Jump to content
minnbuckeye

Two Decorah Shale Specimens to ID

Recommended Posts

daves64
1 hour ago, minnbuckeye said:

Unfortunately, the postage to Morocco has gone up exponentially (hundreds of dollars for a SMALL package)

May as well just take them to him. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad

Well, I'm not going to help anymore, I am now sulking. Crying.gif.9257caf85eb54b77ddbde56005c7a546.gif

Seriously though, it's the thought that counts, so thanks very much, Mike. :)

And don't send me anything anyway, as the postal service is a complete mess here at the moment, I can't go out to the post office due to lock-down and the postman delivers only letters. I have a couple of parcels in limbo already, no idea where they are, plus one stuck in the USA for six weeks according to tracking.  

Anyway, the big round one looks like a giant crinoid columnal to me, but I'm sure isn't. Must be either a coral of a segment through a nautiloid like Endoceras. 

I have found many of those smooth tubey things in my specimens from the Cincinnatian of Indiana, though none quite as belemnite shaped as a couple of yours. I think that they are possibly the trepostome bryozoan Batostomella gracilis, that sometimes appears smooth as the zooecia are set at an acute angle and  have a very small opening which is covered or partly covered by a 'lid'. The genus is said to be the most commonly found bryozoan in many of the Upper Ordovician rocks of North America. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
andy_mnemonic

Since #1 doesn't have an exterior texture, like a bryozoan or burrow, or interior pattern like a coral... I'm guessing a cast of a larger cephalopod's siphon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FossilDAWG

I think the "coral" might be a piece of the siphuncle of a Narthecoceras nautiloid.  These nautiloids are almost entirely known from their massive siphuncles, which are filled with deposits to the center, except for a tiny tube in the middle, for most of their length.  They are common components of the "Arctic Ordovician" fauna which occurs (besides on some islands in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago) in the Red River Formation of southern Manitoba, the Fremont Formation in the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming, in the Montoya Group in SE New Mexico/El Paso area of Texas, and correlated formations.  It is very rare in the Cincinnatti area (one specimen known), and I collected a specimen in Ottawa Ontario.  I would expect it to occur in the Decorah as that formation correlates with formations where it is known to occur.

 

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minnbuckeye

 Thanks @Tidgy's Dad, @FossilDAWG, and @andy-mnemonicNever even thought of siphuncle split so thinly, in spite of me frequently finding siphuncles in the Decorah. 

As for the other hash plate. Here are a few close ups. 

 

 DSC_0280-001.thumb.JPG.1dfef5b22095ee4123cf55661b47a63c.JPG 

DSC_0282-001.JPG.f249c27085c809c6e5e7ec7d5a57f02e.JPG 

DSC_0283-001.JPG.50f7d2ed34aa946e27aaf02ebefdea75.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minnbuckeye

@Tidgy's Dad, I find Batostoella frequently and my gut instinct is that this is not the proper ID. Or do you mean they are zooecia of Batostoella?? I found this bryozoa from the Kope formation, Ordovician that resembles it. What do you think? They are found in the Decorah Shale but I couldn't find an image.

Escharopora maculata

Eschoropora-maculata-250-black.png?resiz 

 

Escharopora

escharoW.png?w=918
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ruger9a

Looks kind of like Triticite Fusulinida

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad

They look the wrong shape and size for fusulinids and for Escharopora in my opinion. Escharopora isn't usually found in large numbers either, as far as i'm aware and I would expect to see some more surface detail, though i suppose this could be a preservation issue. 

I don't know. :headscratch:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ruger9a
4 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

They look the wrong shape and size for fusulinids and for Escharopora in my opinion. Escharopora isn't usually found in large numbers either, as far as i'm aware and I would expect to see some more surface detail, though i suppose this could be a preservation issue. 

I don't know. :headscratch:

I believe you're right Adam (as usual). 

Here is one of my uncleaned plates of Triticite Fusulinida. 

DSCN9324.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad
8 minutes ago, Ruger9a said:

I believe you're right Adam (as usual). 

Here is one of my uncleaned plates of Triticite Fusulinida. 

Interesting. How long are those on average? 

And I'm certainly right as usual in saying that i don't know what things are! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ruger9a
1 minute ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Interesting. How long are those on average? 

And I'm certainly right as usual in saying that i don't know what things are! :D

LOL, I know better:-)  They are 5-7mm average.  "Looks" like a few may be 10mm or larger.  Never cleaned it so the "larger" specimens may actually be overlap, don't know.  I think I'll soak it for a little while today just to see.  Thought I might be helping minnbuckeye, but it appears I may be getting off topic, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad
3 minutes ago, Ruger9a said:

LOL, I know better:-)  They are 5-7mm average.  "Looks" like a few may be 10mm or larger.  Never cleaned it so the "larger" specimens may actually be overlap, don't know.  I think I'll soak it for a little while today just to see.  Thought I might be helping minnbuckeye, but it appears I may be getting off topic, sorry.

No, it's all good, might be useful. 

If everyone contributes their two penn'orth we might get somewhere.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad

Bit I think Triticites is Carboniferous and Permian? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minnbuckeye
29 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

How long are those on average?

@Tidgy's Dad 4-8mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad

If they were Escharopora, I'd expect at least some of them to be much bigger, don't think I've seen small ones and certainly not en masse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shamalama
5 hours ago, minnbuckeye said:

 Thanks @Tidgy's Dad, @FossilDAWG, and @andy-mnemonicNever even thought of siphuncle split so thinly, in spite of me frequently finding siphuncles in the Decorah. 

As for the other hash plate. Here are a few close ups. 

 

 DSC_0280-001.thumb.JPG.1dfef5b22095ee4123cf55661b47a63c.JPG DSC_0282-001.JPG.f249c27085c809c6e5e7ec7d5a57f02e.JPG DSC_0283-001.JPG.50f7d2ed34aa946e27aaf02ebefdea75.JPG

I may be grasping at straws here, but first and last pic look almost crinoidal to me. Possibly roots or arms of some sort? I can't find anything similar in the Cincinnatian references that I have.

 

Could that middle pic be from a Arthroclema sp. Bryozoan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minnbuckeye

@Shamalama, your suggestions are well received. Looks like this will be labeled as unknown for the time being, as grasping for straws leaves me with a little doubt!! LOL. Sorry for the late response. 

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
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


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×