Crinoid segments, brachiopod, and something else?

[Irongiant97]

I'm not totally sure what I got here, some friends said the first few are Crinoid segments and a brachiopod, but aren't sure of the last one, I think might be another part of a Crinoid, but not sure. If so, how old could that make them?

Any thoughts?

I find them in flint, I believe.

[ClearLake]

Pictures 1, 6.7. and 8 are definitely a partially exposed crinoid stem piece

Pictures 2-5 are a donut, no, just kidding, that is likely a crinoid stem fragment also, but is pretty poorly preserved so I suppose it could be something else.

Pictures 9-11 appears to be a brachiopod even though the symmetry looks a little off, but that could be the obliques angle of the picture.

Pictures 12-14 also appear to be a brachiopod, but it is pretty beat up.

 

You did not say where they were found, but assuming Minnesota and the fossils that were found, you can assume it is Paleozoic in age.  Ordovician is common in some areas there, but that is certainly not the only possible age for these.

[Irongiant97]

On 3/12/2022 at 6:31 PM, ClearLake said:

Pictures 1, 6.7. and 8 are definitely a partially exposed crinoid stem piece

Pictures 2-5 are a donut, no, just kidding, that is likely a crinoid stem fragment also, but is pretty poorly preserved so I suppose it could be something else.

Pictures 9-11 appears to be a brachiopod even though the symmetry looks a little off, but that could be the obliques angle of the picture.

Pictures 12-14 also appear to be a brachiopod, but it is pretty beat up.

 

You did not say where they were found, but assuming Minnesota and the fossils that were found, you can assume it is Paleozoic in age.  Ordovician is common in some areas there, but that is certainly not the only possible age for these.

Thanks! Yeah I live in Northern Minnesota, which is where I found them. According to a bed rock map, where I live is over 1.5 billion years old, so I don't think these are from here, but probably deposited by a glacier about 10-15,000 yo. I hope I'm wrong though. I used a cheap digital microscope for these pictures, the quality isn't great, so that's probably why they seem weird. Also the last one, I think it might be the "hub" of a crinoid, because it's sunk into a hole, possibly from a stem, and is shaped like a gelatin cake (the microscope picture doesn't really capture it though).

[Misha]

On 3/12/2022 at 7:31 PM, ClearLake said:

Pictures 1, 6.7. and 8 are definitely a partially exposed crinoid stem piece

Pictures 2-5 are a donut, no, just kidding, that is likely a crinoid stem fragment also, but is pretty poorly preserved so I suppose it could be something else.

Pictures 9-11 appears to be a brachiopod even though the symmetry looks a little off, but that could be the obliques angle of the picture.

Pictures 12-14 also appear to be a brachiopod, but it is pretty beat up.

 

You did not say where they were found, but assuming Minnesota and the fossils that were found, you can assume it is Paleozoic in age.  Ordovician is common in some areas there, but that is certainly not the only possible age for these.

 

I mostly agree, although the last object looks more like a mold of a solitary rugose coral calyx to me

[ClearLake]

21 hours ago, Misha said:

like a mold of a solitary rugose coral calyx to me

That could be.  I also thought it looked a bit like another piece of broken crinoid stem.  But it looked like it was an internal mold of something and the "shell" surrounding it has eroded away that is why it is "sunk in a hole" as @Irongiant97 mentions. 

 

23 hours ago, Irongiant97 said:

I live in Northern Minnesota, which is where I found them

All the pictures are close up so I can't tell what the whole rocks look like, but from what you describe of your location, you are probably correct, they are glacial erratics unless you can tell us that they came out of actual in situ bedrock.

[Irongiant97]

On 3/16/2022 at 10:03 AM, ClearLake said:

That could be.  I also thought it looked a bit like another piece of broken crinoid stem.  But it looked like it was an internal mold of something and the "shell" surrounding it has eroded away that is why it is "sunk in a hole" as @Irongiant97 mentions. 

 

All the pictures are close up so I can't tell what the whole rocks look like, but from what you describe of your location, you are probably correct, they are glacial erratics unless you can tell us that they came out of actual in situ bedrock.

I find them in gravel and dirt, not bedrock.