Fossil theory and discovery

[jnicholes]

Hi everyone,

 

So I just finished sizing down my fossils. By this, I mean I cut away the excess rock, so the fossils can fit in a frame.

 

While cutting, I had some interesting thoughts come into my head, forming a theory.

 

I found one plate with three Diplomystus dentatus on it. Two small ones, one larger one. I am attaching a picture of this one. I also found another plate with four or five Knightia.

 

Judging from what I found, my theory is that Diplomystus and Knightia were schooling fish. By this, I mean they travel in groups. It seems like a possible theory, because I found so many Knightia and so many Diplomystus in the same plates. On the other hand, I have found more individual Knightia and Diplomystus then multiples in single plates.

 

This is just a theory, just so you know. I honestly don’t know what is truth.

 

On a side note, I did learn that Diplomystus were surface feeding fish, The shape of their mouth shows it. I found this information on a source on the Internet.

 

It makes sense. The way their mouth is shaped, it would make it easier to surface feed. Trust me, I’ve fished for Bass, which have a similar mouth, they feed on the surface occasionally. Top water fishing for bass is fun, but that’s not the point.

 

I’m learning interesting things every day. Really makes me want to get into paleontology more. 

 

Jared

[Misha]

I would like to preface my statement by saying that I am by no means an expert on the Eocene fishes but I have seen them come up on the forum and other fossil discussions a lot and from what I have heard I believe you are correct. Both of these fishes are closely related to herring and sardines which we can observe swimming in large schools today, not only that but as you mentioned they are often found fossilized together in large assemblages. 

Here's an example of a large grouping of fishes I found online

[jnicholes]

Yeah, I quite agree. I think they were a schooling type of fish. 

[Fossildude19]

The plate posted looks more like a Diplomystus with 2 Knightia.

The smaller fish have no elongated anal fin, no post opercular midline pectoral fins, no upward facing mouth, or post cranial thickened bones. 

It is not unusual to find multi-blocks, as these were schooling fishes.

It is also not unusual to find two different species on one block.

 

 

[jnicholes]

10 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

The plate posted looks more like a Diplomystus with 2 Knightia.

The smaller fish have no elongated anal fin, no post opercular midline pectoral fins, no upward facing mouth, or post cranial thickened bones. 

It is not unusual to find multi-blocks, as these were schooling fishes.

It is also not unusual to find two different species on one block.

 

 

Thanks for the clarification. I thought all three were the same. I’ll keep this in mind when I label it and frame it.

[JohnJ]

I would keep in mind that these wonderful slabs of fish do not necessarily represent a prehistoric 'photo' of normal underwater behavior.  As I understand, they represent concentrations of things killed quickly in anoxic conditions.  Under those circumstances, many things can appear to be related.

[FranzBernhard]

6 hours ago, jnicholes said:

Judging from what I found, my theory is that Diplomystus and Knightia were schooling fish.

You are exactly going the scientific way.

You made an observation and erected at least one working hypothesis.

Now this has to be falsified: What other hypothesis might also explain your observation?

 

For example:

1 hour ago, JohnJ said:

As I understand, they represent concentrations of things killed quickly in anoxic conditions.  Under those circumstances, many things can appear to be related.

This has always to be kept in mind and as a possibility.

 

To make it short: Because of their relationship with herring and sardines and the abundant occurrence as multiple specimens, these Eocene fish are considered to be schooling fish (I don´t know of other positive evidence yet). Schooling fish seems to be the prevailing theory at the moment. It can not be proven, but seems to be most plausible at the moment.

 

Franz Bernhard

[jnicholes]

Just now, FranzBernhard said:

You are exactly going the scientific way.

You made an observation and erected at least one working hypothesis.

Now this has to be falsified: What other hypothesis might also explain your observation?

 

For example:

This has always to be kept in mind and as a possibility.

 

To make it short: Because of their relationship with herring and sardines and the abundant occurrence as multiple specimens, these Eocene fish are considered to be schooling fish (I don´t know of other positive evidence yet). Schooling fish seems to be the prevailing theory at the moment. It can not be proven, but seems to be most plausible at the moment.

 

Franz Bernhard

Point taken. I failed to consider what @JohnJ  said. I appreciate you pointing that out.

 

Still, it’s interesting to think about.

 

Thank you for your input.

 

Jared

[FranzBernhard]

3 hours ago, jnicholes said:

Still, it’s interesting to think about.

Franz Bernhard

[Mark Kmiecik]

Also, keep in mind that in scientific terms, you have formed a hypothesis. Once you acquire enough evidence or actual proof it will be a theory.

 

To quote Merriam-Webster: "In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been completed for the sake of testing. A theory on the other hand is a principle set to explain phenomena already supported by data."

 

Seldom is it an overnight process. I do believe you are on the right track, though.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Mark Kmiecik

[jnicholes]

Sorry, I couldn’t reply sooner. Had a car tire go flat, had to fix it.

 

You’re right. It’s a hypothesis. Thanks for pointing that out.