Jump to content

Is this a marine fossil?


Mykkhul97

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Norki said:

Looks like a cast of a crustacean burrow to me, a fairly common occurrence in marine deposits.

+1 for burrow (probably crustacean)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. Crustacean burrow is where my mind went as well. (I wish I could keep track of where my mind went.) :P

 

Looks to be a really great example of a burrow cast with lots of detail. Do you have an idea of what geological age the fossils in the area might be where this was found?

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mykkhul97 said:

I bought it at an auction in Pocatello, Idaho. That's as far as I know about it.

Hey... has anyone mentioned crustacean burrow?  One more vote for that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, jpc said:

Hey... has anyone mentioned crustacean burrow?  One more vote for that.

 

 

That's what the consensus seems to be is a burrow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mykkhul97 said:

That's what the consensus seems to be is a burrow

Wellll, I don't know about that.  It looks more like a crustacean burrow to me. :default_rofl:

  • I found this Informative 1

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a single coprolite as suggested by a poster. Rather, it is a crustacean burrow lined with fecal pellets. See Ophiomorpha: http://ichnology.ku.edu/invertebrate_traces/tfimages/ophiomorpha.html

DB9C2C5C-EDD9-473C-97F7-D2F65C7438BB.jpeg

  • I found this Informative 1

My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned.   

See my Arizona Paleontology Guide    link  The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DPS Ammonite said:

This is not a single coprolite as suggested by a poster. Rather, it is a crustacean burrow lined with fecal pellets. See Ophiomorpha: http://ichnology.ku.edu/invertebrate_traces/tfimages/ophiomorpha.html

DB9C2C5C-EDD9-473C-97F7-D2F65C7438BB.jpeg

So in essence, it is poo... It does kind of look like the Baby Ruth that kid put in the pool in Caddyshack...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2019 at 3:32 PM, DPS Ammonite said:

This is not a single coprolite as suggested by a poster. Rather, it is a crustacean burrow lined with fecal pellets. See Ophiomorpha: http://ichnology.ku.edu/invertebrate_traces/tfimages/ophiomorpha.html

DB9C2C5C-EDD9-473C-97F7-D2F65C7438BB.jpeg

Not fecal pellets that line Ophiomorpha. They are blobs of sediment fashioned by the ghost shrimp for construction. The fecal pellets of these shrimp are smaller, phosphatic, cylindrical, usually darker, and have a symmetrical arrangement of longitudinal canals running through them.

  • I found this Informative 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen some sources that say that Ophiomorpha are lined with fecal pellets: link (http://ichnology.ku.edu/invertebrate_traces/tfimages/ophiomorpha.html; link (http://www.sjvgeology.org/geology/trace_fossils_ophiomorpha.html)  and link (https://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/geol342/lectures/03.html). Even Wikipedia says that they of fecal origin.

 

I have heard that the burrow lining is from mudballs of non fecal origin. Other sources only describe the shape and do not mention say they are feces: link (fossiilid.info); link (DESCRIPTION OF THE TRACE FOSSIL AND TAXONOMIC EVALUATION OF GYROLITRES, THALASSINOIDES, OPHIOMORPHA AND SPONGELIOMORPHA by Brinkley.)

 

I find it interesting that the Treatice of Invertebrate Paleontology defines Ophiomorpha only by its shape and does not mention a fecal origin, while the Kansas University (they produce the Treatise) site says that Ophiomorpha are fecal pellets.

 

Carl, do you think that the OP’s rock is Ophiomorpha?

 

Maybe we should say that the pellets in Ophiomorpha are possibly fecal to accommodate differing opinions. A description of the physical characteristics of a trace fossil without mentioning how they were specifically formed is a valid method of defining Ophiomorpha. The non fecal origin of current Ghost Shrimp burrows does not imply that all Ophiomorpha burrows of the past were all non fecal in origin.

 

  • I found this Informative 2

My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned.   

See my Arizona Paleontology Guide    link  The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DPS Ammonite said:

I have seen some sources that say that Ophiomorpha are lined with fecal pellets: link (http://ichnology.ku.edu/invertebrate_traces/tfimages/ophiomorpha.html; link (http://www.sjvgeology.org/geology/trace_fossils_ophiomorpha.html)  and link (https://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/geol342/lectures/03.html). Even Wikipedia says that they of fecal origin.

 

I have heard that the burrow lining is from mudballs of non fecal origin. Other sources only describe the shape and do not mention say they are feces: link (fossiilid.info); link (DESCRIPTION OF THE TRACE FOSSIL AND TAXONOMIC EVALUATION OF GYROLITRES, THALASSINOIDES, OPHIOMORPHA AND SPONGELIOMORPHA by Brinkley.)

 

I find it interesting that the Treatice of Invertebrate Paleontology defines Ophiomorpha only by its shape and does not mention a fecal origin, while the Kansas University (they produce the Treatise) site says that Ophiomorpha are fecal pellets.

 

Carl, do you think that the OP’s rock is Ophiomorpha?

 

Maybe we should say that the pellets in Ophiomorpha are possibly fecal to accommodate differing opinions. A description of the physical characteristics of a trace fossil without mentioning how they were specifically formed is a valid method of defining Ophiomorpha. The non fecal origin of current Ghost Shrimp burrows does not imply that all Ophiomorpha burrows of the past were all non fecal in origin.

 

Thanks for all of these refs. I definitely agree that the OP's specimen is Ophiomorpha. And I'm sad that so many sources, and generally good ones, state that the burrow walls are studded with fecal pellets... If we had no idea what the tunnel-makers feces looked like I think we would have to say "the pellets in Ophiomorpha are possibly fecal" but since these animals are also extant, and very well-known, we can state with remarkable certainty that the tunnel pellets are very different from the fecal pellets. And since everything else that is easily comparable between the, say, Cretaceous callianassids and the modern ones is virtually identical, we would have to expect the tunnels and feces to be pretty damned similar as well. Where I dig in NJ the Ophiomorpha and callianassid fecal pellet masses are both found, plus plenty of the claws of the shrimp, adding weight to them all being associated. And I'm pretty sure that modern callianassid shrimp have been observed fashioning burrow pellets from sediment. At least this is what I recall from when I was studying this stuff for a couple of years.

  • I found this Informative 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Carl said:

And I'm pretty sure that modern callianassid shrimp have been observed fashioning burrow pellets from sediment.

This would seem to be pivotal in the distinction between balls of sediment and dung balls. 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Carl said:

it is a crustacean burrow lined with fecal pellets

That looks a lot like a giant caddis fly larval coating.  Can you imagine the size of the trout that hatched fly would atttract?  :meganim:

image.png

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl is spot on. Anyone ever see a crawdad’s mud tower? Next to a creek? NOT FECES! 
 

Ophiomorpha, Thalassinoides and Spongeliomorpha have all been attributed to the same group of crustaceans. They represent different matrix conditions. Ophiomorpha is created when a sandy substrate needs reinforcement. Thalassinoides are burrows dug in a more stable clay mud and Spongeliomorpha in a  limey matrix. At least from my own observations. 

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the marine Cretaceous deposits on the US East Coast these are attributed to Callionassa, a burrowing shrimp.

  • I found this Informative 2

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'

George Santayana

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, erose said:

Carl is spot on. Anyone ever see a crawdad’s mud tower? Next to a creek? NOT FECES! 
 

Ophiomorpha, Thalassinoides and Spongeliomorpha have all been attributed to the same group of crustaceans. They represent different matrix conditions. Ophiomorpha is created when a sandy substrate needs reinforcement. Thalassinoides are burrows dug in a more stable clay mud and Spongeliomorpha in a  limey matrix. At least from my own observations. 

See Bromley and Frey 1974. I believe they were the first to describe substrate control on this burrow system.

 

 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crustaceans & Ophiomopha(NO free access,BTW)

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 475 (2017) 93–105

Solving a cold case: New occurrences reinforce juvenile callianassids as the Ophiomorpha puerilis tracemakers

 

 

bull24-03-04-283-297.pdf

 

the ethological basis of(for?) thalassinidean burrows is reasonably(not saying completely) covered in Miller & Curran/2001(behavioral plasticity,etc/Paywalled))

as regards pellet morphology in relation to ichnotaxonomy:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10420940.2012.734880

a more interdisciplinary approach(paywalled):

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10420940590914471

some of you may like

Burrow characteristics of the mud shrimp Austinogebia edulis, an ecological engineer causing sediment modification of a tidal flat
Shagnika Das,Li-Chun Tseng,Lan Wang,Jiang-Shiou Hwang 
Published: December 13, 2017https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187647

about 10 MB

 

 

eculiar reworking of Ophiomorpha shafts in the Miocene Nangang Formation Taiwan.pdf

To cite this article: Ludvig Löwemark, Yu-Chen Zheng, Subarna Das, Chung-Ping Yeh & TzuTung Chen (2016) A peculiar reworking of Ophiomorpha shafts in the Miocene Nangang Formation,
Taiwan, Geodinamica Acta, 28:1-2, 71-85, DOI: 10.1080/09853111.2015.1035208

________----->>>>>RECOMMENDED

 

 

topho566y88iu7yutdttyyt66j6b5.jpg

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2019 at 11:30 PM, Mykkhul97 said:

I am not sure what this is. Could it be coral or tenticle?

20191202_182715.jpg

20191202_182642.jpg

20191202_182646.jpg

Shrimp burrow? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2019 at 3:25 PM, Carl said:

Thanks for all of these refs. I definitely agree that the OP's specimen is Ophiomorpha. And I'm sad that so many sources, and generally good ones, state that the burrow walls are studded with fecal pellets... If we had no idea what the tunnel-makers feces looked like I think we would have to say "the pellets in Ophiomorpha are possibly fecal" but since these animals are also extant, and very well-known, we can state with remarkable certainty that the tunnel pellets are very different from the fecal pellets. And since everything else that is easily comparable between the, say, Cretaceous callianassids and the modern ones is virtually identical, we would have to expect the tunnels and feces to be pretty damned similar as well. Where I dig in NJ the Ophiomorpha and callianassid fecal pellet masses are both found, plus plenty of the claws of the shrimp, adding weight to them all being associated. And I'm pretty sure that modern callianassid shrimp have been observed fashioning burrow pellets from sediment. At least this is what I recall from when I was studying this stuff for a couple of years.


I agree the Ophiomorpha burrows are lined with sediment and not coprolites. I think I read somewhere that Ophiomorpha was reinforced with fecal pellets, but that didn’t make any sense because the pellets in the burrow look very different from actual invertebrate coprolites.

“You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one.” ― Mikhail Tal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some of you may like(or find useful):

 

 

The_specific_identification_of_faecal_pellets.pdf

 

ditto

 

Mar_Geol_289_117a.pdf

Author version: Mar. Geol., vol.289; 2011; 117–121
Occurrence of faecal pellet-filled simple and composite burrows in cold seep
carbonates: A glimpse of a complex benthic ecosystem
A. Mazumdar, R. K. Joshi, A. Peketi and M. Kocherla 

  • I found this Informative 1

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...