[Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)

[Jay Bates]

I said nothing about the Washington so-called coprolite. I only 
mentioned the Utah coprolite. There has been quite a number of instances 
where the food eaten by dinosaurs has been identified from the coprolite.

http://www.uky.edu/KGS/education/Mesozoic2.htm

I have dug up a number of petrified wood casts that have not been stream 
worn that do not include remnants of the wood except for the obvious 
outside form.

Occam's Razor only is good guidance toward the most likely explanation, 
nothing more.

Tim wrote:
> They don't, it's a Miocene swamp or lacustrine delta with low grade lignite
> seams and poorly preserved wood. If you see the "raw" concretions before
> they have been worn smooth by the creek,  they aren't casts of anything
> either (unless that something had a fractally convoluted surface). The point
> of the article is that if no other fossilized remains are associated with
> it, then it probably isn't coprolite. See Occam's Razor...
>
>
> Tim Fisher 
> Ore-ROCK-On! 
> Email address at http://OreRockOn.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com
> [mailto:rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com] On Behalf Of Jay Bates
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 12:27 PM
> To: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem collectors
> Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
>
> Many petrified woods do not show visible plant material nor traces of 
> minerals associated wood. They are called limb casts. I think if the 
> coprolites come from the right formation associated with dinosaurs like 
> those found in Utah, there is a good possibility they are casts of real 
> dino dung. If not, what are they then?  Doubts disprove nothing.
>
>
> pmodreski at aol.com wrote:
>   
>> That's a great article about coprolites, Tim, thanks for sharing the link.
>>
>> Aside from the Salmon Creek "coprolites" probably not being real
>>     
> coprolites, I talked with Karen Chin once when she gave a lecture about
> coprolites at CU (I mean the lecture was at CU, not the droppings)... and
> she expressed some doubt about whether the warty-looking chalcedony nodules
> found in western Utah and thereabouts and generally known among rockhounds
> as coprolites, also really are.? For a couple of the same reasons: no
> phosphate content, and no visible partly-digested plant or animal fragments
> embedded within them.? I don't think anyone has really subjected those
> Jurassic supposed-coprolites to any in-depth scientific study--Karen said
> she personally had never studied those--and until someone does, I think
> their status will remain questionable; though all the rockhounds recognize
> them and rockshops sell them as?"coprolites".
>   
>> Pete
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tim <nospam at orerockon.com>
>> To: 'Rockhounds List' <rockhounds at lists.drizzle.com>
>> Sent: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 8:58 am
>> Subject: [Rockhounds] Salmon Creek poop (NOT)
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/68-7d8-8-1c
>>
>> A very well thought out article on the "coprolites" from Salmon Creek WA.
>>
>>
>> Tim Fisher 
>> Ore-ROCK-On! 
>> Email address at http://OreRockOn.com <http://orerockon.com/> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
>> multipart/mixed
>>   text/plain (text body -- kept)
>>   application/ms-tnef
>> ---
>>   
>>     
>
>