Mykkhul97 Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 I am not sure what this is. Could it be coral or tenticle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandpa Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 I'm thinking it could be an iron concretion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norki Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 Looks like a cast of a crustacean burrow to me, a fairly common occurrence in marine deposits. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pemphix Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 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 More sharing options...
digit Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 Yup. Crustacean burrow is where my mind went as well. (I wish I could keep track of where my mind went.) 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 More sharing options...
Mykkhul97 Posted December 4, 2019 Author Share Posted December 4, 2019 I bought it at an auction in Pocatello, Idaho. That's as far as I know about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpc Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 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 More sharing options...
Mykkhul97 Posted December 4, 2019 Author Share Posted December 4, 2019 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 More sharing options...
caldigger Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megalodoodle Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Looks like its got some iron on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 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 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 More sharing options...
AZRockMan Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 I would say, turtle poo or some sort of agate. But, I put my money on turtle poo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mykkhul97 Posted December 6, 2019 Author Share Posted December 6, 2019 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 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 More sharing options...
Carl Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 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 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. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 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. 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 More sharing options...
Carl Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 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. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandpa Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hemipristis Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 In the marine Cretaceous deposits on the US East Coast these are attributed to Callionassa, a burrowing shrimp. 2 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' George Santayana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westcoast Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GallinaPinta Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 On 12/3/2019 at 11:30 PM, Mykkhul97 said: I am not sure what this is. Could it be coral or tenticle? Shrimp burrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jersey Devil Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 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 More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now