Triassic Cumnock Formation..Ginkgo leaves? And Plant Stems?

[fossil_lover_2277]

Made another trip to the Triassic Cumnock formation of North Carolina. Split a LOT of shale, got what I believe are 3 nice plant fossils!!! (6 total since they split) One looks like a compression fossil of ginkgo leaves I think..the other 2 I think are plant vasculature. Can someone confirm this? I want to make sure these are actual fossils too, not pseudofossils... Also, I found some nodules as a part of one of the plant stems with odd bluish yellow minerals..not sure what that is. Thanks everyone!!

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2021 by Landon

[Earendil]

I think we need scale to determine anything.

[fossil_lover_2277]

5 minutes ago, yardrockpaleo said:

I think we need scale to determine anything.

Ah my bad, forgot that, here are some pics with a quarter for scale, it’s all I’ve got on hand atm, no tape measure

 

 

Edited September 13, 2021 by Landon

[Tetradium]

Triassic? Oh boy. Plant fossils tend to be pretty rare from that eon. No ginkgo anywhere in your fossil. Remember ginkgo belongs in conifer family. 

[Tetradium]

1 hour ago, Landon said:

Ah my bad, forgot that, here are some pics with a quarter for scale, it’s all I’ve got on hand atm, no tape measure

 

Really rough guess but maybe Pleuromeiales. After all they once was mistaken labelled as  Sigillaria which is very similar but from Paleozoic. 

[fossil_lover_2277]

16 minutes ago, Tetradium said:

Really rough guess but maybe Pleuromeiales. After all they once was mistaken labelled as  Sigillaria which is very similar but from Paleozoic. 

Thanks, yea my guess is as good as yours, never seen a leaf like it :p

[Mainefossils]

Nice plant fossils @Landon! Unfortunately, I could not find any open access papers that describe the flora of the Cumnock Fm. Maybe @piranha could help with this? 

 

@Tetradium, as far as I know, there are quite a few plant fossils that are from the Triassic. The lycophytes, ginkgophytes, cyanophytes, and ferns were quite prolific during this period. Conifers also were present in the northern hemisphere. Also, the ginkgophyta are technically gymnosperms, a group that includes conifers. 

[Tetradium]

2 hours ago, Mainefossils said:

Nice plant fossils @Landon! Unfortunately, I could not find any open access papers that describe the flora of the Cumnock Fm. Maybe @piranha could help with this? 

 

@Tetradium, as far as I know, there are quite a few plant fossils that are from the Triassic. The lycophytes, ginkgophytes, cyanophytes, and ferns were quite prolific during this period. Conifers also were present in the northern hemisphere. Also, the ginkgophyta are technically gymnosperms, a group that includes conifers. 

From what I had seen the fossils had details that omits a lot of the families. No branching veins, no midveins for the cattail like fossils (And yes I knows cattails don't exist in Jurassic). And the round fossils are either reproduction organs or ferns/liverwort family. I was based that rough guess from Triassic Plants on Wikipedia. I'm no expert but those fossils are fascinating! A big difference from the usual Paleozoic fauna of North America. After all I still have so much to learn about Triassic/Late Paleozoic after that one Australia fossil a few months ago turn out to be a may apple like fern with one central petiole and its leaves blades spreading outward from that petiole. 

[fossil_lover_2277]

I’m still not totally sure they’re even fossils, they could just be mineral stains, although if so they’re very odd ones..particularly the color is different, and they lack some of the detail that other plant fossils I’ve looked at online have

Edited September 13, 2021 by Landon

[Plax]

The book "Fossil collecting in North Carolina" lists Triassic plants from a now defunct site and don't forget to look in the back at the references as well. Also a google search for Cumnock formation plants sheds this among others:

https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/UnitRefs/CumnockRefs_1300.html

[fossil_lover_2277]

44 minutes ago, Plax said:

The book "Fossil collecting in North Carolina" lists Triassic plants from a now defunct site and don't forget to look in the back at the references as well. Also a google search for Cumnock formation plants sheds this among others:

https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/UnitRefs/CumnockRefs_1300.html

Thanks for the help, I looked at one of the publications at that usgs.gov link and searched the references and found 3 related to Deep River Basin flora. Requested them from my university’s library, going to look over them and see what I can find out.

[fossil_lover_2277]

7 hours ago, Plax said:

The book "Fossil collecting in North Carolina" lists Triassic plants from a now defunct site and don't forget to look in the back at the references as well. Also a google search for Cumnock formation plants sheds this among others:

https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/UnitRefs/CumnockRefs_1300.html

 

9 hours ago, Tetradium said:

From what I had seen the fossils had details that omits a lot of the families. No branching veins, no midveins for the cattail like fossils (And yes I knows cattails don't exist in Jurassic). And the round fossils are either reproduction organs or ferns/liverwort family. I was based that rough guess from Triassic Plants on Wikipedia. I'm no expert but those fossils are fascinating! A big difference from the usual Paleozoic fauna of North America. After all I still have so much to learn about Triassic/Late Paleozoic after that one Australia fossil a few months ago turn out to be a may apple like fern with one central petiole and its leaves blades spreading outward from that petiole. 

 

12 hours ago, Mainefossils said:

Nice plant fossils @Landon! Unfortunately, I could not find any open access papers that describe the flora of the Cumnock Fm. Maybe @piranha could help with this? 

 

@Tetradium, as far as I know, there are quite a few plant fossils that are from the Triassic. The lycophytes, ginkgophytes, cyanophytes, and ferns were quite prolific during this period. Conifers also were present in the northern hemisphere. Also, the ginkgophyta are technically gymnosperms, a group that includes conifers. 

Update: I looked at the fossils under a microscope at my molecular bio lab, the “stems” are definitely fossils of plants, you can see the fine detail of vasculature, and the darker fossils even have the carbonized residue of the plant still present. So hyped to have actual Triassic plant fossils from NC!!! I still have no idea on the “leaves” though

[Tetradium]

1 hour ago, Landon said:

 

 

Update: I looked at the fossils under a microscope at my molecular bio lab, the “stems” are definitely fossils of plants, you can see the fine detail of vasculature, and the darker fossils even have the carbonized residue of the plant still present. So hyped to have actual Triassic plant fossils from NC!!! I still have no idea on the “leaves” though

I think the stems are actually grass - like leaves ha. 

[fossil_lover_2277]

1 hour ago, Tetradium said:

I think the stems are actually grass - like leaves ha. 

So as far as I’m aware grass doesn’t show up in the fossil record until the Paleocene..

[Plax]

Something akin to calamites on the stem sections. There's a Deep River Basin plant pub from NCGS. I looked for it briefly yesterday on their site where out of print is usually available as pdf.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Plax
clarity

[fossil_lover_2277]

2 hours ago, Plax said:

Something akin to calamites on the stem sections. There's a Deep River Basin plant pub from NCGS. I looked for it briefly yesterday on their site where out of print is usually available as pdf.

I think you’re right. One of those pubs mentioned Neocalamites virginiensis is often found in the Cumnock formation. And the vasculature is much more visible in the fossils of it from the Cumnock vs the Pekin. Here’s a pic of its fossil:

 

Edited September 14, 2021 by Landon