stromatoporid NO new 11/11/2015 now Alveolites

Nice find. Pretty clearly a fossil. Can you offer comparison photos that actually look similar to yours indicating the proposed identification? Nothing on the link you offer looks like yours.

Truthfully yours looks better!

There are  mamelons present in this one, and the appearance of  possible astrorhizae in the center of the mamelons, though they are not very well defined.  This fossil seems to me to have characteristics of both stromatoporids and stromatolites,  being closely layered in places with the mamelons , and in others more loosely formed . I lean toward stromatoporid due to the visibility of the cell structure which does not seem to be present in stromatolite i own, and have seen illustrated.   Stromatoporids and stromatolites were at one time the most abundant living thing on earth, forms of it being practically the only thing on earth in precambrian  and early paleozoeic times- and a good fossil record remains of many types in varying forms of fossilization.  But evolution of them is poorly documented and the species and forms are very poorly defined at this point. I can not put a name on it as to more than possible stromatoporid/stromatolite.  Scientists who study this area of fossil in practice argue over exact names, I can hardly hope to get it right with a gazillion kinds to choose from, and many more remaining to be discovered, i am sure. 

www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Galleries/StromatolitesAmerica.htm     I can look for fossils which more closely resemble this one, but due to the nature of these critters, individual specimens have a great deal of variety.   more when i find it.  

www.kyanageo.org/fossils/devonian/sponge/Stromatoporoid-sp.jpg  this one is more eroded, mamelons and astrophizae not as clearly defined. I have another one similar to this, just the spiral area, and a little more eroded/deteriorated, clearly showing cell structure.
Specimens this well preserved are evidently hard to find or of little interest to most fossil collectors.  Algae sponge is a little boring compared to trilobites and dinosaurs, i guess!

That's a great page snowmom.

thanks so much inyo, after reading all those pages of info i was beginning to suspect it was a good one.

Right or wrong ?

braders, yes i think it is probably stromatolite, from the looks of it... check out photos of kona dolomite and mary ellen jasper to see the same pattern repeated in different colors. The red in most stromatolite fossils is another clue to its ID, it is due to action of the chlorophyll somehow mineralizing, not sure of the process. microbiology and chemistry stuff. jamesp, that has been the problem and the argument scientists have been having for years with stromatoporoids, the cell structure seems to calcify, and shows clearly in some fossils but not in most. There has been a great deal of argument over if it was sponge that calcified or a form of coral. It is one of the very first life forms to have appeared on earth ( before any of the corals, i think) and the fossils found are usually not this well preserved. Recent studies have decided the issue in favor of sponge that develops a calcified structure.. a step between algae and sponge,moving towards forms of coral... these were super early pre coral bodies. there have been some found that are combinations of stromatolite and stromatoporoid, a lay person could maybe call stromatoporoids the step between sponge and corals? like all scientific studies i guess its a work in progress. The links above go into some good detail about them. I don't think the glaciers bothered this one, it was most likely safely fossilized and hiding in limestone here on our fossil reefs before the glaciers got here, and really doesn't seem to be weathered at all.

Thanks James, we have syringopora here as well as horn coral, petoskey, charlevoix, ( common names) crinoids, favosites, stromatoporoids and stromatolites, thamnoporoids, many rugosee and branch corals and bivalves, supposedly trilobites too, though i have not found any of those. The stuff is mostly Devonian, a bit of silurian, all very early shallow and warm water reef stuff. They're so abundant I guess I take them for granted and maybe don't appreciate them as I should. Most are only partially silicate and many are embedded in oily slate like stuff that makes a nice contrast to the specimen but it doesn't polish well.. Others are almost pure limestone. The variety in states of preservation is interesting.
the stuff that has had contact with Lake and glaciers is usually pretty lacking in detail and beat up. Finding newly exposed stuff gives the best pieces. We are fortunate to have access to an abandoned quarry nearby which has been turned into a park where collectors are allowed. Roadside ditches, gravel, anybody's back yard - they are just everywhere. I don't hunt for fossils but if i see a really good one, i might pick it up to share with visitors, who love them and the pudding stones and Omarullusks that we find here. The last 2 are glacial transports. The grass is always greener, i guess.

There is a lot going on geologically there snowmom. Glacier and meteor movement, then add variable ocean deposits and depths.

I envy your Heinz 57 mix of goodies.