Clear translucent mineral found on beach

[anonaddict]

location: aarhus, denmark

found: loose beach rock

units: metric

 

the reason i believe it could be a fossil is the tiny rim around the edge of the same thickness the whole way around except one side where it looks like a piece has been broken off. however i have no idea what it would be, nor do i know enough about crystalology to distinguish it between any of the substancial number of white/colorless translucent/semi-transparent crystals and i havent seen any with similar patterns

[Coco]

I do not see a crystalline form, but a mineral "cluster".

 

There is a special category for minerals on this forum, here you are in the fossil identification.

 

Co

[Advantage]

Agree not a fossil, but nevertheless an interesting mineral specimen.

[anonaddict]

9 minutes ago, Coco said:

I do not see a crystalline form, but a mineral "cluster".

 

There is a special category for minerals on this forum, here you are in the fossil identification.

 

Co

i outlined my reasoning for why i believe it to be a fossil in the post due to the very distinct rim on the white mineral/crystal. i acknowledged it could also not be a fossil but just mineral, however i do know fossils can also be preserved as very differnet materisls (like opalized belemnites) and i dont know enough about how various different minerals look for me to say with certainty it isnt just how that type of minerals look in general.

if as you say it is a mineral cluster and i am in the wrong place id like to hear your reasoning for this

[Coco]

1- your photos are blurry,

2- we do not have an indication of the size (to give only in cm or inches), which does not help with identification,

3- we do not have the age of the sediments, which also does not allow for a refined response,

4- your specimen looks like silica (quartz, quartzite or anything belonging to this family) and the edge you are talking about makes me think more of a mineral zone as in agates, therefore mineral and not fossil,

 

5- after more than 40 years of experience in paleontology, 15 without on this forum where I learned a lot, and without claiming to have seen everything, I do not recognize any form of fossil already seen.

 

Coco

Edited Wednesday at 06:36 PM by Coco

[Mahnmut]

Hi.

I agree this is  more likely mineralogical than palaeontological.

Like Coco mentioned, it could be a zone in something like agate, or a weathering crust.

I could also imagine it to be a much altered echinoderm fossil filled with calcite, which would fizz under a drop of vinegar (as would any non-fossil calcite).

As your question was "could this be a fossil" and not "what mineral is this" I think you are in the right subforum anyway.

Best regards,

J

[anonaddict]

i initially believed it could be a fossil due to the rim on the transparent mineral however i was advised this would be a more appropriate place.

 

Im interested in hearing pretty much any information about what this rock is and how it came to be. im particularly curious about the semi-transparent mineral and what could cause such a perimeter 1mm or so wide the whole way around except one side where it shows signs of a segment having broken off.

 

I've of course done some internet searches trying to figure it out but then ran into a post of 5 or 6 similar looking rocks all with different labels and decided i was in over my head

 

my own complete guesswork is that the main rock is a type of flint and that the mineral is quartz since ive often seen those mentioned in the same breath. its only partially visible but there is a tiny indent with glittering material, maybe chalcedony or tiny quartzcrystals

 

i tried using ai image recognition and it said the mineral was gypsum but it also says every beach fossil could be a sea urchin or belemnite since there are many of those in denmark

[Coco]

An administrator or a moderator could have moved your topic to the right category of the forum at your request, this would have avoided reposting your photos.

 

That said, artificial intelligence is absolutely not able to determine a mineral (like a fossil, by the way !). To determine a mineral we need its color, hardness, crystal system, environment, origin etc...

 

Do you have the possibility to make clear photos that would allow to see the shape of small crystals, it could help.

 

To be sure that your stone is not gypsum for example, which I am certain of, just try to scratch it with the nail, if you do not scratch it so it is not gypsum, we know precisely by its hardness.

 

The fact that the AI uses the frequency of a fossil at a site is not enough to determine the fossil, as you suspect. If you have fossils to identify or confirm, put them with all possible data in the fossil identification space and we will answer

 

Coco

[anonaddict]

On 9/11/2024 at 8:35 PM, Coco said:

1- your photos are blurry,

2- we do not have an indication of the size (to give only in cm or inches), which does not help with identification,

3- we do not have the age of the sediments, which also does not allow for a refined response,

4- your specimen looks like silica (quartz, quartzite or anything belonging to this family) and the edge you are talking about makes me think more of a mineral zone as in agates, therefore mineral and not fossil,

 

5- after more than 40 years of experience in paleontology, 15 without on this forum where I learned a lot, and without claiming to have seen everything, I do not recognize any form of fossil already seen.

 

Coco

i completely missed this reply, still learning how to navigate the website.

 

re:1 i sadly dont have much to work with given the size i inevitably have to get some distance away then cut the background

 

re:2 there is a metric ruler in one of the photos that should give an indication of scale, i added metric as a tag

 

re:3 fair point, i suppose thats just an inherent limitation of beach rocks

 

re:4 i shall read about this, thank you

 

re:5 o7

 

thanks for taking the time, i'll go read about mineral zones, i find it hard to tell the difference between whether a feature is biological, geological or chemical so getting new search terms helps a lot 

[anonaddict]

Oop had completely missed your other reply kn the other thread for some reason it didnt give me a notification

 

re ai im fully aware its not reliable, i only use it as a source of search terms for reference photos since "rock" is too general

 

after extensive messing around for about 2 hours this seems to be the most clear photos i can capture, its very hard to get clear photos since the quartz/??? mineral is only 1 x 1 x 0.5 cm. as for the tiny crystals they are too tiny to see with the naked eye, you can only tell they are there from the light reflection, even with 20x its difficult to distinguish any one crystal so it just a blurry mess on photographs. it looks like the flint is bubbly on one side and i think there is one or two microscopic quartz crystals at a very awkward angle i can barely see

 

you were right that i cannot scratch it with a fingernail, i managed to make a tiny scratch with the pick of my estwing

 

ill include here some result i captured while messing around and testing the waters which you might enjoy

however it doesnt always know what its looking at, for instance it expressed uncertainty while dealing with this bivalve

Edited Friday at 06:51 PM by anonaddict
additional info and rewording

[Fossildude19]

Topics MERGED. One is enough.

[anonaddict]

5 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

Topics MERGED. One is enough.

my bad, had missed the reply in the original thread and also didnt know mods could move posts around