Pink Petrified Wood (Australia): Market Name Meaning, Metaphysical Energy & Geology

Pink market-named petrified wood pendants, lower half of October 2025 collection photograph — Pink Petrified Wood market-name pendants · October 2025 collection. The lower portion of the shared photo is shown here; the pictured pieces were not the tested specimen.

This Australian material was marketed as Pink Petrified Wood. The examined specimen was not identified as petrified wood.

Finding: Sample 92905 (#5), completed April 18, 2022, was identified as a silica-rich, slightly silicified rhyolitic volcanic rock. A calcium-rich grain could be altered plagioclase or a zeolite; the report did not resolve its identity.

Why the market name matters: The report did not document wood anatomy or fossil replacement. It arrived at the laboratory under a “rhodonite” label, but the findings support neither rhodonite nor petrified wood in the examined area. Australia is the supplied locality.

Catalog note: The printed sample number 92905 also appears on separate beryl and ruby association reports. This entry is identified by its April 18 completion date and the pink Australian specimen; the reports are kept separate.

View the original report

Select a page to enlarge it. 4 pages; findings are summarized in accessible text above.

Report images © Soul Body Gems, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Please acknowledge all three when referring to these results. Findings apply to the specimen examined.

Understanding the report figures

Use this guide alongside the written findings and the original report transcript. It explains the purpose of each analytical figure and preserves the laboratory’s own figure labels. The interpretations apply to the tested specimen; signals alone do not establish the identity of every similar-looking stone.

Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of an area of the specimen.
Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2 (silia-rich rhyolitic rock)
Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2 (either altered calcic plagioclase or a zeolite)
Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 4 in Fig. 2 (potasium feldspar)
Element map: This map shows where the named elements occur within the analyzed area. Its colors represent the laboratory’s selected element channels, rather than the specimen’s visible colors. The caption below preserves any color key or distribution noted by the laboratory.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4 X-ray map of the area shown in Fig. 2: Left: sodium: yellow, calcium: red, potassium: blue. Right: silicon: orange; aluminum: green.

Read the original laboratory report as text

The following text and tables are transcribed from the original laboratory document. Figure captions identify the report images; the laboratory interpretations and limitations are preserved.

Laboratory report 1

Analytical Result Report

Sample id: 92905 (#5) ‘rhodonite’

Submitted by: K. Bitner

Date submitted: April 4, 2022.

Date completed: April 18, 2022.

Operating conditions: An AMRAY 1830 SEM operated at 25 kV acceleration potential, 26 mm working distance, 15 degrees sample tilt, coated with 250 Å carbon. Using the X-ray fluorescence attachment with 35 kV potential in conjunction with the EDS system.

Fig. 1: Photograph of the specimen. 4.5 cm maximum dimensions.

Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of an area of the specimen.

Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2 (silia-rich rhyolitic rock)

Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2 (either altered calcic plagioclase or a zeolite)

Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 4 in Fig. 2 (potasium feldspar)

Fig. 4 X-ray map of the area shown in Fig. 2: Left: sodium: yellow, calcium: red, potassium: blue. Right: silicon: orange; aluminum: green.

Table 1: Minor and trace element composition of the specimen. (in wt. %).

Laboratory data as recorded in the report
Element	Reported value
Barium	0.08
Calcium	1.25
Iron	0.52
Manganese	0.05
Potassium	3.61
Sodium	2.88

Summary of findings: This specimen (Fig. 1) is a silicified volcanic rock (Figs. 2-6 and Table 1. Silica is high (77 wt. % SiO2) but suggests a slightly silicified rhyolitic rock (Fig. 3), but the chemical signature is clear. A grain with high calcium (Fig. 4) is interesting and resembles a zeolite or a plagioclase. However, for a plagioclase it would indicate a more mafic rock which this material is not according to the high sodium and calcium (Table 1). The elevated barium is another indication for a felsic volcanic rock (Table 1).

Date: April 18, 2022 Signature