Help! Cretaceous Dragonfly (Cordulagomphus) Fossil

[KyCollector]

Hi there! 
 

I’m very new to the forum. I’ve recently been collecting various specimens - crinoids, fish, brittle starfish, trilobites, etc. I’ve come across the attached Cordulagomphus. The seller has said he/she purchased the fossil from a shop in Tucson, Arizona in the past and that it was found in Brazil, but I’m almost scared it’s a bit too good to be true, and I don’t want to get burned after paying the price. Can anyone take a look and tell me what they think? I really appreciate it! 

[Ruger9a]

It's a very nice looking display piece but I'm not sure it's real, I'll leave that decision to the experts in our group.  In my opinion, the sediment layers on edge don't match correctly and I'm suspicious of the straight line blue color (glue/cement) as well.  Also the lack of a visible repaired crack on the reverse.  What does it look like under a black light?

[KyCollector]

Hi! 
 

Thanks for the reply! Unfortunately, I don’t know. I haven’t made the purchase yet. I wanted some other feedback before I followed through. 

[Ruger9a]

Yes, I would strongly recommend other opinions from the experts before making a decision.

[grandpa]

The tail section below the (very straight and clean) "break" line looks very suspicious to me.  As mentioned the sediment layers don't align.  I think this has been added and the fossil "fabricated" below (and also above?) that break.  The preservation of the wings looks ideal (too ideal?).  The head also looks somewhat suspicious (enhanced?) too.  All in all, I think its a good display piece but has been enhanced.

[hadrosauridae]

Thats throwing up a lot of red flags!  The repair seem doesnt match, appears to be 2 different rocks glued together yet the fossil tail crosses the repair line.  The lack of repair seem visible on the back, just too many inconsistencies

 

[piranha]

There is no serious misrepresentation. The terminal abdominal section is reconstructed on an additional piece of matrix that was composited for aesthetic framing.

The head is missing, otherwise it appears to be a fine example ... absolutely authentic!

[Tidgy's Dad]

I agree. 

The very end of the abdomen has been added on a separate rock and the head is missing..

The rest of it looks pretty nice. 

[Fossildude19]

[KyCollector]

Help me out here. What details/analysis can you give me from the above image?

[FossilNerd]

1 hour ago, KyCollector said:

Help me out here. What details/analysis can you give me from the above image?

Hello and welcome from a fellow Kentucky collector!  

 

@Fossildude19 likes to pop in on occasion to brighten, enlarge, shrink, or otherwise enhance photos. Much to our delight and appreciation. 

Sometimes you can see hidden details, with the picture in the negative like the above. It also tends to make things stand out more. Such as, for me, it’s easier to see  the veining in the wings and the split on the rock where it was put back together. It also helps to confirm that the split does not go through the tip of the abdomen. I don’t see it there at least.

 

Just a little trick to help since we have to base all our opinions on photos. Some of us (like me) need all the help we can get.  

[Tidgy's Dad]

1 hour ago, FossilNerd said:

. It also helps to confirm that the split does not go through the tip of the abdomen. I don’t see it there at least.

Indeed, Tim often leaves us to make up our own minds on the alternative images he offers. 

But i think this does show the break goes through the tip of the abdomen. 

[FossilNerd]

3 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

 

But i think this does show the break goes through the tip of the abdomen. 

I think it does as well. I meant to delete that line before posting. I tend to start and stop typing posts a lot and have to figure out where I was when I come back. I realized my error, and edited that line out of my original post right after posting, but you caught me mid delete.  
 

No worries. All good. I added it back so as not to confuse anyone. 

[Tidgy's Dad]

1 hour ago, FossilNerd said:

I think it does as well. I meant to delete that line before posting. I tend to start and stop typing posts a lot and have to figure out where I was when I come back. I realized my error.

No worries. 

We all make mistakes. 

i'm rather good at it. 

[FossilNerd]

2 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

No worries. 

We all make mistakes. 

i'm rather good at it. 

I’m glad I’m not the only one.  

[Randyw]

Like usual I’m going to agree and disagree. I agree it’s authentic and a nice specimen. I’m not sure it’s cordulagomphus though. The amount of body in front of the wings seems to long to me. And the leg cluster too far forward. I’m wondering if it’s a lg damselfly. I’m probably wrong but I’m curious... either way I’d love to have it in my collection!

[oilshale]

Check these papers and compare wing venation and sizes: 

Günter Bechly (1998) New fossil dragonflies from the Lower Cretaceous Crato Formation of north-east Brazil (Insecta: Odonata) . Stuttgarter Beitrage zur Naturkunde Serie B (Geologie und Paläontologie) Nr. 264, 66pp Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284775049_New_fossil_dragonflies_from_the_Lower_Cretaceous_Crato_Formation_of_north-east_Brazil_Insecta_Odonata

Günther Bechly (2010) Additions to the fossil dragonfly fauna from the Lower Cretaceous Crato Formation of Brazil (Insecta: Odonata) Palaeodiversity 3, Supplement: 11–77; Stuttgart 30 December 2010.

Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285224202_Additions_to_the_fossil_dragonfly_fauna_from_the_Lower_Cretaceous_Crato_Formation_of_Brazil_Insecta_Odonata

Thomas

[piranha]

The best match appears to be: Cordulagomphus fenestratus

 

This is the paper that established the genus Cordulagomphus:

 

Carle, F.L., Wighton, D.C. 1990

Chapter 3. Odonata. In: Grimaldi, D.A. (ed.)

Insects from the Santana Formation, Lower Cretaceous of Brazil.

Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 195:51-68 PDF LINK

 

fig. 15 from Carle & Wighton 1990: camera lucida drawing of male hind wing

[Pemphix]

Looks real imho.

Lower part has been added, probably the piece of fossil which is on the added matrix piece, too (or "restored").

Matrix is typical for Crato-member, preservation is too.

 

[FrozenFlame]

Can't speak for the specimen itself, but the matrix is correct for the Crato formation, matching up with a few of the different specimens I have from that region. 

 

Leaning on the side of real, the Crato formation is some area I haven't heard about fakes coming from (although I'm sure there are some out there somewhere).