LabRatKing Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 Finding a complete specimen is my white whale. Usually only find small fragments, these three are my most complete. Am able to use a few bits to get a “reconstruction” cannot figure out what these are. thanks in advance! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkdoctor Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRatKing Posted January 18, 2021 Author Share Posted January 18, 2021 UPDATE: This is a brachial (dorsal) valve of some sort of large productine brachiopd...just managed to find a paper on them...still grinding out genus and species however, as brachiopods of this size are rare from the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas.Dodson Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 Try Echinoconchus brachial valves. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRatKing Posted January 18, 2021 Author Share Posted January 18, 2021 39 minutes ago, Thomas.Dodson said: Try Echinoconchus brachial valves. Yep, that is pretty close! Was looking at those and Pulchratia...and Just realized I may have a specimen of the "other half" that is about the right size from the same sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRatKing Posted January 18, 2021 Author Share Posted January 18, 2021 So, it looks like Pulchratia sp. Not much about them from this formation. Odd that I never put 2 and 2 together after so many trips to that site over the years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connorp Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 Any reason you think Pulchratia in particular? I've tried understanding the differences between between genera in Echinoconchinae (e.g. Pulchratia, Echinaria, Echinoconchus, etc.) but found the terminology used in the descriptions to be way too complex for me to understand the differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRatKing Posted January 18, 2021 Author Share Posted January 18, 2021 31 minutes ago, connorp said: Any reason you think Pulchratia in particular? I've tried understanding the differences between between genera in Echinoconchinae (e.g. Pulchratia, Echinaria, Echinoconchus, etc.) but found the terminology used in the descriptions to be way too complex for me to understand the differences. In this case, decision based on timelines- only Pulchratia was reported from this Pennsylvanian period formation from what I found. Echinoconchus appeared in Mississippian formations if I read it right. but I am by no means a brachiopod expert. I admit normally I pretty much ignore them because they are so common here. there are also some big morphological differences in the brachial valves, particularly the cardinal process. Interesting paper here that I used that discusses morphology differences: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250070296_Evaluating_internal_versus_external_characters_Phylogenetic_analyses_of_the_Echinoconchidae_Buxtoniinae_and_Juresaniinae_Phylum_Brachiopoda (sorry for poor typing and syntax working on the mobile from the VA) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas.Dodson Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 51 minutes ago, LabRatKing said: Interesting paper here that I used that discusses morphology differences: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250070296_Evaluating_internal_versus_external_characters_Phylogenetic_analyses_of_the_Echinoconchidae_Buxtoniinae_and_Juresaniinae_Phylum_Brachiopoda Nice paper indeed. I skimmed it and I'd agree with Pulchratia based on the lateral ridges and cardinal process shaft. I'm no brachiopod expert but the paper is very clear. Since it's reported from your formation I'd feel extra confident in the ID. 50 minutes ago, LabRatKing said: Echinoconchus appeared in Mississippian formations if I read it right. Echinoconchus is reported from the Pennsylvanian as well. Just figured I'd mention this. @Tidgy's Dad would probably know for sure if there's any remaining doubt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRatKing Posted January 18, 2021 Author Share Posted January 18, 2021 8 minutes ago, Thomas.Dodson said: Echinoconchus is reported from the Pennsylvanian as well. Just figured I'd mention this. Truth! Just not from this site. For a real head bender try looking into Antiquatonia sp. They all look the same to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 It is too small to be Pulchratia, in my opinion, and the lateral ridges coming off the cardinal process do not bifurcate which is diagnostic of the genus. I would expect to see more clear spine bases in concentric rows on Pulchratia. Judging from the size, the presence of only a few notable spine bases and the seeming occurrence of a trail on the pedicle valve , I would suggest Antiquatonia for this one. 7 Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRatKing Posted January 18, 2021 Author Share Posted January 18, 2021 11 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said: It is too small to be Pulchratia, in my opinion, and the lateral ridges coming off the cardinal process do not bifurcate which is diagnostic of the genus. I would expect to see more clear spine bases in concentric rows on Pulchratia. Judging from the size, the presence of only a few notable spine bases and the seeming occurrence of a trail on the pedicle valve , I would suggest Antiquatonia for this one. Excellent. I will dig into this, currently I have only found scant reports of Antiquatonia portlockianus in the Kanwaka formation's Stull shale conspecific with the slightly more common Juresania nebrascensis and Linoproductus prattenianus. I have a few specimens and stienkern of each, Ill throw them up here a bit later on for comparison, though those are limited to pedicles and a few with intact brachials. I may have to head back there after the snow melts and get a little sifty with the freeze/thaw stuff. I can't dig there, but apparently sifting is Ok. Is a bit confusing to me as these are from a well described outcrop of the Kiewitz shale, Stoner member, Stanton Formation...thus making IDs on some stuff a bit difficult. Generally, from the data available, it appears the Kiewitz and Stull are effectively the same thing...which makes little sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRatKing Posted January 18, 2021 Author Share Posted January 18, 2021 13 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said: It is too small to be Pulchratia, in my opinion, and the lateral ridges coming off the cardinal process do not bifurcate which is diagnostic of the genus. I would expect to see more clear spine bases in concentric rows on Pulchratia. Judging from the size, the presence of only a few notable spine bases and the seeming occurrence of a trail on the pedicle valve , I would suggest Antiquatonia for this one. Is their a guide you can recommend on brachiopods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 1 hour ago, LabRatKing said: Is their a guide you can recommend on brachiopods? I just have hundreds of papers and the Treatise, plus the Forum, of course, and a quite a few specimens for comparison. 1 Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRatKing Posted January 19, 2021 Author Share Posted January 19, 2021 1 hour ago, Tidgy's Dad said: I just have hundreds of papers and the Treatise, plus the Forum, of course, and a quite a few specimens for comparison. Oh boy...fun time awaits...thread to follow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cngodles Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 I recently found a tiny example of what I think was Pulchratia. @Tidgy's Dad concurred, at least for now. Mine was 15mm wide and 10mm long. It was in soft material, so it came out in great shape, but is very fragile. There is an example here: https://pennsylvanianatlas.org/genera/pulchratia/ And mine: https://fossil.15656.com/2021/01/02/pulchratia/ Hope that helps. The pattern/shell is very similar with sibling taxons. 2 Fossils of Parks Township - Research | Catalog | How-to Make High-Contrast Photos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRatKing Posted January 20, 2021 Author Share Posted January 20, 2021 17 minutes ago, cngodles said: I recently found a tiny example of what I think was Pulchratia. @Tidgy's Dad concurred, at least for now. Mine was 15mm wide and 10mm long. It was in soft material, so it came out in great shape, but is very fragile. There is an example here: https://pennsylvanianatlas.org/genera/pulchratia/ And mine: https://fossil.15656.com/2021/01/02/pulchratia/ Hope that helps. The pattern/shell is very similar with sibling taxons. I’m fairly certain that none of mine are properly identified so I’ll start a new thread in the future... 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