Trilobite and Nautiloid, or just one trilobite?

[Dimitar]

Hello again guys!

This specimen is more special. Initially I took it because I saw a nautiloid in it.  Totay I found there is also a trilobite inside it. Then I started to suspect if the Nautiloid part is not also the same trilobite.   It is the same layer as yesterday, same place.  Probably middle - late Ordovician. Found near boul. DesSources, on the shore of the river between Laval and Montreal.

 

 

#1

#2

#3

Edited May 31, 2021 by Dimitar

[Kane]

Without prep, likely uncertain. Prep it to show more diagnostic details. At this point, it could also be a brachiopod.

[Dimitar]

#4 - view from the right side

#5

#6

#7 - bottom side view

#8 

#9

#10 left side veiw

#11 - front view

#12 front

Edited May 31, 2021 by Dimitar

[Dimitar]

12 minutes ago, Kane said:

Without prep, likely uncertain. Prep it to show more diagnostic details. At this point, it could also be a brachiopod.

 

[Kane]

 Nautiloid is there. Not seeing trilobite, but you rarely listen to me anyway. Bon chance.

 

We tell you to read the literature, and you don’t seem to make the effort, so I am done. Good luck.

[Dimitar]

3 minutes ago, Kane said:

 Nautiloid is there. Not seeing trilobite, but you rarely listen to me anyway. Bon chance.

Look at pictures 2 & 3,  it is the same kind of trilobite like the previous 2 heads that I posted yesterday "2 Trilobite heads (Cephalon) ".  This one here - the right side is still covered, we see only part of it. 

[Dimitar]

May be this picture can show better the head (cephalon) of the trilobite. 

[Fossildude19]

I think I can see what you are seeing, but you need to remove the bit of rock on top of it. 

 

Using a hammer and nail or screw you should be able to remove the bit with  some careful taps.

[Dimitar]

[Dimitar]

9 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

I think I can see what you are seeing, but you need to remove the bit of rock on top of it. 

 

Using a hammer and nail or screw you should be able to remove the bit with  some careful taps.

Thanks ! For the moment I try to keep the specimens the whay I find them. If I don't see anything - I break it. If I see something, but I am not sure or doubt about it - I may break it. If I see something and I recognize it - I don't want to break it unless it is of no value.  This one is more special for me, because I see a trilobite and nautiloid on the same specimen.   So far I find a very small number of trilobites.

[Lone Hunter]

Wow. Do you even read all the replies people take the time to give you? It's really disrespectful to flat out ignore what they say and only thank people who give you a glimmer of hope that you are correct. 

[Dimitar]

I just broke it on several pieces.  There was a crack behind that I broke. It is Nautiloid and parts of a trilobite.  It is not a one single trilobite .

[Dimitar]

3 minutes ago, Lone Hunter said:

Wow. Do you even read all the replies people take the time to give you? It's really disrespectful to flat out ignore what they say and only thank people who give you a glimmer of hope that you are correct. 

Yes, I read and I respect all the people that reply me.   I know I am new in this area, I read and try to compare with what I find on the site. In some cases I think I am not able to present the speciment in the appropriate way and this could cause some confusion.  If my pictures are clear, if the specimen is looking good - no doubts, no argue.  All are on the same opinion.  If I don't present it properly - I could confuse the best experts, I am fully aware of that. Sorry if I may look disrespectful for some cases.

[Lone Hunter]

Your missing the point,  your not doing research to back up your claims or to know what you can and cannot find where you are. That is where the confusion is, not in the way you present something.

And I confidently say that after reading your post yesterday about melted rocks.

[Dimitar]

7 minutes ago, Lone Hunter said:

Your missing the point,  your not doing research to back up your claims or to know what you can and cannot find where you are. That is where the confusion is, not in the way you present something.

And I confidently say that after reading your post yesterday about melted rocks.

It could be accid rain, it could be something else , melting the fossils and creating homogenous rock.  I don't know on that yet. I found many specimens where it looks like melted. But after checking more - I see most of them are cement. There could be some in "lava" .  Or it could be some fossils inside the lava or lava surrounding them. I understood the proofs about not possible to melt rocks by the lava.  The temperature is not high enough and lava (magma) will cool down faster so it can't melt the rocks on the surface. There are some good examples that I will need to see better before to comment further.  I did not know  that my comment on that will become so unexpected, because when I walk on the site and see the rocks, I don't have time to check the scientific explanation, I do my own explanation that may not be right, so I have to correct such gaps.  I will share with you few specimens that I think there was "melting"  .  But I am not ready now.

[Lone Hunter]

Okey dokey that explains everything.  You got some gaps to fill.

[Kane]

There is no lava, just your imagination. You really need to read more. We provide you with so much but you don’t read it carefully. Until you are willing to make the effort with the sources we already provided you with, this is going nowhere. 

 

[Ludwigia]

4 hours ago, Dimitar said:

I don't have time to check the scientific explanation

 

That is about the weakest scientific argument that I've ever heard.

[EMP]

On 5/30/2021 at 10:36 PM, Dimitar said:

 

 

You have a nautiloid on the right, and the thing in blue is the partial cephalon of what looks like a Flexicalymene trilobite. You can't pinpoint a species without having more of the cephalon exposed, though. 

 

Pretty neat find though, IMO

On 5/30/2021 at 11:59 PM, Dimitar said:

It could be accid rain, it could be something else , melting the fossils and creating homogenous rock.  I don't know on that yet. I found many specimens where it looks like melted. But after checking more - I see most of them are cement. There could be some in "lava" .  Or it could be some fossils inside the lava or lava surrounding them. I understood the proofs about not possible to melt rocks by the lava.  The temperature is not high enough and lava (magma) will cool down faster so it can't melt the rocks on the surface. There are some good examples that I will need to see better before to comment further.  I did not know  that my comment on that will become so unexpected, because when I walk on the site and see the rocks, I don't have time to check the scientific explanation, I do my own explanation that may not be right, so I have to correct such gaps.  I will share with you few specimens that I think there was "melting"  .  But I am not ready now.

 

You're sort of close. Chemical weathering, which is the chemical breakdown of rock (which can happen because of acid rain, yes) can alter the appearance of rocks and fossils. It's possible the carbonate limestone was subjected to chemical weathering, especially if it was exposed at the surface or near the surface. Lava likely isn't involved, as it is not an igneous rock, but a non-clastic sedimentary rock. 

[EMP]

On 5/30/2021 at 10:36 PM, Kane said:

 Nautiloid is there. Not seeing trilobite, but you rarely listen to me anyway. Bon chance.

 

We tell you to read the literature, and you don’t seem to make the effort, so I am done. Good luck.

 

On 5/31/2021 at 12:02 AM, Lone Hunter said:

Okey dokey that explains everything.  You got some gaps to fill.

 

On 5/30/2021 at 11:59 PM, Dimitar said:

It could be accid rain, it could be something else , melting the fossils and creating homogenous rock.  I don't know on that yet. I found many specimens where it looks like melted. But after checking more - I see most of them are cement. There could be some in "lava" .  Or it could be some fossils inside the lava or lava surrounding them. I understood the proofs about not possible to melt rocks by the lava.  The temperature is not high enough and lava (magma) will cool down faster so it can't melt the rocks on the surface. There are some good examples that I will need to see better before to comment further.  I did not know  that my comment on that will become so unexpected, because when I walk on the site and see the rocks, I don't have time to check the scientific explanation, I do my own explanation that may not be right, so I have to correct such gaps.  I will share with you few specimens that I think there was "melting"  .  But I am not ready now.

 

Guys, I think everyone needs to relax. Not everyone on this site can be expected to have an experts' or 20+ years worth of experiencing identifying fossils. Even actual paleontologists will disagree with one another's' IDs, and refute their claims if they think their hypothesis is the correct one. I get the whole "read the literature" and being scientific thing, but these kinds of reactions don't really make our community, fossil collecting, paleontology, or the geosciences look good to new hunters IMO. 

[Dimitar]

1 hour ago, EMP said:

You have a nautiloid on the right, and the thing in blue is the partial cephalon of what looks like a Flexicalymene trilobite. You can't pinpoint a species without having more of the cephalon exposed, though. 

 

Pretty neat find though, IMO

Thanks a lot!

For the nautiloids - there are a lot of them on this place. I can bring 20 - 30 - or 100 if needed. Some are 1 cm , in diameter, other can go to 4-5 cm in diameter. I see also some that look like the early amonites.  However with the trilobites - not much to show.  I found another one tonight, but still just the cephalon.  I can't find a complete trilobite so far.  Most of the nautiloids are the same type.   This should be for middle to late Ordovician . 

[Dimitar]

Today I visited the same place again and I took few more examples. One of them is like a duplicate of the previous and much better. I can say it is 3 in 1 or 4 in 1.  So let me share with you.

 

 First, there is a Trilobite.  It should be the same type as the previous found on this place . It is just the cephalon .

 

From the same specimen ( the duplicate) ,  there is a big Brachiopod .   I don't know yet what kind of Brachiopod this is. Please advise ?

 

[Dimitar]

The next part on the same specimen is the Nautiloid.  It is not clear what type of Nautiloid is this, however I have many other examples of Nautiloids on this place. Nautiloids are the most present here.  Not so many brachiopods.  Trilobites are extremly rare.  So no need to worry what kind of Nautiloid is this for the moment. 

 

 

 

And the last part is some kind of Bryozoan.  

Edited June 2, 2021 by Dimitar

[Fossildude19]

Your "Brachiopod" is actually an Isotelus trilobite pygidium. 

 

You need to understand that not everything can be identified in your pictures, as prep work would need to be done to expose identifying features. 

Nautiloid and bryozoan may be as far as we can get.  If you really want to find out what you have, you need to read the literature about your area, and see what fauna can be found.

[Dimitar]

1 hour ago, Fossildude19 said:

Your "Brachiopod" is actually an Isotelus trilobite pygidium. 

That's great!  Thanks!