In fact, at first glance they seem impressive vertical burrows displaced by sub-horizontal planes!

dear Pedro,

It is fully marine enviroment [marine fauna including micro and macro]

We observe Ophimorpha burrows in excess of 40 cm (hammer in picture) in the upper Red Bank Formation at Campo Pit, Perrineville, NJ (upper Maastrichtian)

Hola Ophiomorpha from the Skolithos icnhofacies, the rate of deposition very high...or related to extraordinary events, storms, slumps ?

Sedimentation rates for this unit seem to be 4 cm/kyr. Appears normal upper shore face environment. Overlays swales x-stratification that overlies HCS

They look like burrows, but you may also want to check: Aiello, I. W. (2005). "Fossil seep structures of the Monterey Bay region and tectonic/structural controls on fluid flow in an active transform margin." Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 227(1-3): 124-142.

If the structures are seep-related, carbon isotopes and associated seep-specific fauna should give you more information.

Sounds like the trace fossil Bathichnus. In the chalk they are much narrower, only about 1 cm in diameter and often surrounded by cylindrical "paramoudra" flints.

They could be clastic dykes. If Kenneth Miller is right, They could be related with liquefaction - fluidization processes related with the impulsive action of storm waves (breaking waves in upper shoreface) or the cyclical effect of storm waves in more distal environments (typically in the off-shore transition). Other possible mechanism is the presence of underlying karstic groundwater - sudden changes in groundwater table cold induce fluidization features in the overlying soft-sediments. I can give You the references of these examples if You are interested!

These are in a lower shore face medium quartz sand. At nearby outcrops we see typical thinner and shorter Ophiomorpha burrows (Martino, R. L., and Curran, H. A., 1988, JSP; Miller et al., Geology 1999). I strongly doubt that these are gas escape features. They look more like the large burrows in similar environments from the Miocene Calvert Cliffs. I am not a burrow expert, but these are almost certainly burrows.

Hi,

These kind of structures are current in the Upper Cretaceous of SW France. They are given to correspond to burrows and they are sometime partly filled by silica (chert or flint). You can find some preliminary data in the booklet associated with the 1/50000 geological maps : http://infoterre.brgm.fr/viewer/MainTileForward.do;jsessionid=53802E12009B0C9065F098C6A0977048

All the best,

Laurent.

the uniform thickness would be unusual for fluid conduits. Plus, I don't see any concentric layering in those sections where the surface has broken off, which also seems to argue against fluid conduits. My guess they are burrows.

Hi

I wish to inform you that such

bioturbation structures are common

In the flysch facies of Kurdistan foreland basin.

They are giant Skolirhos. Trace fossil generated by

giant pelecypods and especially Glycemeris .

Southey are common in zagros fold thrust belt.

I have also a paper deals with the ichnofossils

from marine and non marine ( brackish and fresh water)

Deposits .

Kind regards

Dr. Fadhil A. Lawa

University of sulaimani

Kurdistan region

They look to me like petrified venting pipes of natural gas seeps which are formed under symbiosis with various bacteria and or algae in a submarine near ocean bottom environment; so these features are no fossils and also no trace fossils in a strikt sense but a diagenetic effect of a marine biozoenosis making its living out of the methan, venting through carbonat beds up to the surface in a submarine environment; These vertical pipe features of some 5 cm in diameter are a very small example of similar but much larger features (up to several meter in diameter and tens of meters in vertical extension) which I have seen in Bulgaria in (I guess as well Cretaceous) carbonats in a hugh abandoned quarry not far from the black sea coast; the phenomenon is published in many bulgarian papers and well known; kind regards, rudi

Are any body fossils found associated with these structures? That may help clear things up.

I just checked the net for the location with similar but smaller, however homologuous features (in my opinion based on the evidence given) in bulgaria near the city of Varna: the location is called Pobiti Kamani and links (with pictures) are attached; cheers, rudi

Http://www.thebohemianblog.com/2012_03_01_archive.html?m=1

They look too narrow and regular to me to be vent concretions, but have a look at this paper for some photos and discussion:

Nyman, S.L.; Nelson, C.S.; Campbell, K.A. 2010 Miocene tubular concretions in East Coast Basin, New Zealand : analogue for the subsurface plumbing of cold seeps. Marine Geology, 272(1-4): 319-336

What are the terminations like, top and bottom? - any clues supporting burrowing? Are they truncated by overlying bedding (ie syndepositional)? - or are they escape burrows that start within rapidly deposited beds?

Are there central cores of cement that could be infill of vent tubes? The methane ones in NZ have a different isotope signature, but there may be easier ways to decide.

Cheers,

Brad

These look to me being Paramoudras, up to 5m long flint-filled burrows, occurring a. o. in fine-grained chalk sediments of the ENCI quarry in the Netherlands, and Upper Maastrichtian of Chancet rocks in New Zealand. see: PARAMOUDRAS: GIANT FLINTS, LONG BURROWS AND THE EARLY DIAGENESIS OF CHALKS

BROMLEY R Granville, SCHULZ Max-gotthard and PEAKE Normam B

Published by Kobenhavn, Denmark, 1975

Hallo Everybody,

Some more information:

1. we are most likely below the storm wave base [I see no structures that promote shallower enviroment]. We are in Poland in middle of large epicontinental see during Upper Cretaceous.

2. These are neither Thalassinoides [and related] nor Skolithos [or related form the Skolithos ichnofacies].

3. I was thinking of Bathichnus [paramoudra] but as far as I know they are rather horizontal. Additionally, I think it is not the case.

4. Cold seeps - Methan seeps etc - no! isotope from the "burrow" is C13 = +1; O18 = -2.5; outside the "burrow" C13 = +2; O18 = +1.9 [mean values]; This could rather suggest its "biogenic" origin. But without futher data such statement is speculative.

Please take this into consideration. And thank you for all your answers.

Waiting for further suggestions. Zbyszek

Burrows or root casts, aka rhyzomes. Could have been tap roots of a large plant or tree.

Indeed, it looks like burrows, may be more tubular than Paramoudrae because there is no or very little development of silicification. Anything special on the walls of the structure? (accumulation of fish scales, globular texture, etc.)?

These resemble crayfish burrows, referred to as Camborygma, which range in depth from 1 to 4+ meters. The background mottled color appears to be paleopedogenic with yellows and pinks(?) resembling roots? Opika facies are supposed to be of deep water but these burrows are unlike any deep water burrows I have seen before. See the following papers and this website: http://ichnology.ku.edu/

Hasiotis, S. T. and Honey, J. 2000. Paleocene continental deposits and crayfish burrows of the Laramide Basins in the Rocky Mountains: Paleohydrologic and Stratigraphic significance. Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 70(1), p. 127-139.

Hasiotis, S. T. and Mitchell, C. E. 1993. A comparison of crayfish burrow morphologies: Triassic and Holocene fossil, paleo- and neo-ichnological evidence, and the identification of their burrowing signatures. Ichnos, v. 2, p. 291-314.

Hasiotis, S. T., Mitchell, C. E. and Dubiel, R. F. 1993. Application of morphologic burrow interpretations to discern continental burrow architects: lungfish or crayfish. Ichnos, v. 2, p. 315-333.

They look like trace fossils. Any bioglyph or sculpture in the wall¿¿

Do they branch¿

The essentially parallel sides for the full length seems to rule out root structures. The lack of excursions from the column (except with only slight irregularities) seems to rule out any sort of fluid-flow process. The slightly irregular margins implies some sort of burrowing beastie. The length and "frequency" also implies to me soem organic origin.

I think they are root fossils.

These things are likely not rhizoliths as they have a regular diameter through the vertical extent of the structure visible in the photograph. They are likely not rhizomes as they are horizontal. They are likely not tap roots as they are vertically regular (as mentioned earlier), closely spaced with other tubular structures, and do not have secondary rhizoliths branching from them. Fluid escape structures, if the size of the pictured structures, might show some internal deformation of the fill that would be visible on the walls and might include brecciated clasts from fluid movement. Great question! Would love to see these in outcrop myself!

These structures look like syn-sedimentary as they show offset at joints. Slight depletion in both 13C and 18O values, however suggest that these carbonates are secondary. Hence, they should be diagenetic in origin. Now the question remains how can such regular shaped structures can form during diagenesis?

My colleague, Pavel Beznosov (he is not in the Researchgate) thinks those tubes are traces (burrows) of lungfishes (Dipnoi). Please, check this hypothesis. Search fo keywords "Lungfish Burrows" in the internet and look through papers on ichnofossils.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1211&context=usgsstaffpub

Lungfish Burrows References

Andrews, J.E., 1991. Unusual nonmarine burrows from the Middle Jurassic of Scotland. Ichnos, v. 1, n. 4, p. 247-253. doi: 10.1080/10420949109386359

Berman, D.S., 1976. Occurrence of Gnathorhiza (Osteichthyes: Dipnoi) in aestivation burrows in the Lower Permian of New Mexico with description of a new species. Journal of Paleontology, v. 50, n. 6, p. 1034-1039.

Carlson, K.J., 1968. Skull morphology and estivation burrows of the Permian lungfish, Gnathorhiza serrata. Journal of Geology, v. 76, n. 6, p. 641-663.

Carroll, R.L., 1965. Lungfish burrows from Michigan Coal Basin, Science, v. 148, n. 3672, p. 963-. doi: 10.1126/science.148.3672.963

Dalquest, W.W., Carpenter, R.M., 1975. New discovery of fossil lungfish burrows. Texas Journal of Science, v. 26, n. 3-4, p. 611.

Dalquest, W.W., Kocurko, M.J., Grimes, J.V., 1989. Aspects of the postcranial skeleton of the Lower Permian lungfish, Gnathorhiza. Journal of Paleontology, v. 63, n. 6, p. 919-930.

Dubiel, R.F., Blodgett, R.H., Bown, T.M., 1987. Lungfish burrows in the Upper Triassic Chinle and Dolores formations, Colorado Plateau. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 57, n. 3, p. 512-521.

Dubiel, R.F., Blodgett, R.H., Bown, T.M., 1988. Lungfish burrows in the Upper Triassic Chinle and Dolores formations, Colorado Plateau: Reply. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 58, n. 2, p. 367-369.

Friedman, M., Daeschler, E.B., 2006. Late Devonian (Famennian) lungfishes from the Catskill Formation of Pennsylvania, USA. Paleontology, v. 49, p. 1167-1183. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00594.x

Garcia, W., Storrs, G., Greb, S., 2006, Lungfish burrows from the Mississippian (Chesterian) of northwestern Kentucky. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, v. 26, n. 3, supp. S., p. 65A.

Gobetz, K.E., Lucas, S.G., Lerner, A.J., 2006. Lungfish burrows of varying morphology from the Upper Triassic Redonda Formation, Chinle Group, eastern New Mexico. Bulletin of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, v. 37, p. 140-146.

Hasiotis, S.T., Michelle, C.E., 1989. Lungfish burrows in the Upper Triassic Chinle and Dolores formations, Colorado Plateau- discussion- New evidence suggests origin by a burrowing decapod crustacean. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 59, n. 5, p. 871-875.

Hasiotis, S.T., Mitchell, C.E., Dubiel, R.F., 1993. Application of morphologic burrow interpretations to discern continental burrow architects: Lungfish or crayfish? Ichnos, v. 2, n. 4, p. 315-333. doi: 10.1080/10420949309380105

Hembree, D.I., 2010. Aestivation in the fossil record: Evidence from Ichnology. Aestivation: Progress in Molecular and Subcellular biology, v. 49, p. 245-262. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02421-4_12

McAllister, J.A., 1988. Lungfish burrows in the Upper Triassic Chinle and Dolores formations, Colorado Plateau—Comments on the recognition criteria of fossil lungfish burrows: Discussion. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 58, n. 2, p. 365-367.

McAllister, J.A., 1992. Gnathorhiza (Dipnoi) life aspects, and lungfish burrows. Academia (Tallinn), v. 1, p. 91-105.

O’Sullivan, M.J., Cooper, M.A., MacCarthy, I.A.J., Forbes, W.H.,1986, The palaeoenvironment and deformation of Beaconites-like burrows in the Old Red Sandstone at Gortnabinna, SW Ireland. Journal of the Geological Society, v. 143, n. 6, p. 897-906. doi: 10.1144/gsjgs.143.6.0897

Romer, A.S., Olson, E.C., 1954. Aestivation in a Permian lungfish. Breviora mus comp Zool, v. 30, p. 1-8.

Shelton, J.W., 1971. Lungfish burrows in dolomite of the Wellingon Formation. Oklahoma Geology Notes, v. 31, n. 3, p. 50

Surlyk, F., Milàn, J., Noe-Nygaard, N., 2008. Dinosaur tracks and possible lungfish aestivation burrows in a shallow coastal lake; lowermost Cretaceous, Bornholm, Denmark. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 267, n. 3-4, p. 292-304. doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2008.07.004

Thomas, T.M., Boldgett, R.H., 1986. Depositional environments of lungfish burrows, Pennsylvanian Breathitt Formation, northeastern Kentucky. Ohio Journal of Science, v. 86, n. 2, p. 9

Vaughn, P.P., 1964. Evidence of aestivating lungfish from the Sangre de Cristo Formation, Lower Permian of northern New Mexico. Contributions in Science Los Angeles, v, 80, p. 1-8.

I agree they looklike burrows

I see more simple tube-type Sepatarian nodules, common in such rocks. Means concretions fom channeled solutions. During advanced lithification. quite common in such rocks.

best wishes. nice outcrop.

Hi,

is it possible to have detail of the internal structure?

Other hypothetis: venting structure linked to liquefaction (seismite).

Yes ! Very common structures in Upper Cretaceous chalk. Tectonic joints or extensional fractures.

I agree in that these traces may represent burrows but I have no idea about the burrower organism. Were the sediments deposited in a marine environment?

Yes, previously the vertical burrow structures are reported from the Maastrichtian Limestones of Ariyalur Area, Cauvery Basin, South India. They have been diagnosed to be escape structures associated with storm deposits.

See

Ramkumar, M. and Sathish, G. 2009 Palaeoenvironmental and sequence stratigraphic significance of the occurrence of Ophiomorpha irregulaire in the Kallankurichchi Formation, Ariyalur Group, Cauvery Basin, South India. Palaeont.Stratigr.Facies. v.17.pp.129-137.

Ramkumar, M., 2006 A Storm event during the Maastrichtian in the Cauvery basin, South India. Ann.Geol.Penins.Balk. v.67. pp.35-40.

Ramkumar, M., 2001 Sedimentary structures and depositional conditions of the Kallankurichchi Formation (Lower Maestrichtian), South Indian Cretaceous sequence. Jour.Ind.Asson.Sediment. v.20. pp.85-96.

I have seen something like it: Megaplanulites (the original article, in Spanish, can be downloaded at: http://www.sociedadgeologica.es/archivos/geogacetas/Geo21/Art30.pdf) , it has not the same morphology though it is a king size burrow. Also I will ask José Antonio Gámez, a specialist in burrows and alike, though of Paleozoic ages.

Best,

Gloria

burrows I think

paramoudra forms vertical "burrows", of the size of the photo from Poland. here few examples from Holland and New Zealand.

And from new zealand

They might be big vertical burrows, which does not explain from what organism ! I've seen such big burrows in the Devonian of Spitsbergen, in the ORS facies, in grey massive sandstones. However, in Spitsbergen, they were horizontal, not vertical, so probably a different kind of organism. I don't know whether or not such structures have been published and named. A. Blieck

The structures are most reminsicent to fossil lungfish burrows. They are known e.g. from the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1211&context=usgsstaffpub

Hope that helps,

Patrick

I would say it can be a fossil root or its imprint (channel), but some additional observations on morphology and anatomy are needed.

They look like large fluid-escape structures - "Neptunian" dikes or sand volcanoes. Difficult to tell without a closer photograph. No indication of branching or interconnection and they appear to cut across a number of relatively thick sedimentary layers.

Did you have a picture of cross section? We observed a similar structure in the Lower Cretaceous in Tunisia. These structures are interpreted as seep structure, and exhibit septaria in the cross section. It will be interesting to investigate carbon isotopic signature of your structure and compare it with surrounding rock signature.

I'm not familiar with Tissoa, but following that I saw quickly on the net, this kind of structure are in order to cm scale for the diameter. Our structure can reach a size 20 cm of diameter, and a vertical extension of more than 10 meters. It is difficult to relate this kind of structure to burrows.

Hallo Everybody, Some summarizing and my consideration.

1. I dont see any body fossils inside. There is nothing special on the walls [any fish scales, globular texture etc.]. These are not a roots – definitely.

2. There is no central core and any traces of cementation supporting cold seep origin. isotope from the "burrow" is C13 = +1; O18 = -2.5; outside the "burrow" C13 = +2; O18 = +1.9 [mean values]

3. No traces for liquefaction. There is neither internal nor external [outside the "burrow"] deformation of fluid flow processes.

4. We are most likely below the storm wave base [I see no structures that promote shallower enviroment]. We are in Poland in middle of large epicontinental see during Upper Cretaceous.

5. The "burrows' cut the succeeding beds including thick-badded opoka and marly intercalation >>> thus it is rather not synsedimentary. Or the "burrows" were formed in time when the substrate has not been totally lithified.

Rather neither Thalassinoides [and related] nor Skolithos [or related form the Skolithos ichnofacies]. Rathre no lungfish – we are in relatively deep sea (XXm in depth).

Anybody has idea what is the origin of Paramoudra???

This looks like a common feature in Upper Cretaceous chalks. Look up 'paramoudra' on google search and you should find the literature on these 'supposed' burrow systems..

Malcolm Hart

These are not uncommon de-watering structures, and not any sort of trace fossil (absolutely too deep for burrows or root which shy away from low-oxygen and water-filled lower levels in sediments). There is no need to invoke cold seeps for these typically shallow water. shelf structures. Early literature on the Upper Cambrian Potsdam Formation sandstones in New York and Ontario reported very large, to a half meter in diameter, and 3 m high, vertical "tree trunkss" while smaller ones in Middle Devonian Hamilton Grouup sandstones were called vertical orthocone cephalopod shells.

These structures are often internally structureless, cross-cut surrounding sediments with little disruption, and are basically the feeder for a sand/mud volcano. See a review of the interpretations of similar structures in Sanford, B.V., and W. C. Arnott. 2010. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin 597.

Could they be escape burrows? Do the structures show concave up or concave down laminations within them? Marine invertebrates can make impressive burrows in efforts to dig themselves out of a sudden influx of sediment or in burrowing deeper to escape predators and/or surface conditions. Also, Callianassa and other Thalassinidea shrimp are known to make relatively deep and complex burrow structures (known as the trace fossil Ophiomorpha nodosa). They have been documented in the Cretaceous (see Schweitzer et al. 2006, Journal of Crustacean Biology, 26(1):73-81). Also Weimer & Hoyt 1964 Jour Paleo v 38, p. 761-768 have some photographs of modern and fossil burrows.

What is the independent evidence for the sedimentary package encompassing the burrows being deposited below storm wave base? Even though you are in the middle of a large epicontinental Cretaceous sea, is there any possibility for short-term shallowing an subaerial exposure of units in this position? Has any palynology or micropaloe been run on these particular beds to help pin the depositional setting? I, too, have seen Tisoa in "deep water" deposits but diameters are much smaller, 0.5-1.5 cm in diameter. I agree that the sediment was rather firm with the sharp walled, relatively consistent burrow diameters.

Dear Stephen H. You are correct - I have no hard proofs that it was deposited well below strom wave base. However, from the general overwiev, there is no evidence that it was a shallow enviroment. But even if it is a shalllow enviroment - what is your propositoin? Malkolm Hart and Jan Smit proposed Paramoudra. However the latter are usually acciossiated with flint which is not the case here. Thallasinoides is usually a system of burrows which branch very often, which is again not recognized in my case???

At first sight, it resembles some Clavagellid tubes described in Lower Turonian chalks. You should have a look in "Bulletin trimestriel de la Société Géologique de Normandie et des Amis du Muséum du Havre". Main Author: Nicolas Cottard.

Bruno, what year was that paper published? If you have a pdf available already, can you send it to [email protected]? Thanks.

Zbyszek, a hypothesis to explain those burrows could be that that interval may represent a short-term subaerial exposure episode with associated bioturbation. I have seen many many many outcrop and core intervals that were supposed to be all marine or all continental in deposition, only to find single or multiple intervals that could be reinterpreted as having marine or continental deposits within them that included associated ichnologic and/or pedogenic features that were overlooked or inadvertently misinterpreted. We have many examples of this issue in the Pennsylvanian and Permian cyclothems of Kansas, where subaerial exposure and associated ichnofossils and paleosols have been overlooked; also this issue has occurred with Upper Cretaceous deposits in the Book Cliffs area. This, however, may not be the case here, but just an idea to test!

COTTARD (N.) et BRETON (G.)

(1999) - Tube de Clavagellidae? (Mollusca, Bivalvia) de la craie de Normandie (France). Bulletin trimestriel de la Société Géologique de Normandie et des Amis du Muséum du Havre, tome 86, fasc. 1, p. 25-30.

Bruno, do you have pdf of this paper - please send it to me: [email protected]. thanks in advance

Stephen, I will test your suggestion but firstly I have to wait the winter will go away:). But your idea is quite interesting... we will see.

I asked some of my colleages, specialiesed in Cretatious sedimentäre rocks. Martin Hiss ([email protected]) knew the answer. The structures are Inchnofauna belonging to the genera ophiomorpha or thassinoides bulid by some crustacea. Typically they are upright, Y-branching. In the Opoka-facies these tubes are typically more silificated due to a higher content in sponge-spiculae. Please contact Martin for more Information

Martin, Thank you

In the chalk of Normandy (France), some levels are plenty of paramoudras. They are visible because these structures are epigenized in flint.

The origin of paramoudras is debated, as I believe some are organic, some are mechanic and related to the escape of fluid. Look at my web page.

http://craies.crihan.fr/?page_id=2620

Similar burrows are rather common in shallow marine Miocene beds of Patagonia.

Hammer is 40 cm long. The burrows branch at the base.

Sorry the picture is upside down

Detail of the former picture (coin is 2.6 cm in diameter). Sometimes the burrows show passive filling. Their top is usually linked to an unconformity below a transgressive coquina.

Hi Roberto. Looks very similar to my specimen. The question is what is the explanation for their formation. And you wrote that they are common in shallow marine Miocene beds. Are they indicative for shallow evniroment??? Are they absent from deeper facies of the same age???

Any publication concernign this structures???

Zbyszek

As before, these are not trace fossils. The 10 cm diameter and 2 m depth rule out the suggested Onuphiomorpha--the latter has ca. 1-2 cm width but can have a widened living burrow at base. The walls of Onuphiomorpha must have a "blistered" look by definition as the ancient or modern crustacean packs large, probably mucus-glued sediment against the walls to firm them up. Lateral growth of chert (sometimes black in color) away from the burrow in Cretaceous chalks makes them somewhat wider. Thalassinoides is impossible as an identification as these (often larger than 2 cm wide) burrows and tunnel systems consist of a series of upwardly-opening Y-shaped forks and often have a oval- or pear-shaped dwelling burrow at their ends.

These are dewatering, fluid escape structures which will be internally structureless or retain remnants of internal bedding, often bent upward at margins. The remnant lamination is not a passive filling, which would probably not be thinly beddded in places upward through the burrow, and probably would show thick layering from the dumping-in of sediment with storm events. Check out the Late Cambrian examples I suggested from the Potsdam Formation--these large (up to tree-trunk size) have absolutely abrupt lateral contacts with surrounding sand, which meant that the sand lateral to the dewatering structures was slightly compacted and somewhat firm. I have seen a number of these dewatering structures in the Potsdam arise from one stratigraphic horizon. Perhaps they either originated with minor earthquake shocks on the cooling margin of the east Laurentian paleocontinent or, less dramatically, simply reflect fluid overpressure within compacting sediments and failure of a relativelt impermeable (muddy) overbed.

Hi Ed. Do you know similar structures in carbonate sediment. The opoka facies is a siliceus limeston altohough it does not contian detritic quartz [or very few]. I have just seen those structures in the internet and they looks quite similar. Thank you.

The following paper describes a tubestone carbonate facies, believed to have formed from the outgassing of methane.

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/29/5/443.short

The photo is a bit small, but looks similar to what you've posted. Maybe contact one of the authors for a better image?

I agree with Ed Landing, I was the first 3 days ago to explore this hypothesis.

If they are dewatering strucures they probably have a sismogenic origin, and can be classified as one of the type of seismite: water-escape chimneys linked to liquefaction. You should find in the lower stata other seismites features like convolutes bedding, thixotropic features, even some synsedimentary faults and breccia.

Have a look to the publications of Montenat et al:

Montenat, C., Barrier, P., Ott d’Estevou, Ph. and Hibsch, C.

(2007) Seismites: an attempt at critical analysis and classification.

Sed. Geol., 196, 5–30.

Recently i´ve identified similar structures in ?Miocene continental fluvial deposits. Very similar. But they end up in chamber-like expansions.

Hi Felipe. Do you have any photos of those structures. or a publication? best zbyszek

probably it moves cancers, they are in Maastricht on the Crimean peninsula

I agree to Juilleret's view as seismite.

Slightly thinner, up to 5 cm in diametre, occur in the Coniacian sandstones of the North-Sudetic Synclinorium. They tend to show granulate walls like Ophiomorpha.

Here a very good idea that can be shifted to your case:

Peter S. Mozley, J. Matthew Davis, Internal structure and mode of growth of elongate calcite concretions: Evidence for small-scale, microbially induced, chemical heterogeneity in groundwater. Geological Society of America Bulletin, November/December 2005

...and a little more in common:

http://www.battenberg-pfalz.de/sehenswuerdigkeiten/blitzroehren/index.html

http://www.wegeundpunkte.de/wegpunkt_detail.php?wp_nr=209

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1X3C4_blitzrohren-battenberg?guid=99dc8006-c16b-4f9c-9b0f-54ff0b9f1f62

Other pictures of the big burrows of the Miocene of Patagonia.

These large burrows are found together with Ophiomorpha and Thallassinoides traces approximately of the same size and maybe they are related to them. If this is so, these burrows would have been contructed by Callianasid shrimps or similar animals. The burrows are found in shallow marine sediments of Miocene age, often associated to discontinuities below transgressive coquinas. This means that the upper end of the shafts are all at the same level, and underlaying a coquina bed. Sometimes these coquinas contain claws of callianasid shrimps.

See: Frey, R.W., Howard, J.D., Pryor, W.A., 1978. Ophiomorpha: its morphological, taxonomic and environmental signi®cance. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology and Palaeoecology 23, 199±229. Summarizing, what I wanted to tell you was:

Whole outcrop

Again.

Ophiomorpha and Thallassinoides traces of similar size and different types of filling.

Mainly horizontal Ophiomorpha and Thallassinoides traces of similar size. Handle of the hammer about 40cm long..

Vertical burrow (5 cm in diameter) connected to horizontal branches at 90°. Note the internal structure of the burrow is quite different from the structure of the host sediment.

These I know from Coniacian of the North-Sudetic Synclinorium (Poland) are both vertical and horizontal. One specimen is bulbous in shape, like Asterosoma

The photo above shows the bulbous burrow (the body above scale bar), and a roll-shaped burrow, with knobby surface, in the top part of photo. In the photo below, one may see a vertical form of such thick burrow.

Have you ever thought about calcified gas chimneys? What is the composition of the material? You can find similar features in Taranaki basin, New Zealand, in Campos basin, SE Brazil, and in NE Italy, both related to slope settings and to mass movements which remove part of the sedimentary cover enhancing methane oxidation processes that produce elongated, pipe-like carbonate concrtetions that can reach up to a few meters high.

I got these enigmatic structures from Siliciclastic Sarmatian-Pontian strata from Himalayan foothills (Siwaliks) of India. Internally they show core-mantle structures and often show multiple bulges (quite similar to brood/aestivation chambers of crustaceans) along the length. They might suggest pre-existing conduits (root structures, crawfish/crustacean burrows...or a composite ichnofabric) that might have offered easy passage for diagenetic/fluidised flow. One can search for the fecal matters in these sediment-filled tunnels to ascertain it's biogenic origin. Common associations are root structures and other smaller burrows that are common in floodplain deposits.

http://www.ias.ac.in/jessci/aug2013/1023.pdf

Dear All,

Thank you for your much interest concerning the 2-meters vertical structures. I'm new on Research Gate and I'm really surprised that so much of you answer the Q.

I think at the present stage this discussion is coming to the end. Lot of conceptions has been proposed to answer the Q, including burrows, mechanical structures and even cold methane seeps – the latter conception, however, must be ruled out.

Summing up, there are two opposite conceptions mentioned by you:

1) These are burrows, most probably similar to Paramoudras well known from the GB. This could be an explanation, however, Paramoudras are known to be associated with flints and the central chimney is rather small in diameter in comparison to structures on the photos.

2) The second hypothesis [mentioned by lot of you] argues for de-watering structures as an explanation.

Surprisingly, some of you strongly argued that these are mechanical structures, whereas other completely rejects its mechanical origin arguing for biogenic origin. Finally, lots of you ask questions I can not answer right now [before I will go to the field again]. These include: i) is it completely structure-less?; ii) how the bottom and the top of these structures look like; iii) is there anything inside e.g. at the bottom.

Hope next week I will be in the field and then maybe some aspects will be clearer.

If I will know any of the answer mentioned above I will keep you informed. One more time thank you very much for your interest.

Zbyszek

I agree with Duncan; these structures are definitely biogenic rather than abiogenic, and they are most similar to burrows constructed by decapod crustaceans.

I look forward to your next installment of information Zbyszek!

I will try to add some new info in short time.

The structures are very similar to the cylindrical structures seen in Neogene mudstone in eastern Himalayan foothills. The structures can be more than 5 cm in diameter and about 70 cm long. We are working on them but it is still unidentified. Suggested interpretation varies from crab-fish burrow to mangrove root but nothing has come out definitely

sorry forgot to attach the picture from Neogene eastern Hi,alaya