Honeycomb-like structure

[Paleome]

I have gone through 200 pounds of Wheeler Formation and found only 5 of these (2 are the original, and the impression of one specimen).  I must have missed the impressions or originals of the others.  They are difficult to spot.

 

They are honeycomb structures, almost microscopic patches, just sitting on top of, but firmly attached to, matrix.  These patches are not any bigger than 3mm at their longest dimension.  Only one of them is that big, and they are all roughly circular or oval in shape, no boundaries, no distinct edges.  The others range in size from 1mm, to 1.5mm, to 2.5mm in length.

 

The first photo:  10x eyepiece, 4/0.10 body. 

Second photo:  10x eyepiece, 10/0.25 body.

Both images are to the right of the pointer. 

 

At first, I thought these might be trilobite eye molts, or detachments due to decomposition, as their inner structures appear to be hexagonal, like the lenses in holochroal eyes.  But maybe the density of these structures is too great for trilobite eyes.  The only response I have had is from a member who thought these might be algal in nature.  I have searched online for the past two days, narrowing it down to every type of dasycladean or protist I could find, but no image I have seen, from the pre-Cambrian through the entire Cambrian, has revealed anything that looks like these.

 

They resemble encrusting bryozoans, but bryozoans didn't appear until the Ordovician.  And, of course, that includes the Receptaculites or Fisherites, which have a passing resemblance to my specimens.

 

Could any other creature from the Mid-Cambrian have possessed such a membraneous structure? 

 

Are any of you able to help me identify these?   

 

 

Edited August 20, 2020 by Paleome
A few misspellings and need for extra detail

[Paleome]

Could they be clusters of eggs of something?

[DPS Ammonite]

11 hours ago, Paleome said:

Could they be clusters of eggs of something?

Are they soft enough to be scratched with your fingernail? If so, they might be a modern encrustations. Do they seem to go into the matrix or do they sit on the surface?

[Paleome]

Before I try that, can you explain how they might be modern encrustations?  They came out of the rock that way, when it was broken open.  They were not just sitting at the surface, exposed to the elements.  As I mentioned before, one specimen has an original fossilization, and when it was split open, I found its impression on the other side of the split-off rock.

 

I am being very cautious with these, as they are so small, and there are so few of them. Thank you for your response, but please explain...

Edited August 20, 2020 by Paleome
Left out clearer description

[Paleome]

Please forgive my initial reluctance, but as I thought about it,  I came to realize that if I could scratch them off, they wouldn't truly be fossils.  So, nothing would be lost anyway.  So I tried it, and these are firmly anchored to the matrix.  They came out of the rock that way, when the rock was freshly split.

Edited August 20, 2020 by Paleome
Left out a word

[Paleome]

I also noticed something else.  I don't know if this is because of the optics in my scope, but each patch is depressed a little, right in the center.  I additionally found another small patch of the same substance on one of my rocks.  

 

I just ordered some higher mag eyepieces for the stereoscope, which I will get delivered to me next week.  Then, I will be able to take much better pictures of each of my specimens, as I won't have to hassle with a not-completely-functional compound scope, as I did when I first took some photos.

[Paleome]

I just edited the initial post to indicate that these structures are firmly attached to the matrix.  Thank you, DPS Ammonite, for having me try that test.   

[DPS Ammonite]

25 minutes ago, Paleome said:

Please forgive my initial reluctance, but as I thought about it,  I came to realize that if I could scratch them off, they wouldn't truly be fossils.  So, nothing would be lost anyway.  So I tried it, and these are firmly anchored to the matrix.  They came out of the rock that way, when the rock was freshly split.

If you split the rock then they are not modern and likely fossils.

 

Don't fully discount that they might be bryozoans or relatives. It would be interesting to show them to a bryozoan expert. Contact Paul D. Taylor at the Museum of Natural History London.

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/departments-and-staff/staff-directory/paul-taylor.html

 

 

[Paleome]

You know, I was thinking the same thing.  Everything that needs to be discovered, probably hasn't been, yet.  Maybe there were bryozoans, or something similar, in the Mid-Cambrian, which hasn't been studied, yet. I am originally an archaeologist, and the same goes for that discipline.

 

I will get some better photos together, show them here on the forum, then get in touch with Paul D. Taylor at the link you provided.  May I use your name as a reference when I contact him?  You can personal message me.

 

Thank you!

[DPS Ammonite]

I like how you say that fossils need to be discovered. They also need to be identified. 

“Everything that needs to be discovered, probably hasn't been, yet.“

 

Paul does not know me so no need to give a reference. He is a leading bryozoan expert since his name is on so many recent papers included lots that mention US fossils.

Edited August 20, 2020 by DPS Ammonite

[Paleome]

OK!  Thanks again!  I shall let you know what happens, and I won't give up! 

 

Deb

[Paleome]