Porifera indet.

I'm not seeing very similar morphology between the two.  

Maybe @Ludwigia Roger can have a look.  

Sorry. I’m overseas right now, so it’ll have to wait until I get back home before I can check my files.

@Fossildude19

Oh, I think it is just a slice of the sponge, and it has some serious beveling along the cracks, so I believe it is quite erroded?

I think the big bulge is the center - or root - of the sponge. (My morphology knowledge is very limited, but I will get there. )

@Ludwigia 

I think this sponge is very similar to yours, Ludwigia, it is the only reference I've found that fits it so far.

I make the assumption that the sponge is circular around the larger bulge, since the top side is shaped like a slice of a broken bowl. The top also has an indentation in the top side that looks like it could be a channel from the side to the center. Although the top is completely broken of, I have another piece that is presumably the same type of sponge and the top would then be some sort of layering with channels between the layers and larger channels from the side directly to the center.

The bottom bulges seems to have very tiny channels that go through all the way to the other side. There are two extra 'invisible' channels that follows the overall placing and pattern, but they are presumable totally broken of or erroded, so only faint channels are visible.

Thank you for your time.

I just looked through my data, but I'm afraid I can't help you any further. I'm no great expert on sponges, which are difficult to identify, so I can't really tell what yours may be.

@Ludwigia

I'll take this like a man and note it in my book as a "potentially new spieces"

Yes, sponges do seem particulary difficult to identify. I've gotten the impression that if one wants to hear a pin drop on a paleontology party, one should ask for a classification on a sponge? Thats a bit sad since one really should praise them for their enormous diversity, due to their decentralized biology. 

I think you are correct, the probable caking on top and the side channel seems not to fall under the Callopegma umbrella, also the size, if that matters, excludes it from the group. I did find heavily erroded belemnites at the location, and the closest known fossil period is (lower)upper campanian. Would Campanian sponge, or Cretaceous Sponge be enough as a classification for now? I don't want to add to the overall 'sponge confusion'.

http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app11/app11-015.pdf

(about 7,3 Mb)

Given the paleogeography of the Polish-Danish trough in the Cretaceous ..

1 hour ago, Linus said:

@Ludwigia

 

I'll take this like a man and note it in my book as a "potentially new spieces"

 

Yes, sponges do seem particulary difficult to identify. I've gotten the impression that if one wants to hear a pin drop on a paleontology party, one should ask for a classification on a sponge? Thats a bit sad since one really should praise them for their enormous diversity, due to their decentralized biology. 

 

I think you are correct, the probable caking on top and the side channel seems not to fall under the Callopegma umbrella, also the size, if that matters, excludes it from the group. I did find heavily erroded belemnites at the location, and the closest known fossil period is (lower)upper campanian. Would Campanian sponge, or Cretaceous Sponge be enough as a classification for now? I don't want to add to the overall 'sponge confusion'.

 

Porifera indet. would do for the time being.

Cool, do you change heading? Or @Fossildude19?

I seems to passed the window for editing the post?