Huge Kalligramma? Found in Nevada

[keithsdayoff]

first of its kind in NA? I don’t want to disclose much about the location found for now except that it was at a high elevation.  It was a very “just by chance” way to find it after I got lost. I was not looking for fossils nor am I a fossil collecter. Have not showed photos to any expert. 
 

Edited September 27, 2021 by keithsdayoff

[Kane]

An interesting piece, but I am not seeing any evidence of venation that one would expect to see, or if that has been eroded.

 

We'll see what others think. It would be very cool if this is a confirmed specimen!

[keithsdayoff]

It was exposed on a steep scree slope that gets snow in the winter. 

Edited September 27, 2021 by keithsdayoff

[keithsdayoff]

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by keithsdayoff

[keithsdayoff]

If venation is the connective pattern of the wings then there is some left that is recordable on the left inside wing as well as the right upper middle wing

[Kane]

38 minutes ago, keithsdayoff said:

 

 

 

Two aspects here make me hesitant to declare this a Kalligramma:

1. Judging by the pictures above, there appears to be a similar colour and pattern on the left wing side, but occurring in a depression or lower horizon of the rock.

2. Also, the orbital around the wing's "eye" looks as though it is incised as opposed to being a surface feature.

This could simply be an artifact of the photograph, of course, but these ones in particular are also suggestive of mineral staining as a possibility. 

 

If possible, a good resolution photo under magnification of the surface detail to show the venations would be a helpful diagnostic. I would also expect the venations to produce something of a crinkling effect on the surface feature, which I am not quite seeing here. 

 

Not to put him on the spot, but I'll tag @FossilDAWG whose knowledge of insect anatomy is far better than my own. Also, @oilshale has had a lot of experience with fossil insects, so it would be of interest to obtain his opinion.

[Fossildude19]

Narrowing down the location to county or closest city would still allow for site anonymity.

But we need this info to determine the sedimentary formations in the area to establish the age of the sediments.

If the area is paleozoic aged sediments, I wouldn't expect this to be an insect.  (Which I don't believe it is, anyway.)

But more information would help determine these things.

[FossilDAWG]

I agree with Kane's comments.  It seems unlikely that the eyespot could be preserved (color patterns are very rare) but there is no trace of veins.  Veins are thickened three-dimensional structures that have vastly more preservation potential than color patterns.  Also I do not see any convincing evidence of the body.  Did you collect this yourself?

 

Don

[JohnJ]

I agree with the others that there is not enough evidence to support the OP's ID.  

 

The "eye spot" looks like a natural geologic feature.

[keithsdayoff]

As soon as my eye caught where it was lying I said “that’s a moth fossil”. Yes I found it myself and it also still has lacewing patterns that can be recorded that the picture is not picking up. 

[Coco]

Hi,

 

I think it is geologic

 

For your future photos, read my last link in my signature. If you don’t have a ruler, print out my handout and put your fossils on it before taking your photo, making sure to leave one of the size boxes visible

 

Coco

[JohnJ]

5 hours ago, keithsdayoff said:

 I was not looking for fossils nor am I a fossil collecter.

 

24 minutes ago, keithsdayoff said:

As soon as my eye caught where it was lying I said “that’s a moth fossil”.

 

It may be that your belief is overriding the greater evidence to the contrary.  There is far more evidence to support that this is a geologic feature than a moth fossil.  Fracture patterns are evident all through this rock.  So, the focus cannot just be placed on the stained area.  As @Kane previously mentioned, the most obvious evidence is that the "spot" and staining span multiple planes in the rock.  A moth fossil would be exposed on a single bedding plane.  

 

Important considerations.

[keithsdayoff]

If the question is whether or not it’s a fossil I can assure you if any of you were standing here you would say it’s a fossil or at least imprints/ remnant of a fossil.  Like I said, there are lacewing patterns not being picked up by the camera And I am going to have to respectfully say there is no way these are simply geologic features as unbelievable as it may be to find something like this in NA. Kinda confirming what I thought, first of its kind most likely. Also there were other flora fossils near. 

[keithsdayoff]

You can see the detail of its antenna still embedded as well as the horizontal cross sections of its body in the rock. What I’m saying is there’s a better chance of world peace than this just being a rock lol

[JohnJ]

Any professional you take it to will want to know the geology of the area it was found.  Can you determine the geologic formation by looking at a geologic map of the area?

[keithsdayoff]

3 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

Any professional you take it to will want to know the geology of the area it was found.  Can you determine the geologic formation by looking at a geologic map of the area?

Ok on it 

[Fossildude19]

Again, without locality info to figure out the age of sediments, this is going to be a rough sell. 

 

Saying we cannot see the detail in the item tells me you need to take it to someone local to be seen in hand. 

Since you cannot provide better photographs, you should really take it to a museum or university to be looked at in person.

Please come back, and let us know the result of your investigations.

 

I'd wager that this is just a geologic oddity, and not a moth fossil.

[FossilDAWG]

I think this is one of those specimens that really require an in-person inspection.  I am an entomologist (although not an insect taxonomist), and I do not see anything in your photos that convinces me that there is anything other than a superficial resemblance to a lepidopteran wing, but that is (obviously) entirely based on a couple of photos.  An insect taxonomist or paleontologist should be able to look at the specimen in hand and be able to give you a definitive answer.  You should be able to contact qualified people at the University of Nevada.

 

Don

[Crusty_Crab]

The Kalligrammatidae are neuropterans, not lepidopterans. They strongly resemble butterflies (lepidopterans) but are a completely different order, and so are very interesting examples of convergent evolution whereby neuropterans appear to have filled the niche that lepidopterans filled later on (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.2893). They were associated with gymnosperms and became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous (2005. Grimaldi and Engel. Evolution of the Insects. Cambridge University Press) and modern lepidopterans seem to have taken their niche. Since flowering plants (angiosperms) diversified during the Cretaceous, it is an interesting question as to whether lepidopterans outcompeted neuropterans since the lepidopterans seem to have coevolved with angiosperms while the Kalligrammatidae coevolved with gymnosperms or the K-T event wiped out the Kalligrammatidae and lepidopterans simply filled a niche that was vacant. That being said, there is no evidence that this is an insect wing other than a spot that may be geological, no apparent venation and no "lacewing patterns" that I can see with the posted pictures.  

[Paleorunner]

I also think the same, if there are certain details in the rock, that there is no way to capture them with the camera, better take it to an expert to study it. 

[keithsdayoff]

I need to dispel that this is not a geological oddity I promise I promise I promise ha ha. Trust me I wanted to be wrong at first because yes it is unbelievable.  I added that I immediately said “that’s a moth fossil” because I have been all around nevada and stared at rocks for miles and miles on a trail. I would never let myself get false hope for anything.  Also I was far away from safety and had to travel through much elevation and miles to get back. I was also very tired. I would not have carried that huge rock back if there was even a single ounce of doubt. I found it back in July (2021) and I waited and made countless searches trying to find anything similar. I didn’t want to post it until I knew more. recently I got access to all journal articles and started to realize how rare this is and probably a new species.  there is remnants of the same spot on the left wing it is not only the right.  I am the last person to jump to conclusions but when I found out that pretty much none of these have possibly ever been found in NA I knew I had to post it. I didn’t want to tell an expert because I still don’t know if they will say I can’t own it.  I was in a certain spot that probably hasn’t seen anyone walk on it for the last 50 years. It was steep and lose. I can also say confidently petrified wood was in the same spot. I can see the animal components quite easily as well as patterns only flora or fauna could make. I can confidently say this is a butterfly like animal and yes if you were in person you could see what’s left of the lacewing pattern that isn’t eroded. I have close access to UNR and will let everyone know what I find out. Thank you everybody you got to be some of the first to know. I know I will be back with exciting news!

[Kane]

28 minutes ago, keithsdayoff said:

 I didn’t want to tell an expert because I still don’t know if they will say I can’t own it.  

If it was collected legally, that should not be an issue. They can't just take it from you. 

 

That being said, if this is deemed a fossil that is thought to be a representative of a new genus or species, it is customary that the specimen be donated to a museum or similar institution permanently for future study. In most cases, a specimen new to science cannot simply be held in a private collection. It may be possible to request a replica to be made for keeping by the finder while the original specimen would remain in the repository. If the specimen is not made available in a public institution, it generally cannot be erected and assigned as a new genus or species, and hence will not be published. 

[jpc]

50 minutes ago, Kane said:

If it was collected legally, that should not be an issue. They can't just take it from you. 

 

That being said, if this is deemed a fossil that is thought to be a representative of a new genus or species, it is customary that the specimen be donated to a museum or similar institution permanently for future study. In most cases, a specimen new to science cannot simply be held in a private collection. It may be possible to request a replica to be made for keeping by the finder while the original specimen would remain in the repository. If the specimen is not made available in a public institution, it generally cannot be erected and assigned as a new genus or species, and hence will not be published. 

I agree.  Not only is it customary for the specimen to be reposited in a museum, but I do not think there is any journal out there that will publish a type specimen that is NOT in a museum collection.

 

(But I also do not see an insect fossil.)    

[JohnJ]

@keithsdayoff

 

With respect, you keep telling us that we would agree with you about this piece if seen in person.  Yet, your good photos do not appear to show the features you say are there. 

 

You say that petrified wood was found nearby; but probably unknown to you is how frequently other rock types are mistaken for fossil wood.  Any samples from that spot?

 

Not being a fossil collector and immediately thinking you found a giant moth fossil seems to have set you on a path without deviation.  There are many types of fossils that can display a "lacewing" pattern.  Inexperience, desire, or belief can cause us to not consider other possibilities.

 

So, back to the basics, without divulging the specific location, what geologic formations are in the immediate vicinity of your find?

 

This may help.

[Fossildude19]

There are people here with many years of experience here, including professional Paleontologists, and none of us sees what you see.

That should make you question your assumptions right there.  We have no interest in not seeing you find an awesome fossil.

However, ... we just don't see it. 

 

We have done what we could do here, via photographs. The odds are very much against this being what you THINK it is, sadly.

Please bring it to someone locally with the proper credentials to look at it.