Jump to content

Recommended Posts

@Monica I agree with Diane, 1 - it looks like Auloporoid coral (but I don't know a genus... Aulopora sp, Intrapora sp.).

2 - it looks like a bryozoan (but I don't know a genus... Atactotoechus sp., Leptotrypella sp., Fistulipora sp.)

We can designate a problem and in the future return to it

It's a great surprise for me - you have Intrapora sp. = similar to Aulopora sp <_<

image.thumb.png.03b34325d362151d9d002acbd89609e5.png 

 

About "sandwiches" (coral + epizoans) I don't know corals and stromatoporoid :unsure: 

but I know one collector (fossil hunter) here in Russia, she loves these "sandwiches" and she has o lot of them (D2-D3)...

And she knows one scientist here, he can (or may be) help to define

If you interesting I will write to her (to invite to TFF). 

 

In any case, I am going to understand / define specimens from D2 USA/Canada 

"... and in the future lets return to it" 

 

@Mediospirifer @Shamalama

image.png.88c256f416c3adc9028549de25f447bb.png

 

I think it is "Relationships to live hosts", because they (Cornulites sp.) grown to the commissure of the brachiopods.

But it's only a small part / fragment of the Cornulites sp. Another fragment has been breaked off when current (water) has been moving a brachiopod.

 

image.png.b98a14f890cafea7d6a5fd4a59f1af79.png  

 

I have a gift from D3. Please, look at these Cornulites sp. they rise / grow higher the valves. 

It's a proof - they can!

image.thumb.png.c2633086db8336e8622d5f51aab98b5c.png

 

And It's a very important thing because we meet some problematic scars on the brachiopods 

It's a very rare specimen in D3

image.png.59dceb4cbfcceedbcf776878744b5e55.png

 

But more common in D2 

image.png.c01e603722a834e5d13ed4400e35330e.png

 

@Tidgy's Dad

Epizoans on the Brachiopod Paraspirifer bownockeri (stewart) from the Middle Devonian of Ohio Diane K. Sparks, Richard D. Hoare, and Robert V. Kesling 1980: "A truly parasitic relationship seems to be the most acceptable for the ComuZites observed during our study. Fisher (1962) stated that cornulitid tubes grew, at least in part, by absorption of calcium carbonate from the host. This absorption, which must weaken the host's shell, together with the probable  interception of food from the host's feeding currents, points towards parasitism. Quite likely, CornuZites was not content with snatching food from the currents generated by the host but actually ate pieces of the host's mantle." = FALSE

 

they can deviate / grow crooked / bent

image.png.7bf0818aa5067f162dcaf16d68a1dde3.png

 

And Cornulites sp. grows faster then brachiopods, so we have:  the cornulite curve is higher than the brachiopoda

* Cornulites sp. can grow perpendicular to the growth of the brachiopod. And brachiopod have to bend the shell substance around an obstacle

 

So we have scars (From here link). These photos ... :zen: are dream!!!

Such brachiopods we can contemplate an eternity

image.png.d017d30c66b843dcb85cdb0c51c1aec6.png

 

and... :zen: mmm fantastic ...

 

image.png.d1d4c0ddb82ae38e862538c9489b9e81.png

 

We can define life position by epizoans. It looks like "Relationships to live hosts"  

image.png.8cb3c1865427e6805c906b050f2896fc.png

image.thumb.png.b66f71bd943fbf55bdf3e2a6460b3f46.png

 

@Misha @caldigger @Al Tahan

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mediospirifer @Tidgy's Dad

 

"A shallow-based pedicle must also have characterized early strophomenates, although adjustors (adjustor muscles) were not developed or too weakly so to have left identifiable scars (Williams & others, 1996, p. 1179)" = It means strophomenates can be from transitional type of brachiopods (it has pedicle (young) -> pedicle is atrophied (adult) - > become free-lying or cemented to the substrate (after cemented can become free-lying too). 

 

Scientists write in Treatise: «The strophomenate pedicle also underwent transformations that resulted in a relocation of the pedicle and its postlarval loss in most lineages (free-lying/ cemented). The pedicles of the oldest strophomenates (billingsellides, early strophomenides, and orthotetides) were evidently fully functional albeit restricted to the delthyrial apex by an undivided deltidium or pseudodeltidium. In younger strophomenates, including later strophomenides, the pseudodeltidium is entire, with the pedicle foramen shifted to a supra-apical position.» = It means: there are 4 orders in 1 class, it’s very impotent to understand, they write in General (about everything and no specifics).

 

1.JPG.d9fb14a8f2b62e44b5deba40ddad4cf5.JPG

 

Scientists also write in Treatise: «The juvenile pedicle was commonly enclosed in an erect, mineralized tube (pedicle sheath) but was lost in adults (brachiopoda from the transitional type) that became free-lying or cemented to the substrate by umbonally secreted polysaccharide (orthotetidines) or spines (productides; Williams, Brunton, & MacACKinnon, 1997, p. 357–359).» = Please, look at this words: «or spines (productides» It means they write about everything and no specifics! Because Productida can be with pedicle, free-lying, live undo mud, cemented to the substrate and live on algae! But they don’t write about it… and unfortunately there a lot of mistakes in Treatise, we have to remember it… here's why may be let's speak specifically about what we need = Order «Strophomenida»? :unsure:

 

On 10.02.2020 at 4:30 AM, Tidgy's Dad said:

There still seems to be much debate about which genera lived convex side up or down

I think these debate from scratch because: Brachiopods can't live undo mud, they have to breathe and eat, Brachiopods can't grow into mud

image.png.8acee059de0a4f3f6576aba47bb4bc56.png

 

And they (Adam's and Diane's two brachiopods) can't be only free-lying because I don't see needful structure of the shells (the geometry of the shell does not imply its retention). The water current will flip over / turn over the shells in stable equilibrium position. For example please see: all the single valves are convex side up (stable position / steady position). 

image.png.10116f586e467a345bd6f00e05e507d7.pngimage.png.9973233787611cde3d98ef10e25f5c6b.png

 

Brachiopods need to have structure/geometry of the shells/valves to hold / to cling to the mud/substrate. See Douvillina sp. (Strophomenida) from D3, it has "ears".  The ears do not allow the shell to turn over, they hold the edge of brachiopod in the bottom sediments. May be it was cemented to the substrate (I'm going to learn / read papers).

 

image.png.60fee53567c0b99fdafa18dd49fcd1ef.png

 

Please see Parastrophonella sp (Strophomenida) from D3. 

It was cemented to the substrate, I see the scar of attachment and brachiopods can lie horizontally, because the plume (edge of the shell) rises above the sediment. 

image.png.f9a0562071072e0b071a657d3054c884.png

 

In your specimens I don't see structure/geometry for free-lying. 

I think your brachiopods were cemented to the substrate in different orientations.

And not horizontally, but horizontal-vertical or vertical. 

 

But may be your brachiopod have been broked off (losed some parts of the shell), like with Douvillina sp.?

image.png.d00b4b9276d6253f8b2da0ac7b83aad9.png

 

Please check my arguments

 

On 09.02.2020 at 5:25 PM, Tidgy's Dad said:

I post another paper discussing strophomenid lifestyles :

 

I haven't read it yet but I have found several papers about it too... 

I have to ask you, do we exactly speak about Strophomenida (Are your brachiopods Strophomenida)? 

 

 

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

As I have said before, yes, some early strophomenides did have a pedicle for attachment. The order Billingsellida was extinct by the end of the Ordovician and the Orthotetida only had a functioning pedicle in early forms, later forms were often cemented to substrates and many grew their shells above the substrate by an excessive conical deepening of the attached ventral valves. 

However, the dominant groups, the Strophomenida and Productida were essentially free living (though some had pedicle openings in the larval stages) or cemented with many groups such as the Strophomenidae and the Rafinesquinidae adopting a 'snow shoe' habit living on soft substrates and potentially keeping clear of being covered up by valve flapping or by being wedge shaped and streamlined as in the Leptaeninae. Experiments have been conducted that seem to have proven that the edges of the valves pressed into the substrate and the pressure of water and the animals own weight prevented valve flipping (as in the paper I most recently posted you, please read it) 

The suborder Chonetidina anchored themselves in the sediment by spines located on the ventral valves posterior margin while the Productidina had spines distributed over other parts of the shells surface. 

A few groups were attached by the beak or cemented via one of the valves. 

There is no debate that the majority of later Strophs were free living, yes, there are some exceptions, the argument is whether they lived concave side down or up. 

 

  • I found this Informative 2

Life's Good!

Tortoise Friend.

MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png.a47e14d65deb3f8b242019b3a81d8160-1.png.60b8b8c07f6fa194511f8b7cfb7cc190.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2020 at 10:44 AM, Brach3 said:

It's a great surprise for me - you have Intrapora sp. = similar to Aulopora sp <_<

 

We have Aulopora for certain (two species are listed in my Devonian Fossils of New York field guide, A. serpens and A. jacksoni), but I've never heard of Intrapora. We also have a similar, free-living coral, Aulocystis

 

On 2/10/2020 at 10:44 AM, Brach3 said:

I think it is "Relationships to live hosts", because they (Cornulites sp.) grown to the commissure of the brachiopods.

 

I thought the same, particularly because there are Cornulites on both sides of the Mucrospirifer, both aligned towards the commissure. The only way (that I can think of) that this could develop on a dead shell pair would be if the brachiopod was partially embedded in the mud in a position similar to the life position. 

 

On 2/10/2020 at 10:44 AM, Brach3 said:

We can define life position by epizoans. It looks like "Relationships to live hosts" 

 

Interesting! I have a few more Tropidoleptus carinatus with similar Hederella growth patterns. I'll have to post pictures when I can. Maybe tomorrow.

 

On the discussion of Rafinesquina and the "snowshoe" life habit, it occurs to me that when a large brachiopod claps its valves to blow loose sediment away, it would also experience lift. This would be doubly helpful to a brachiopod trying to keep from being buried alive, and it seems to me likely to be successful in environments where sediment accumulation is not overwhelmingly rapid. 

 

After all, if modern scallops can swim by clapping their valves, why shouldn't a brachiopod at least be able to raise itself off the seabed? Or even flip itself over, either way?

 

It would be interesting if someone were able to figure out how much water a brachiopod could move, and what effect that would have on the brachiopod's position.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are a few more specimens of Tropidoleptus carinatus encrusted with Hederella canadensis (and other epizoans). One specimen per post at this resolution, so here's the first one:

 

IMG_5134.thumb.JPG.aee31ac95c00dac302b62c916ad7abce.JPGIMG_5139.thumb.JPG.5809c899edfe469d54d2a55724a1312c.JPG

 

More to come! :D

 

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

This one has some obvious postmortem colonization, but I'm wondering if the Hederella near the commissure was a living relationship. It looks likely to me:

 

IMG_5150.thumb.JPG.ec7141641a19015568619ef1930fb670.JPGIMG_5159.thumb.JPG.9669f41a1f3b0f36fdc21bec3d1816ff.JPG

 

 

Two more...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one is harder to tell whether the relationship was living or postmortem. There's a fringe of Hederella bordering the commissure that looks like a living colonization, and there's a few small colonies on top of the shell that appear to be postmortem:

 

IMG_5124.thumb.JPG.4b9f1b333c7befbfd51aa8d86e25ab15.JPGIMG_5129.thumb.JPG.6eae8a9fda084f0a59b9de912b0e75c1.JPG

 

 

I'll post one more photo that I ran across today, of a different sort. :D

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

5e44ea807043c_IMG_2375(2).thumb.JPG.471b1c58fa36495cd6dc029a443269e1.JPG

 

Do the marks on this specimen of Devonochonetes look like barnacle borings? :D

 

I should note, this is a cast of the original shell, and the "pits" are actually lumps. I may at some point see if I can make a mold of the original shell with some clay.

 

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

@Tidgy's Dad @Mediospirifer

On 09.02.2020 at 11:29 AM, Mediospirifer said:

Adam, you mentioned Rafinesquina as a free-living brachiopod. Would smaller strophomenids (like my piece with the Constellaria-like bryozoan above) also be free-living, or do they have a specific life orientation?

Leptaeninae do not look like Rafinesquina :P and has an other habits 

Please see Palaeobiology of Silurian Leptaeninae (Brachiopoda) from Gotland, Sweden (PDF)

 

But there:

"Phenotypic variation among Ordovician species of Rafinesquina was studied by Alexander,1975 [ link ], who found that the perimeter/volume ratio (perimeter being the length of the commisure from hinge margin to hinge margin) shows good correlation with the sedimentary environment inferred by othermethods. A high ratio suggests a wide, flat shell with a minimum of oxygen-consuming biomass and maximum mantle surface for oxygen uptake and good “snow-shoe” effect keeping the shell “afloat” on soft, muddy substrates, which is where these specimens occur. Conversely, a low ratio indicates a deeper shell with more biomass, weighting the animal into the substrate and keeping it from overturning in stronger currents." 

 

On 11.02.2020 at 7:15 PM, Tidgy's Dad said:

Experiments have been conducted that seem to have proven that the edges of the valves pressed into the substrate and the pressure of water and the animals own weight prevented valve flipping (as in the paper I most recently posted you, please read it) 

The Orientation of Strophomenid Brachiopods on Soft SubstratesStrophomenid Orientation (PDF)

These Experiments are as a continuation for Alexander. Yes, now I see the Idea. And this assumption has a right to exist

 

On 11.02.2020 at 7:15 PM, Tidgy's Dad said:

there are some exceptions, the argument is whether they lived concave side down or up. 

The life orientation of concavo-convex brachiopods: overturning the paradigm, 1995 (PDF)

 

Free-lying on ventral/pedicle valve, in this  case it looks like ok, and will not be turned over by the water current

 

image.png.3ad2b432e1a760e099a62b56e4791b16.pngimage.png.867e2db5cf5e0282dfaa8e7fcdfce6b5.png

 

Here in Ordovic Strophomenida made "brachiopod's pavement/roadway/paving" :D carpet made of Free-lying Strophomenida

 

Additionally please see: Diversity and life habits of Silurian Strophomenide brachiopods of Gotland OA Hoel - 2005 (first link in topic is from here)

 

image.png.9142836f9831c5741570d8ce4fc55cdc.png

ESCAPE TRACES ASSOCIATED WITHRAFINESQUINA ALTERNATA, AN UPPER ORDOVICIANSTROPHOMENID BRACHIOPOD FROM THE CINCINNATI ARCH REGION (PDF)

 

AND I have found very interesting situation with Rafinesquina (Strophomenida) & lingulids :rolleyes: it's more and more interesting in Ordovician... ^_^

See paper THE ‘‘CURSE OF RAFINESQUINA:’’ NEGATIVE TAPHONOMIC FEEDBACK EXERTED BY STROPHOMENID SHELLS ON STORM-BURIED LINGULIDS IN THE CINCINNATIAN SERIES (KATIAN, ORDOVICIAN) OF OHIO (PDF)  

 

image.png.40e85b66ab4c53935175c801b1b8648c.png

 

This situation show us that storms could invert / turn over these brachiopods.

 

Adam, Diane please check my argumentations, I could translate something in papers wrong...:headscratch:

 

On 09.02.2020 at 12:38 AM, Monica said:

perhaps a stromatoporoid or a bryozoan?  What do you think?

 

@Monica We can define these specimens but I offer to make section. Сut in half the specimens with poor safety and define your specimens by analogy

grid - Favosites, lines - stromatoporoid, zooids - bryozoan. And then already determine by appearance... I haven't seen here similar specimens in D3 :unsure: that's why let's make sections.

 

@Mediospirifer I'll write about your photos tomorrow... I've been translating all day.... faint, swoon :wacko: Oooo )))

 

 

p.s. It's so very interesting!!! :D - Adam & Diane have opened a new world for me... :default_clap2::default_clap2::default_clap2:

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2020 at 1:22 AM, Mediospirifer said:

5e44ea807043c_IMG_2375(2).thumb.JPG.471b1c58fa36495cd6dc029a443269e1.JPG

 

Do the marks on this specimen of Devonochonetes look like barnacle borings? :D

 

I should note, this is a cast of the original shell, and the "pits" are actually lumps. I may at some point see if I can make a mold of the original shell with some clay.

 

Can't say for certain, but the tiny lumps or pits are often caused by microconchids and the more linerar grooves by cornulitids, corals or bryozoans. 

Great photos. :)

  • I found this Informative 1

Life's Good!

Tortoise Friend.

MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png.a47e14d65deb3f8b242019b3a81d8160-1.png.60b8b8c07f6fa194511f8b7cfb7cc190.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.png.abecda21f10e4188fb46d9485c68eb78.pngimage.png.78d7a536fd4e26d422e97e1e23a2668e.png

 

@Mediospirifer It looks like "Relationships to live hosts" when epizoans has tried to rise above the bottom sediments.

And with new information about "life position" of brachiopods is correlated :D 

 

image.png.dc3d6348e146632dd7ad8cb3e257b746.png

What is it? It looks like foraminifera or young Hederella sp.

 

image.png.5c16907fd2e09f8a22b5ea8a55dcdec0.png

the ledge growth :default_clap2:

№2 I call these phenomena "ruffling scales" or "separation fish scales"

 

image.png.dfdfac5f2e0a31a34d208811ea469307.png

Sometimes it's because of the injury (brachiopod is from Permian)

And Sometimes the reason is not always obvious as in this case, but specimen is interesting!

 

image.png.8f35c59c110b298a70873564df77767d.png

It could be and living and postmortem

but specimen is interesting too! :zen:

 

"if the Hederella near the commissure was a living relationship."

then Hederella had to repeat the commissure / bend of the shell

image.png.71e17b012fb6d31a8827daecf46b0ab9.png

 

For example:

image.png.7c3c4b96b123b60edd63d0cabd982675.pngimage.png.cb584be2782ade68b1777776913db07a.pngimage.png.bdc4c1b1b6f72bbde9c8f86000a9f62e.png

 

"look like barnacle borings?"

It's a core/stamp/cast so hard to say, because there were Polychaeta or worm trails (mud-eater) :unsure:

but it looks like "barnacle borings"

 

@Monica @Misha @Al Tahan @Tidgy's Dad

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Brach3 said:

What is it? It looks like foraminifera or young Hederella sp.

 

It could be Hederella, or very small Cornulites. Under magnification, they have a distinctly conical shape.

 

20 hours ago, Brach3 said:

№2 I call these phenomena "ruffling scales" or "separation fish scales"

 

I hadn't even noticed the separation! I'll have to look at that one under the microscope to see if there's any evidence of cause. Very cool!

 

Here's a specimen with a different sort of pathology. Rhipidomella sp.:

 

IMG_2332.thumb.JPG.3778e6eb718c5c39ae4cbae3fa19fa5d.JPGIMG_2337.thumb.JPG.33e4acc298e745773071e6340dab9b64.JPG

 

And the endocast:

 

5e48faa21dede_IMG_2341(2).thumb.JPG.ee3a68f9e1cbd9991ccec72029cdd2f9.JPG

 

The size and shape of that lump could contain a small bivalve shell (Paleoneilo constricta, to name a common species in this site). I was rather surprised to see that when the valve separated from the matrix after I got it home!

 

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

On 2/13/2020 at 7:46 AM, Brach3 said:

 

@Monica We can define these specimens but I offer to make section. Сut in half the specimens with poor safety and define your specimens by analogy

grid - Favosites, lines - stromatoporoid, zooids - bryozoan. And then already determine by appearance... I haven't seen here similar specimens in D3 :unsure: that's why let's make sections.

 

 

Hi there!

 

I was just wondering what you mean by "making sections" of my specimen - do you mean actually cutting it?  Or do you mean overlaying different symbols/patterns on the picture of the specimen in order to differentiate the organisms?  I'm just wondering because I don't plan on actually cutting this specimen...

 

Thanks!

 

Monica

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Monica said:

I was just wondering what you mean by "making sections" of my specimen - do you mean actually cutting it?  Or do you mean overlaying different symbols/patterns on the picture of the specimen in order to differentiate the organisms?  I'm just wondering because I don't plan on actually cutting this specimen...

 

I think he does mean cutting and polishing a piece. There are some corals that can only be distinguished by looking at the interior.

 

The horn coral looks to me like either Amplexophyllum, Heliophyllum, or Heterophrentis. Can you see the calyx structure at all? I can't say for the bryozoan, but a closer image might show details to rule out some possibilities. The auloporid looks like Aulopora serpens to me.

 

I'm not an expert on any of these, though. I'm referencing Karl Wilson's "Field Guide to the Devonian Fossils of New York". There are probably other possibilities that aren't in that book.

 

It's a cool specimen, and I wouldn't want to cut it either.

 

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

13 hours ago, Monica said:

I'm just wondering because I don't plan on actually cutting this specimen...

@Monica And I too :D  

 

:oyh:

 

I've offered to "cutting and polishing a piece" another specimen.

You find in the fields the good and bad specimens (bad and good quality).

Let's cut and polish the bad specimens and define your good specimens (by/in/on analogy).

 

Another variant:

If you can't do it ("cutting and polishing a piece"), you can find cutting/chipped specimens in the fields.

There's a lot of broken pieces in the fields.

We need to see the side structure / the view from the side.

 

@Mediospirifer Your specimens are interesting. I'll write about them tomorrow. 

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

  • 2 weeks later...
On 17.02.2020 at 12:19 PM, Brach3 said:

I'll write about them tomorrow.

@Mediospirifer let's think that today is tomorrow :D and I am writing...

 

On 16.02.2020 at 11:21 AM, Mediospirifer said:

I hadn't even noticed the separation!

image.thumb.png.9133c1249b7e691709d42e1e2cd41895.png

 

sometimes we have very interesting phenomena/pathology on the shells 

On 16.02.2020 at 11:21 AM, Mediospirifer said:

Here's a specimen with a different sort of pathology. Rhipidomella sp.:

I don't see concavity (recess) and damage (scars) on the upper side

What's it? :unsure:

 

image.png.560e3d1ca9e2feb44325d1b9356482d2.png

 

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

8 hours ago, Brach3 said:

image.thumb.png.9133c1249b7e691709d42e1e2cd41895.png

 

sometimes we have very interesting phenomena/pathology on the shells

 

Very interesting! Looking at the Hederella colony in the first image, it appears that whatever caused the valve separation also interrupted the growth of the epizoans. Is there a similar separation on the other valve?

 

8 hours ago, Brach3 said:

I don't see concavity (recess) and damage (scars) on the upper side

What's it? :unsure:

 

That's a blister on the inside of the shell. You're right, there's no external scarring. I think what happened here is that a piece of foreign matter (possibly a small bivalve shell, judging by the shape) intruded into the brachiopod, and the brach was able to reposition its mantle around the intrusion, secrete more shell material, and keep on growing without interruption. I see interior bumps like this fairly regularly, but not usually this large!

 

Here's a bivalve (Paleoneilo constricta) from the same site, of similar shape to the bump in my Rhipidomella. This one is much larger than the bump, but I've seen small specimens that would be a good fit for the intruding body that was encased in the blister.

 

5e589c56603b8_DSRQ101420184697155(Closeup).thumb.jpg.d20ac0f30e74e5fe9bee1380350c7698.jpg

 

It would be interesting to see if an X-ray image would show what the intrusion was. Unfortunately, that's not something I have any access to. :zzzzscratchchin:

 

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

On 28.02.2020 at 8:02 AM, Mediospirifer said:

it appears that whatever caused the valve separation also interrupted the growth of the epizoans.

@Mediospirifer It's a very interesting suggestion! And I think you are right! I haven't paid attention to it before :default_clap2:

image.png.d24f6390db13d5f379968c1152e7d671.png

 

May be it was situation when something in mud (during the storm) damaged the valve inside. 

image.png.40c334d6971767085d8ee945580f2205.png image.png.ae063dc3d38e6f0bd081d5be6aad5948.png

 

image.png.7c07a3273c2e41d5ce2d120c3ecc6633.png

* there aren't any epizoans on another valve. 

 

We can meet and other cases:

1.  broken valve

image.png.ee1196dc5e8e5fdea8958645acbf5041.png

2. Pseudo-Borings and Predator Traces Artifacts of Pressure-Dissolution in Fossiliferous Shales

link (PDF)

image.png.e488cf6cb0076efdb7523b1f5f227cd4.pngimage.png.20be665590e927e53f9093b95b93495b.png 

 

On 28.02.2020 at 8:02 AM, Mediospirifer said:

possibly a small bivalve shell

It's looks like a sponge. If it's a bivalve shell (a single valve) it can't get inside (valve's gap of brachiopod is too small)  

And the whole bivalve (with 2 shells) can't because it's not life position of this bivalve.

I think blister - it's the sponges inside brachiopod's valve

 

The blisters can be and after boring (repairing on the internal part of the shell), but we don't see it

image.png.0afd875d7c592ce521dba196cfc4d9ed.png

and Blister can be after scar but we don't see it too

image.png.148e9a270d76883a20ff39a95c4e1617.png

so i think it's a sponge :unsure:

 

Silicified Mississippian brachiopods from Muhua, southern China: Rhynchonellides, athyridides, spiriferides, spiriferinides, and terebratulides

Y Sun, A Baliński - Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 2011 link (PDF)

 

Unusual Devonian Brachiopods G. Arthur Cooper Journal of Paleontology Vol. 28, No. 3 (May, 1954) link (PDF)

 

"X-ray image" = "cutting and polishing a piece":

“Blisters” in a Famennian cyrtospiriferid brachiopod from Hunan (South China) link (PDF)

 

Biotic interactions recorded in shells of recent rhynchonelliform brachiopods from San Juan Island, USA link (PDF)

 

Repair of gastropod drillholes in a platidiid brachiopod from F iordland, N ew Z ealand link (PDF)

 

@Monica @Tidgy's Dad

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

14 hours ago, Brach3 said:

there aren't any epizoans on another valve. 

 

I was wondering whether there was an interrupted growth line on that side that corresponds to the separation. It's hard to tell, which I guess means "not much of one". Whatever the cause of the separation, it didn't seriously impact the animal's growth.

 

I like your examples! It's always interesting to see what kind of damage a brachiopod can survive.

 

This one is interesting. There's more going on with this shell than the Auloporid and barnacle holes! Look closely at the sites where I've marked in red:

 

5e5f37699f848_Barnacleboreddivoted(Annotated).png.3c0ed378e55af5d42486bcb202a276a9.png

 

So you think my Rhipidomella had a sponge infestation? That would make sense. I presume the sponge lived there for a while as the brachiopod grew, until it became incorporated into the shell.

 

17 hours ago, Brach3 said:

"X-ray image" = "cutting and polishing a piece":

 

I'd rather not damage the specimen. It's the only one I've found that shows this. Granted, there could be more such lumps in my complete specimens, but I can't see the valve interior when both valves are present. :shrug:

 

Here's a question. Do brachiopods have the ability to retract their mantle to any significant distance? Also, how do modern brachiopods deal with intrusive foreign objects? If a piece of dead shell got washed into the brachiopod's living chamber, could the brachiopod expel it? :zzzzscratchchin:

 

Just a few of the many questions I can think of. :D 

 

Here's another cool pathological brachiopod. This one had a really bad day!

 

IMG_5475.thumb.JPG.0d0615204444cd667257c8fd4cd4e615.JPG

 

The vertical crack on the right side is crush damage from geological processes. There is a cleft towards the bottom of the crack, where the plications are distorted. There's also a subtle cleft in the midline where the brachiopod almost healed without scarring.

 

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have discovered that fantastic thread.

Here is my little contribution to it :

A devonian Strophomena demissa with Aulopora microbuccinata

IMG_1480.thumb.JPG.b7992c34ee7d48bc19df997eeceb3bf6.JPGIMG_1481.thumb.JPG.e30d4cf73756af7c12c85c4c158c424d.JPG

 

A jurassic Gonorynchia maxima with bryozoans, worms

IMG_1471.thumb.JPG.96e3071f49a249921867b1970a53e8eb.JPGIMG_1472.thumb.JPG.8574864bc42c6f42a01f2245c21bb083.JPGIMG_1476.thumb.JPG.a5c89c4957fde4b2b907631ffd635902.JPG

 

And because you like epibionts, here is, from the Ypresian of Algeria, a coraline algae colonized by Homotremae rubrum foraminifers and worms

IMG_1485.thumb.JPG.dfaf33033ad247ca5c7fd07ee5a42a65.JPGIMG_1486.thumb.JPG.10f24f0fd4cd4cb6cfc4e31be1b69781.JPGIMG_1488.thumb.JPG.77c28699db974c7955f3f12588b93afa.JPGIMG_1492.thumb.JPG.158cd1fdd51867f06a0ce8c241d145a8.JPG

  • I found this Informative 2

theme-celtique.png.bbc4d5765974b5daba0607d157eecfed.png.7c09081f292875c94595c562a862958c.png

"On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry)

"We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes."

 

In memory of Doren

photo-thumb-12286.jpg.878620deab804c0e4e53f3eab4625b4c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nor devonian nor brachiopod, but 100 % epibiont and i should add associated :

the melongenae lainei usually lived in marine waters, but they could also live in mid-fresh water. That was the case in the Burdigalian of Château Plantat.

They adapted to this by reducing their size and assiociating those bivalves, or so i think because all the melongenae found on that location have those epibionts attached to them.

IMG_1210.JPG.e1d20f3c68fa95aa5f15be847749ee73.thumb.jpg.5eecac08637228dcf7fb8d710ef76ec6.jpg

  • I found this Informative 2

theme-celtique.png.bbc4d5765974b5daba0607d157eecfed.png.7c09081f292875c94595c562a862958c.png

"On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry)

"We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes."

 

In memory of Doren

photo-thumb-12286.jpg.878620deab804c0e4e53f3eab4625b4c.jpg

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...