kurtdog Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 I hope the pictures are crisp enough and large enough for an identification. I think you can make out, it's just a typical ironstone concretion. The size of the little bugger is about the diameter of a U.S. quarter. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCFossils Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Hi Kurt, I can't be certain from the pictures but I do not think that is an insect. I believe you are looking at the back half of a large acanthotelson shrimp. MC insects are rarely preserved that three dimensional as their exoskeleton was very thin to reduce weight. The shrimp have thicker carapaces and can often times be found with more raised detail. I will attach a picture of both an acanthotelson and a typical MC insect. I would definately have an expert look at it to be certain. Regards, Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Dactyll Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Kurtdog.....It does look like its got a shrimpy tail on one image...... RCFossils......do you come across some of the spiney millipedes having more substantial exoskeleton, for example say Myriacantherpestes, where it has obviously evolved some form of defence from predation, maybe the shell thickens to...... Cheers Steve... And Welcome if your a New Member... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtdog Posted January 21, 2010 Author Share Posted January 21, 2010 Thank you Rob and Terry! Rob, you state a very compelling case, and I can't thank you enough for that. It's a Pit 11 find from the '60s. I'll see if I can get a few more pictures up tonight, what the heck, just to be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCFossils Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Hi Kurtdog, I look forward to the additional pictures. Terry, some of the millipedes that i have found/ seen do seem to have heavier exoskeletons. They are still usually found in a compressed state but you occasionally come across an inflated piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtdog Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 Technically "tonight" is tomorrow so that makes me a day late with these pictures, but not by much. It's been a long one, folks. Anyway, I encountered a focus problem with my camera just as I was getting started, and this is all I managed to get in. I'm afraid I was just getting warmed up, so to speak, when I encountered the problem. I don't now that any of this will show anything very different, but here goes with it... PS: I'm throwing in one other picture at the end of this which I showed before the two of you had joined, but which, for some reason, I can't seem to find the link to. I'd really appreciate it if you'd opine on that one, too, if you can, and let me know what you think. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I hope the pictures are crisp enough and large enough for an identification. I think you can make out, it's just a typical ironstone concretion. The size of the little bugger is about the diameter of a U.S. quarter. Thanks. Kurt: Nice fossils.... Think this is Polyplacophora.... Glaphurochiton concinnus (Richardson). PL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCFossils Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Hi Kurt, I had a look at the other pictures and am still leaning towards shrimp. Plecan is correct and that it is possibly a portion of a Chiton but I think that is unlikely. If it was a chiton you can normally see some surface ornamentation. I will attach a picture of one for reference. I am also going to attach a picture of a very threee dimensional millipede from Pit 11. The second piece really has me stumped. Are you sure it was collected in the Mazon Creek deposit?? It looks to me to be part of an animal, possibly a fish but I do not recall having ever seen a structure that looks that way. If it is from Mazon, it is very unusual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtdog Posted January 23, 2010 Author Share Posted January 23, 2010 (edited) Hey gang, here's one I took in the first round of pictures, but didn't post. I didn't want to overwhelm with pictures. PL, do you see what appears to be antennae, there? That's why I'm kind of leaning with Ron and Terry, towards shrimp. Although, I have to say, the body of Polyplacophora does put that little critter in the running. I tried to find it in the ISM database, to see it in "ironstone" (the pictures I got from the Internet were in different "media"...or, so they seemed), but, a search got me nowhere. Rob: Excellent pictures; thanks, again! On that last one, it's from Pit 11, although I never got the other half. I simply couldn't find it. The piece was just lying there. We were all concentrating on finding interesting-looking full nodules to open, but I saw the piece, and it looked cool, so I took it. It is funny-looking. While I still can't find the link to when I first posted it, here, I believe (although we were still scratching our heads) we were tilting toward something like "shrimp-like." Edited January 23, 2010 by kurtdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCFossils Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 I am 99% certain you have a shrimp. If it were a chiton, it would have a raised keel at the apex of the shell. Your specimen is relatively round. Still scratching my head on the second fossil. Since it is Pit 11, I would lean towards a fish bone/spine or posssibly tooth plate. Whatever it is, it's really weird and worth having an expert examine. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCFossils Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Hi Kurt, The second fossil has really been bugging me and I think I figured out what it is. I believe you have partial radula of either a large chiton or possibly a cephalopod. It is similar to others that I have seen. However, I do not have a good picture of one to post. What is the size of the concretion? Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtdog Posted January 23, 2010 Author Share Posted January 23, 2010 Still scratching my head on the second fossil. Since it is Pit 11, I would lean towards a fish bone/spine or posssibly tooth plate. Whatever it is, it's really weird and worth having an expert examine. Rob, I know. I invited an expert to look at it here about a year ago (linked to the discussion we were having on it in an email to him), but, unfortunately, he gave us the slip...never turned up. PS: I'll have more to show when I can get my camera fixed or rustle-up the dough to get a new one. Judging from the extensive Mazon Creek collections you and some of the others have in the Collections forum, this is the place to be for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtdog Posted January 23, 2010 Author Share Posted January 23, 2010 Hi Kurt, The second fossil has really been bugging me and I think I figured out what it is. I believe you have partial radula of either a large chiton or possibly a cephalopod. It is similar to others that I have seen. However, I do not have a good picture of one to post. What is the size of the concretion? Rob Hi Rob, I must have missed this reply as I was typing my last one. I just measured the concretion (thank goodness my ruler still works ) and it's 3cm X 1.5cm. Thanks for the keywords, I'll check those out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtdog Posted January 23, 2010 Author Share Posted January 23, 2010 Rob, just real quickly, I have to go for now. That's certainly an interesting slant on it. Just suggesting it's a "partial" as opposed to "complete" whatever it is, is "thinking outside the box," at least, for me. I just never considered that. As such, my first issue was, which is the "heads" end, and which is the "tails" end? I think, after having discussed this the time before, I finally settled upon, that's a head on the left, a tail on the right, and legs, or some such appendages, along the bottom. One can even see what appears to be an eye and a small snout, if one really lets one's imagination go. But, it's that bumpy, spotty texture on the "body," that really tends to jump out at one, and is difficult to explain away. I do see the connection between that and some type of foraging apparatus, however. To say the least, that is an interesting theory, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 PL, do you see what appears to be antennae, there? That's why I'm kind of leaning with Ron and Terry, towards shrimp. Although, I have to say, the body of Polyplacophora does put that little critter in the running. I tried to find it in the ISM database, to see it in "ironstone" (the pictures I got from the Internet were in different "media"...or, so they seemed), but, a search got me nowhere. Hi... finally got my internet connection back ... lost it 2 day ago when my internet provider changed their DNS setting... I was dead in the water... with no internet no email no fossil forum... back to normal.... Yes I see the antennae.... shrimp it is. PL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtdog Posted January 23, 2010 Author Share Posted January 23, 2010 Yes I see the antennae.... shrimp it is. PL Thank you! Another satisfied customer here. 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