Jump to content

Can anyone identify these fossils from the Cambrian?


Recommended Posts

Hello, everyone, these fossils were collected from the basal Cambrian in South China, all of which are organic. But I do not know what are they? Does anyone can identify them.

Please see the attachments!

Many thanks.

1606243069_(WQTLDS4@)DRI9PLJT3.thumb.png.1d05e877c97911366478196872ccd786.png978751296_0EGG@G1S6L_64KWW(SCJ.thumb.png.51a2b3a124903abee579b5059678bbed.png221478386_2VX@8RCJ_88P20BQW.thumb.png.22a6395e91d39673e3ac0833e4b8131e.png1712232616_RB_K08)2R0HUH3LT_ZJ.thumb.png.9aa1cd3bd46857c3ed6afa20a0d97ee9.png236914586_IZY7)BT8Z2U6L5_PPG5A1.thumb.png.4a181cad1b158f368914641b567d9ed2.png1195556865_QU587MKR6WNZTW@GO(TY2.thumb.png.e079f7ecc0ad0b406c11919df0723e5a.png1726621604_942P(TCPBP3)5)NMV7ZIE.thumb.png.620a3dd6c88fc48ac0a3fc6dcc2b8a4b.png2052845377_G3X9YF3MYXQH39XW@@T.thumb.png.d392fc99a7335e53ffd50024e8afbc1a.png460070274_08H6PK0UHG6J6OHLAF.thumb.png.1e823df28ce0dd63f3a3fedddaee6690.png1509262756_DVO8MW9R5(L1P)MN8V.thumb.png.bb83dd32e59be9bcfee1b616854b6eca.png

Edited by Geodog
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Please put your pics directly on TFF.

 

Coco

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Coco said:

Hi,

 

Please put your pics directly on TFF.

 

Coco

Dear Coco,

Thanks for you reply.

I am a new user of this web, I don't konw how to put the picture directly, but I am exploring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Geodog said:

Hello, everyone, these fossils were collected from the basal Cambrian in South China, all of which are organic. But I do not know what are they? Does anyone can identify them.

Please see the attachments!

Many thanks.

1606243069_(WQTLDS4@)DRI9PLJT3.thumb.png.1d05e877c97911366478196872ccd786.png978751296_0EGG@G1S6L_64KWW(SCJ.thumb.png.51a2b3a124903abee579b5059678bbed.png221478386_2VX@8RCJ_88P20BQW.thumb.png.22a6395e91d39673e3ac0833e4b8131e.png1712232616_RB_K08)2R0HUH3LT_ZJ.thumb.png.9aa1cd3bd46857c3ed6afa20a0d97ee9.png236914586_IZY7)BT8Z2U6L5_PPG5A1.thumb.png.4a181cad1b158f368914641b567d9ed2.png1195556865_QU587MKR6WNZTW@GO(TY2.thumb.png.e079f7ecc0ad0b406c11919df0723e5a.png1726621604_942P(TCPBP3)5)NMV7ZIE.thumb.png.620a3dd6c88fc48ac0a3fc6dcc2b8a4b.png2052845377_G3X9YF3MYXQH39XW@@T.thumb.png.d392fc99a7335e53ffd50024e8afbc1a.png460070274_08H6PK0UHG6J6OHLAF.thumb.png.1e823df28ce0dd63f3a3fedddaee6690.png1509262756_DVO8MW9R5(L1P)MN8V.thumb.png.bb83dd32e59be9bcfee1b616854b6eca.png

The web can't dispay the TIFF pic. All the pictures have been translated to JPEG.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bob Saunders said:

your'e size equals 0.00787402 mm 

Hello Bob, 

Thanks, but I don't understand what you said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bob Saunders said:

what type of microscope are you using please?

the lower right of the image say's 200.0um which in millimeters equals 0.00787402 mm of one inch wide which is the scale. I assume you are using a digital microscope that adds the measurement. WD is 12.9 mm actual width of object. at 221 x magnification. sorry I should have looked more at your'e posted image before my reply. I only have a digital camera on a binocular microscope. as for your question I cannot answer what they are.  

:thumbsu:It doesn't matter,thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to use an image host, like this one, very easy to use : https://goopics.net/

 

Coco

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pumpkinhead

What's the name of the stratigraphic unit these were collected from?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Pumpkinhead said:

What's the name of the stratigraphic unit these were collected from?

The Liuchapo Formation in South China, which is dominated by black chert.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Fossildude19 changed the title to Can anyone identify these fossils from the Cambrian?
SilurianMan

Based on my own professional experience, these images were produced by a scanning electron microscope (SEM).  Also, WD is not the width of the object.  WD refers to the working distance within the SEM.  HV refers to the accelerating voltage, and Det:ETD refers to a particular type of detector for secondary and backscattered electrons.  Finally, the scale bars shows a length in micrometers (um).  300um = 0.3 millimeters = 0.01176 inches, so these specimens are quite small.    I spent some time last year looking for micrometeorites (which are similar in size) using a 50X stereomicroscope.  This was screened material off a rooftop. I don't think I found any real micrometeorites, but I did see a lot of random bits like this.  How was it determined that these specimens are "organic"?

  • I found this Informative 1
  • I Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pumpkinhead

I've seen SEM images of coccoid cyanobacteria colonies that have "openings" that appear similar to some of the "holes" in these SEM images. That's the best comparison that I can think of and its fairly weak. Some of these might not necessarily be biological, unless there's some evidence you're aware of that we are not

Link to post
Share on other sites
LabRatKing
14 minutes ago, SilurianMan said:

Based on my own professional experience, these images were produced by a scanning electron microscope (SEM).  Also, WD is not the width of the object.  WD refers to the working distance within the SEM.  HV refers to the accelerating voltage, and Det:ETD refers to a particular type of detector for secondary and backscattered electrons.  Finally, the scale bars shows a length in micrometers (um).  300um = 0.3 millimeters = 0.01176 inches, so these specimens are quite small.    I spent some time last year looking for micrometeorites (which are similar in size) using a 50X stereomicroscope.  This was screened material off a rooftop. I don't think I found any real micrometeorites, but I did see a lot of random bits like this.  How was it determined that these specimens are "organic"?

Tech Specs Correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LabRatKing

To be honest, I see lots of unidentifiable random bits, however there are a few specimens that have the distinct possibility of being pollen. #5 (counting from the top of the post) in particular. However, this is far outside my area of expertise (I run SEM on extant biologicals that are quite a bit bigger).

Link to post
Share on other sites
SilurianMan

Pollen might be a good guess for a few of these specimens, but the timing is off.  They were identified as being from the basal Cambrian.  However, the first flowering plants (and the first pollen) didn't emerge until the Cretaceous.  If it is pollen, it's the result of cross-contamination somewhere along the way.

  • I Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

most SEM pix I have seen of pollen are much more distinctly shaped than these.  I do not see pollen.  

  • I Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two quotes from Bob Saunders, but where did the original posts go ? Were they deleted ? :headscratch:

 

Coco

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Coco said:

There are two quotes from Bob Saunders, but where did the original posts go ? Were they deleted ? :headscratch:

 

Coco

@Bob Saunders removed them.  :s_confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SilurianMan said:

Based on my own professional experience, these images were produced by a scanning electron microscope (SEM).  Also, WD is not the width of the object.  WD refers to the working distance within the SEM.  HV refers to the accelerating voltage, and Det:ETD refers to a particular type of detector for secondary and backscattered electrons.  Finally, the scale bars shows a length in micrometers (um).  300um = 0.3 millimeters = 0.01176 inches, so these specimens are quite small.    I spent some time last year looking for micrometeorites (which are similar in size) using a 50X stereomicroscope.  This was screened material off a rooftop. I don't think I found any real micrometeorites, but I did see a lot of random bits like this.  How was it determined that these specimens are "organic"?

Thanks!

Yes, you are quite correct!

These specimens were collected by hydrofluoric acid solution etching. The organic or carbonaceous composition were determined by EDX.

 3843841_54T(D1)P(H5XT)_(43B.png.160d6e734fea20b7635833680f86efca.png 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pumpkinhead said:

I've seen SEM images of coccoid cyanobacteria colonies that have "openings" that appear similar to some of the "holes" in these SEM images. That's the best comparison that I can think of and its fairly weak. Some of these might not necessarily be biological, unless there's some evidence you're aware of that we are not

Thanks, Pumpkinhead!

It's possible that they have affinities with cyanobacteria.  But abiological origin can't explain the carbonaceous composition.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LabRatKing said:

To be honest, I see lots of unidentifiable random bits, however there are a few specimens that have the distinct possibility of being pollen. #5 (counting from the top of the post) in particular. However, this is far outside my area of expertise (I run SEM on extant biologicals that are quite a bit bigger).

As SilurianMan addressed, if it is pollen, it must drived from contamination. It seems that another experiment needs to be done, to verify this assumption.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jpc said:

most SEM pix I have seen of pollen are much more distinctly shaped than these.  I do not see pollen.  

How about spores? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SilurianMan said:

Pollen might be a good guess for a few of these specimens, but the timing is off.  They were identified as being from the basal Cambrian.  However, the first flowering plants (and the first pollen) didn't emerge until the Cretaceous.  If it is pollen, it's the result of cross-contamination somewhere along the way.

Although these specimens are collected from two differnent sections, cross-contamination can not be excluded. I'm not familiar about spore, thus I'm not sure whether they are like spores?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...