Petalodus12 Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 Hi all, I’m not sure if I’ve posted this find before, but I figured I would anyway because I believe it warrants it’s own thread. I found this find a few years back at one of the localities I most consistently collect at, which is a shaly exposure of the Connelsville Sandstone in western PA. It usually preserves plants quite well, and was described by W.C. Darrah back in the 60s. It has also produced some very early examples of Walchia, an early conifer. However, it is not well known for vertebrate fossils, as sandstones don’t seem to be the preferred type of rock where vertebrates are found in the area. If you’ve seen my other posts you’ve probably realized that most of the time vertebrate fossils are restricted to shales and limestones, often closely related to coals. And in the shales especially, concentrations of material are usually lag deposits and do not represent associated remains. Here I have something different. Its a small jumble of bones, with no diagnostic features whatsoever. However I can rule out actinopterygian material because it lacks the thick shiny scales so characteristic of this group. I’m almost certain it’s not tetrapod material as (1) they are incredibly rare and (2) the ribs seem to be too thin. I’m also fairly confident that it represents a single individual as the bones are locally concentrated and I’ve never seen them before from this locality. I’ve found bones like these before in other more characteristic deposits, although they are never articulated. I’m relatively sure that they come from some sort of sarcopterygian, possibly a dipnoan or coelacanth. I would be very happy if anyone could shed some light on the general grouping of this fossil. If not, then just appreciate it as a random jumble of bones from a not very often seen locality. As always, stratigraphy: Connelsville sandstone Casselman Formation Conemaugh Group And age: Late Pennsylvanian (Stephanian/Missourian ~302 MYA) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petalodus12 Posted November 19, 2020 Author Share Posted November 19, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 Any chance of sharper images? When blown up, these get quite fuzzy. The bones I see do look similar to Rhabdoderma sp or Diplurus newarki coelacanth bones. 2 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petalodus12 Posted November 19, 2020 Author Share Posted November 19, 2020 1 hour ago, Fossildude19 said: Any chance of sharper images? When blown up, these get quite fuzzy. The bones I see do look similar to Rhabdoderma sp or Diplurus newarki coelacanth bones. Yes I’ll post some better photos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petalodus12 Posted November 19, 2020 Author Share Posted November 19, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petalodus12 Posted November 19, 2020 Author Share Posted November 19, 2020 1 hour ago, Fossildude19 said: Any chance of sharper images? When blown up, these get quite fuzzy. The bones I see do look similar to Rhabdoderma sp or Diplurus newarki coelacanth bones. Hopefully the above photo is a bit clearer. I sincerely appreciate your input, as it tells me that I am somewhat on the right track. I assume that they can only be assigned to a large group do to the lack of diagnostic material, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 34 minutes ago, Petalodus12 said: Hopefully the above photo is a bit clearer. I sincerely appreciate your input, as it tells me that I am somewhat on the right track. I assume that they can only be assigned to a large group do to the lack of diagnostic material, though. Well, it is a bit better, but the bones do lack any kind of diagnostic detail for me to make out. Neat, just the same. 1 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petalodus12 Posted November 19, 2020 Author Share Posted November 19, 2020 10 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said: Well, it is a bit better, but the bones do lack any kind of diagnostic detail for me to make out. Neat, just the same. Thanks, I appreciate it! I think I'm going to head back to this site soon to see if I can find more specimens like this, or to see if it was just an anomaly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 44 minutes ago, Petalodus12 said: Thanks, I appreciate it! I think I'm going to head back to this site soon to see if I can find more specimens like this, or to see if it was just an anomaly. I think you may have found a really productive area. Fingers crossed for you going back there! 1 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 That's really exciting, I hope you find more like it!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petalodus12 Posted November 25, 2020 Author Share Posted November 25, 2020 5 hours ago, Titan said: That's really exciting, I hope you find more like it!!! Thanks, hopefully I do! I have a suspicion that it was an anomaly at this site, though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdp Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 Hard to tell. I think I'd prefer a coelacanth ID to a lungfish ID, but there's nothing concrete I'd point to in order to back that up. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petalodus12 Posted November 26, 2020 Author Share Posted November 26, 2020 6 hours ago, jdp said: Hard to tell. I think I'd prefer a coelacanth ID to a lungfish ID, but there's nothing concrete I'd point to in order to back that up. Thanks! I think I’m leaning towards Coelacanth, too. 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