Lobopyge trilobite is it real?

[Georgemckenzie]

Hiya everyone I’m interested in buying a couple of trilobites on the same matrix and was wondering if the lobopyge trilobite was real as I’ve heard it’s a rarer species that’s commonly faked thanks for any help 

 

     

[Kane]

The Reedops is real, but the Acanthopyge is far too blurry to make out. Ask the seller for clearer images. 

[aeon.rocks]

Both are real. I have not seen these Lobopyge faked, the much larger Acanthopyge (pic bellow) is the one that's often faked.

 

[Kane]

I've seen them faked before. Clearer pictures are still necessary to do a proper inspection. 

 

Lobopyge was reassigned as a subgenus:

 

"Tripp (I957; in Moore I959) regarded Acanthopyge (s. s.) and Lobopyge as synonyms. Chatterton et al. (I979) stated that there is gradation between these taxa in some features but that on a balance of characters it is possible to assign species to one form or the other. We agree with Chatterton et al. and follow them in regarding Lobopyge as a subgenus of Acanthopyge." (225).

 

From

 

Holloway, A.T. and D.J. Holloway. Classification and Phylogeny of the Trilobite Order Lichida. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Vol. 321, No. 1205 (Aug. 26, 1988), pp. 179-262

 

[Georgemckenzie]

49 minutes ago, Kane said:

The Reedops is real, but the Acanthopyge is far too blurry to make out. Ask the seller for clearer images. 

 

17 minutes ago, Kane said:

I've seen them faked before. Clearer pictures are still necessary to do a proper inspection. 

 

Thanks for the quick reply guys yeah I’ve seen faked ones before hence why I’ve asked for help I’ve asked the sellers for pictures I will get back to here soon as he gets back to me I think it’s real because the seller has quite a lot of good feed back and there part of a old collection but better safe than sorry 

[Kane]

11 minutes ago, Georgemckenzie said:

 

Thanks for the quick reply guys yeah I’ve seen faked ones before hence why I’ve asked for help I’ve asked the sellers for pictures I will get back to here soon as he gets back to me I think it’s real because the seller has quite a lot of good feed back and there part of a old collection but better safe than sorry 

Beware of using feedback as a reliable metric. There are sellers who do sell fakes that have spotless feedback because of how the feedback system works on some auction sites. The best test for authenticity is examination of the specimen itself, regardless of who sells it.  

[Georgemckenzie]

Just now, Kane said:

Beware of using feedback as a reliable metric. There are sellers who do sell fakes that have spotless feedback because of how the feedback system works on some auction sites. The best test for authenticity is examination of the specimen itself, regardless of who sells it.  

Yeah that’s why I’m here the seller normally sells ammonites and by the looks of it has a large collection been a while since I’ve treated myself to a nice trilobite for my collection plus it’s a species I don’t see to often.

[Kane]

Well, no species was mentioned, and only the (now outdated -- see the quote from Holloway and Holloway above) genus. This means the investigation might try to determine the species by looking at the key morphological features in a clearer image. Again, remember: forget the seller -- focus only on the specimen. Ask for precise location information.

[Georgemckenzie]

2 minutes ago, Kane said:

Well, no species was mentioned, and only the (now outdated -- see the quote from Holloway and Holloway above) genus. This means the investigation might try to determine the species by looking at the key morphological features in a clearer image. Again, remember: forget the seller -- focus only on the specimen. Ask for precise location information.

Thanks for the help again I’ve learned a lot of the time now what the seller says the species is, is normally outdated I’ve got a photo here of the location sticker on the bottom of it it’s a little blurry but maybe u can make it out 

[Kane]

Best I can make out from the label, I see species name as branaiventis. I've looked in my sources, and there is an entry for Acanthopyge branikensis, where the lectotype is reported from the Dvorce-Prokop Limestone (Pragian), Branl'k, Prague, Czechoslovakia (see Holloway 1988). It may also appear in Bolivia as Belenopyge branikensis. Bonino's book "Back to the Past Museum" has an image of a specimen they attribute to Morocco that you can use for comparison: 

.

 

As I will constantly second-guess my statements and use of sources, I will tag @piranha who would likely be able to furnish more accuracy. 

[Georgemckenzie]

19 minutes ago, Kane said:

Best I can make out from the label, I see species name as branaiventis. I've looked in my sources, and there is an entry for Acanthopyge branikensis, where the lectotype is reported from the Dvorce-Prokop Limestone (Pragian), Branl'k, Prague, Czechoslovakia (see Holloway 1988). It may also appear in Bolivia as Belenopyge branikensis. Bonino's book "Back to the Past Museum" has an image of a specimen they attribute to Morocco that you can use for comparison: 

.

 

As I will constantly second-guess my statements and use of sources, I will tag @piranha who would likely be able to furnish more accuracy. 

Thanks so much for the help it looks quite similar to the one in the listing 

[Malcolmt]

I suspect that both are real, but both are badly prepped and have significant damage. Probably prepped  years ago before the Moroccans had decent equipment. Today that bug if it is on a natural double (probably not)would have gone to someone that could prep it.. Common to take two B or C grade bugs and turn them into a multi to try to get more for them.

[Georgemckenzie]

2 hours ago, Kane said:

Best I can make out from the label, I see species name as branaiventis. I've looked in my sources, and there is an entry for Acanthopyge branikensis, where the lectotype is reported from the Dvorce-Prokop Limestone (Pragian), Branl'k, Prague, Czechoslovakia (see Holloway 1988). It may also appear in Bolivia as Belenopyge branikensis. Bonino's book "Back to the Past Museum" has an image of a specimen they attribute to Morocco that you can use for comparison: 

.

 

As I will constantly second-guess my statements and use of sources, I will tag @piranha who would likely be able to furnish more accuracy. 

Just got a couple more pictures here they are 

[piranha]

5 hours ago, Kane said:

Lobopyge was reassigned as a subgenus:

 

"Tripp (I957; in Moore I959) regarded Acanthopyge (s. s.) and Lobopyge as synonyms. Chatterton et al. (I979) stated that there is gradation between these taxa in some features but that on a balance of characters it is possible to assign species to one form or the other. We agree with Chatterton et al. and follow them in regarding Lobopyge as a subgenus of Acanthopyge." (225).

 

From

 

Holloway, A.T. and D.J. Holloway. Classification and Phylogeny of the Trilobite Order Lichida. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Vol. 321, No. 1205 (Aug. 26, 1988), pp. 179-262

 

 

Update: Lobopyge is preoccupied, replaced by Belenopyge.

 

 

Chatterton & Gibb (2010) described Belenopyge bassei as a species of Lobopyge Přibyl & Erben, 1952. However, the trilobite genus Lobopyge is a junior homonym of the millipede genus Lobopyge Attems, 1951. Özdikmen (2009, p. 158–159) proposed the use of the trilobite genus Belenopyge Pek & Vaněk, 1991 which was regarded as a junior subjective synonym of Lobopyge subsequent to a cladistic analysis (Ebach & Ahyong 2001). Özdikmen’s (2009) proposal was previously followed by van Viersen & Prescher (2009), albeit with the caveat that the results of the cladistic analysis were indeed correct, and by Morzadec in Morzadec et al. (2015). We retain Belenopyge but under the same condition as Van Viersen & Prescher (2009). Some workers (e.g., Thomas & Holloway 1988, Ebach & Ahyong 2001, Chatterton & Gibb 2010) have treated Lobopyge as a subgenus of Acanthopyge Hawle & Corda, 1847. Chatterton & Gibb (2010) have performed varieties of Ebach & Ahyong’s (2001) analysis and included their new species from Issoumour. None were satisfactory and so they stressed the need for a comprehensive analysis including more African and European species. We agree with their viewpoint. However, because of the conditional content of Belenopyge there is currently no justification for its use as a subgenus of Acanthopyge.

 

Van Viersen, A., Holland, D., Koppka, J. 2017
The Phacopine Trilobite Genera Morocops Basse, 2006 and Adrisiops gen. nov. from the Devonian of Morocco.
Czech Geological Survey, Bulletin of Geosciences, 92(1):13-30  PDF LINK

 

 

Ebach & Ahyong (2001) proposed a detailed phylogeny for Acanthopyge (Lobopyge) but they excluded the Moroccan species. Nevertheless, in southern Morocco, lichid taxa occur in the Early and Middle Devonian (Pragian to Eifelian). Thus, Chatterton & Gibb (2010) described the new species Acanthopyge (Lobopyge) bassei from the Erbenochile Bed of the latest Emsian or early Eifelian from Jbel Issoumour near Alnif (southeastern Morocco). However, the trilobite genus Lobopyge is a junior homonym of the millipede genus Lobopyge Attems, 1951. Özdikmen (2009) proposed the trilobite genus Belenopyge Pek & Vaněk, 1991 to replace Lobopyge. More recently, Corbacho & Kier (2013) described the new species Acanthopyge (Belenopyge) estevei from the Pragian of Jbel Oufatene and Jbel El Mrakib. Nevertheless, a taxonomic reappraisal needs to be carried out and a revision of the genus Acanthopyge is in progress by Budil et al. (Czech Republic).

 

Crônier, C., Oudot, M., Klug, C., De Baets, K. 2018

Trilobites from the Red Fauna (latest Emsian, Devonian) of Hamar Laghdad, Morocco and their Biodiversity.

Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, 290(1-3):241-276  PDF LINK