Marine Paleozoic Invertebrate Fossil

[Helicoprion]

Can anyone identify this Paleozoic marine invertebrate fossil in my collection? I know some of you might say the whole rock is a piece of fossilized coral but I don't think the entire rock is a fossil. I believe the pores might be invertebrate burrows but I'm not certain. I purchased it at a fossil convention so the context is lost. 

[Lone Hunter]

I really can't make out anything, could you try to get clearer pictures?

[Helicoprion]

21 hours ago, Lone Hunter said:

I really can't make out anything, could you try to get clearer pictures?

These are about the highest quality photos I've been able to take. 

[Mark Kmiecik]

Not a matter of quality -- it's a matter of focus. Back the camera away from the specimen an inch or two and they'll be in focus. We can enlarge them if we need more detail. As it is they are just too fuzzy to make out any detail at all, and on a fragment, which this appears to be, detail is critical.

[Helicoprion]

On 5/18/2022 at 6:34 PM, Lone Hunter said:

I really can't make out anything, could you try to get clearer pictures?

Is this any better?

[Lone Hunter]

It's a little better, needs more light, don't give up! 

[Fossildude19]

Try taking your pictures in natural light - near a window or outside.

Take a number of pictures from different distances away from the item.
Post the ones that look the sharpest.

[Helicoprion]

On 5/19/2022 at 8:58 PM, Fossildude19 said:

Try taking your pictures in natural light - near a window or outside.

Take a number of pictures from different distances away from the item.
Post the ones that look the sharpest.

What about this?

[Helicoprion]

On 5/19/2022 at 8:58 PM, Fossildude19 said:

Try taking your pictures in natural light - near a window or outside.

Take a number of pictures from different distances away from the item.
Post the ones that look the sharpest.

What about this?

[Fossildude19]

Better pictures. Unfortunately, I do not see any indication of fossils here.

[Mahnmut]

Much better foto.

To me it does not look as if the whole piece was a fossil. That said, under the assumption that there once was a reason to buy this piece, take a close look under a magnifying glass and take fotos like the last one of whatever stands out.

I think on the corner directly on your thumb there may perhaps be some kind of shell?

Best Regards,

J

 

 

[Top Trilo]

I see what may be trilobite parts, like a thorax in the second photo and cephalon and part of the thorax in the third.

However that's probably just trilobite pareidolia.

[Helicoprion]

3 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

Better pictures. Unfortunately, I do not see any indication of fossils here.

 

2 hours ago, Top Trilo said:

I see what may be trilobite parts, like a thorax in the second photo and cephalon and part of the thorax in the third.

However that's probably just trilobite pareidolia.

 

On 5/19/2022 at 8:55 PM, Lone Hunter said:

It's a little better, needs more light, don't give up! 

I seem to remember the person I purchased them from either saying that the pores were crinoid burrows or that they were blastoid burrows. Are any of you familiar with the burrows produced by either animal? 

[Lone Hunter]

There's a big difference between a pore and a burrow, I have never heard of crinoid burrows and unfortunately I still can't make out anything that looks like a burrow.  

[Helicoprion]

44 minutes ago, Lone Hunter said:

There's a big difference between a pore and a burrow, I have never heard of crinoid burrows and unfortunately I still can't make out anything that looks like a burrow.  

When I say burrows, I mean the depressions in the sand produced by the attachment of the crinoids to the seafloor. 

[Lone Hunter]

Maybe your thinking about crinoid holdfast but the picture isn't clear enough to see anything definitive, that's all I can think of since I haven't heard of a crinoid trace fossil. 

[Rockwood]

This might be crinoid related. If so they were not exactly burrowing, but more being buried as disarticulated pieces. It looks like crinoid mush to me.

[Helicoprion]

6 hours ago, Rockwood said:

This might be crinoid related. If so they were not exactly burrowing, but more being buried as disarticulated pieces. It looks like crinoid mush to me.

Is this "crinoid mush" something you have seen/heard of before? 

[Kane]

27 minutes ago, Helicoprion said:

Is this "crinoid mush" something you have seen/heard of before? 

The common term is "hash plate," and crinoid hash plates are by far more common than complete crinoids in most deposits on account of marine turbulence, or any other endemic forces that result in disarticulation.

 

 

[Fossildude19]

Not seeing anything definitively crinoid related in the piece.

 

[Rockwood]

1 hour ago, Kane said:

The common term is "hash plate," and crinoid hash plates are by far more common than complete crinoids in most deposits on account of marine turbulence, or any other endemic forces that result in disarticulation.

 

 

Common maybe, but this will never be seen as an example. The shapes and textures strongly suggest it to me.

Hash after a toddler plays with it a while. Mush.  

[Helicoprion]

On 5/22/2022 at 11:27 AM, Kane said:

The common term is "hash plate," and crinoid hash plates are by far more common than complete crinoids in most deposits on account of marine turbulence, or any other endemic forces that result in disarticulation.

 

 

 

On 5/22/2022 at 12:50 PM, Rockwood said:

Common maybe, but this will never be seen as an example. The shapes and textures strongly suggest it to me.

Hash after a toddler plays with it a while. Mush.  

Are there any discernable features of this specimen that can be used to determine whether it is crinoid hash or blastoid hash? 

[DPS Ammonite]

Columnals are a major portion of hash. Crinoid and blastoid columnals are difficult to tell apart. Here is a reference that says so:

https://www.csus.edu/indiv/k/kusnickj/geology105/ech.html

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by DPS Ammonite

[Rockwood]

2 hours ago, Helicoprion said:

Are there any discernable features of this specimen that can be used to determine whether it is crinoid hash or blastoid hash?

Beyond a look resembling the texture of crinoid material I see none.