another one?

One thing you should do is carefully put a drop of acid ( concentrated vinegar for example) on one of  your finds. If nothing happens, its neither limestone nor bivalve shell but probably chert or another form of silica after all.

If it fizzes, it contains carbonate and could be shell.

That said, I have never heard of a pearl forming around a stone of that size (without knowing the exact size).

I think the likelihood of finding several pearl- like structures and no other recognizable fragments of big shells is low.

Sorry I cannot tell you more.

Best regards,

J

[Mark Kmiecik]

The layers would all be concentric if it was a pearl. There would not be any contorted layers. It is physically impossible in the formation of a pearl. The contortions are compatible with those found in the hinge area of a large bivalve.