A bunch of old collection unknowns

[Mochaccino]

Hello,

 

Here are a bunch of old collection fossils that have me stumped...almost no info on provenance so tricky, but I'm hoping I can get at least a fossil identity for them if possible. There are 13 in total, here goes:

 

1. Crustacean/brachiopod steinkern?

 

2. Crustacean? Brachiopod?

 

3. Is this a coral?

 

4. No clue...thought orthocone but seems too thin?

 

5. No clue

6. Thought some sort of echinoderm but almost looks six-sided? Reminds me of a construction nut used for screws.

 

 

7. Some sort of brachiopod?

 

8. This seems like a trilobite pygidium, appears to be on a white block of matrix? Any guesses as to specific ID?

 

9. These seem echinoderm. The one with the protrusion in the center might be an echinoid plate, the rest crinoid plates?

 

10. I'm guessing these are echinoid spines

 

11. Looks like some heteromorphic ammonite sections. The one on the right with a double row of tubercles might be Nostoceras or Didymoceras?

 

 

 

12. I'm pretty sure these are Conulariids but does the preservation inform the provenance or ID further?

 

EDIT: one more:

13. Orthocone?

 

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by Mochaccino

[piranha]

4 minutes ago, Mochaccino said:

8. This seems like a trilobite pygidium, appears to be on a white block of matrix? Any guesses as to specific ID?

 

Ameura missouriensis

[Mochaccino]

2 minutes ago, piranha said:

 

Ameura missouriensis

Wow, thank you for the incredible near-instantaneous ID!

Edited September 19, 2022 by Mochaccino

[piranha]

1 minute ago, Mochaccino said:

Wow, thank you for the incredible near-instantaneous ID!

 

Quick-Draw ID

[Misha]

1&2 appear to be brachiopods with a preserved brachidium. 

7 I believe is a productid brachiopod brachial valve

 

The plate in 9 could be Archaeocidaris sp. although I am not an expert

[jikohr]

May we see some more angles on #5?

I have a really off the wall guess those might be really big Ptychodus mortoni teeth but need to see more angles to rule it in or out.

[Mochaccino]

29 minutes ago, Misha said:

1&2 appear to be brachiopods with a preserved brachidium. 

7 I believe is a productid brachiopod brachial valve

 

The plate in 9 could be Archaeocidaris sp. although I am not an expert

Very interesting, wasn't aware of these structures and don't think I've paid much attention to them before. For 9, are you referring to just the one plate with the bulge in the center, or all of the plates?

 

 

18 minutes ago, jikohr said:

May we see some more angles on #5?

I have a really off the wall guess those might be really big Ptychodus mortoni teeth but need to see more angles to rule it in or out.

 

This is the only other photo I have for now, I could get more if needed.

Edited September 19, 2022 by Mochaccino

[NSRhunter]

Jesus 5. are some massive Pennsylvanian or really super old shark/fish teeth I believe. Never knew they got that big wow.... I don't know who are the Pennsylvanian vertebrate experts here but anyone else feel free to tag them please. 

[jikohr]

18 minutes ago, Mochaccino said:

Very interesting, wasn't aware of these structures and don't think I've paid much attention to them before. For 9, are you referring to just the one plate with the bulge in the center, or all of the plates?

 

 

 

This is the only other photo I have for now, I could get more if needed.

Yes please, all angles.

[jikohr]

6 minutes ago, NSRhunter said:

Jesus 5. are some massive Pennsylvanian or really super old shark/fish teeth I believe. Never knew they got that big wow.... I don't know who are the Pennsylvanian vertebrate experts here but anyone else feel free to tag them please. 

Mortoni was a monster. Teeth over one inch are rare but I know up to 3 inches have been found. Actually a Cretaceous shark but yeah that whole group (Hybodonts) always reminded me of the weird ones from the Paleozoic.

 

Really want be careful calling these that without more angles and someone more knowledgeable chiming in but dang if that's what those are that is something special!

[grandpa]

#3 is the mineral chiastolite, a variety of  andalucite.

[Mochaccino]

2 hours ago, NSRhunter said:

Jesus 5. are some massive Pennsylvanian or really super old shark/fish teeth I believe. Never knew they got that big wow.... I don't know who are the Pennsylvanian vertebrate experts here but anyone else feel free to tag them please. 

 

2 hours ago, jikohr said:

Yes please, all angles.

 

If that's what these are, they would indeed seem to be almost uncharacteristically large. I'll get back to you with some extra photos and tag you when I post them, thanks.

 

 

1 hour ago, grandpa said:

#3 is the mineral chiastolite, a variety of  andalucite.

 

Oh I see, I never would've guessed! Thank you. So perhaps not fossil at all?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by Mochaccino

[FranzBernhard]

15 minutes ago, Mochaccino said:

So perhaps not fossil at all?

Yes, purely mineralogical. Typical mineral in some contact metamorphic environments.

Franz Bernhard

[TqB]

The two larger ones in no. 4 are belemnites, similar to these Passaloteuthis cf. pessula from the Lower Pliensabachian, Lower Jurassic of Yorkshire, England, though belemnites from different ages show a lot of homeomorphy and a definite ID is unlikely without a location.
Not sure about the smaller one, maybe belemnite or orthocone - a closer photo out of the bag might help.

 

 

 

[Tidgy's Dad]

1. is the double spiralia of an atrypid brachiopod. 

2. is the double spiralia of a spiriferid brachiopod. 

Lovely 

I also really like those conulariids too!  

[IsaacTheFossilMan]

4 hours ago, TqB said:

The two larger ones in no. 4 are belemnites, similar to these Passaloteuthis cf. pessula from the Lower Pliensabachian, Lower Jurassic of Yorkshire, England, though belemnites from different ages show a lot of homeomorphy and a definite ID is unlikely without a location.
Not sure about the smaller one, maybe belemnite or orthocone - a closer photo out of the bag might help.

 

 

 

 

Just what I was about to say! The smaller one does appear to be more cephalopidic - it appears to have some septa present.

[marguy]

couldn't the 13 be a piece of plant ?

[Jared C]

13 hours ago, jikohr said:

I have a really off the wall guess those might be really big Ptychodus mortoni teeth but need to see more angles to rule it in or out.

Not any species of Ptychodus unfortunately

 

13 hours ago, jikohr said:

Actually a Cretaceous shark but yeah that whole group (Hybodonts) always reminded me of the weird ones from the Paleozoic.

 

Ptychodus used to be thought of as either a ray or hybodont, but recent studies have favored it being a true shark instead 

 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-paleontology/article/abs/scanning-electron-microscope-examination-of-the-dental-enameloid-of-the-cretaceous-durophagous-shark-ptychodus-supports-neoselachian-classification/ABE92F4AE04DBB5C68F1D7D4C08D945C

 

 

[Mochaccino]

11 hours ago, TqB said:

The two larger ones in no. 4 are belemnites, similar to these Passaloteuthis cf. pessula from the Lower Pliensabachian, Lower Jurassic of Yorkshire, England, though belemnites from different ages show a lot of homeomorphy and a definite ID is unlikely without a location.
Not sure about the smaller one, maybe belemnite or orthocone - a closer photo out of the bag might help.

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, IsaacTheFossilMan said:

 

Just what I was about to say! The smaller one does appear to be more cephalopidic - it appears to have some septa present.

Oh yes, that seems like a match!

 

8 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

1. is the double spiralia of an atrypid brachiopod. 

2. is the double spiralia of a spiriferid brachiopod. 

Lovely 

I also really like those conulariids too!  

I had to look these up but interesting, so different types of brachiopods!

 

5 hours ago, marguy said:

couldn't the 13 be a piece of plant ?

 

Hadn't thought of that, it sure lacks septation of cephalopod chambers, but has a find texture on it so might be.

 

4 hours ago, Jared C said:

Not any species of Ptychodus unfortunately

 

Ptychodus used to be thought of as either a ray or hybodont, but recent studies have favored it being a true shark instead 

 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-paleontology/article/abs/scanning-electron-microscope-examination-of-the-dental-enameloid-of-the-cretaceous-durophagous-shark-ptychodus-supports-neoselachian-classification/ABE92F4AE04DBB5C68F1D7D4C08D945C

 

 

 

I'll get some more photos, but if there is enough to rule out Ptychodus do you have another guess as to what it might be? Do you think it still could be some sort of crusher fish/shark tooth?

 

[Jared C]

6 hours ago, Mochaccino said:

I'll get some more photos, but if there is enough to rule out Ptychodus do you have another guess as to what it might be? Do you think it still could be some sort of crusher fish/shark tooth?

 

No other informed guess unfortunately. Perhaps @NSRhunter is on to something with his guess of Paleozoic shark

[Mochaccino]

On 9/18/2022 at 6:57 PM, jikohr said:

May we see some more angles on #5?

I have a really off the wall guess those might be really big Ptychodus mortoni teeth but need to see more angles to rule it in or out.

 

On 9/18/2022 at 7:29 PM, NSRhunter said:

Jesus 5. are some massive Pennsylvanian or really super old shark/fish teeth I believe. Never knew they got that big wow.... I don't know who are the Pennsylvanian vertebrate experts here but anyone else feel free to tag them please. 

 

15 hours ago, Jared C said:

No other informed guess unfortunately. Perhaps @NSRhunter is on to something with his guess of Paleozoic shark

I got some more photos from other angles, what do you think?

 

[jikohr]

The new angles just make them look more like a shell crushing shark tooth of some kind to me just really REALLY big. Though the pattern on the crushing side doesn't match any Ptychodus species I'm familiar with. I'm certainly no expert on Ptychodus and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if an expert chimed in and gave a Ptychodus species of these.

Here's a link to a huge Ptychodus that was posted on the forum a while back that's in that size range. Definitely a different species than what you have but I'm really leaning towards these being a close relative or something very similar.

 

[connorp]

It looks like most of these pieces are Carboniferous. My guess is that this collection is from the Pennsylvanian of Texas. Maybe some Texas collectors could weigh in. @BobWill @JamieLynn

The plethora of well-preserved conulariids might be from the Finis Shale. 11 looks like nautiloid fragments, the ones with nodes could be Metacoceras.

The teeth look Paleozoic to me. Best guess would be Fadenia.

From the "Handbook of Paleoichthyology" Volume 3D.

Edited September 20, 2022 by connorp

[Mochaccino]

1 hour ago, jikohr said:

The new angles just make them look more like a shell crushing shark tooth of some kind to me just really REALLY big. Though the pattern on the crushing side doesn't match any Ptychodus species I'm familiar with. I'm certainly no expert on Ptychodus and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if an expert chimed in and gave a Ptychodus species of these.

Here's a link to a huge Ptychodus that was posted on the forum a while back that's in that size range. Definitely a different species than what you have but I'm really leaning towards these being a close relative or something very similar.

 

 

9 minutes ago, connorp said:

It looks like most of these pieces are Carboniferous. My guess is that this collection is from the Pennsylvanian of Texas. Maybe some Texas collectors could weigh in. @BobWill @JamieLynn

The plethora of well-preserved conulariids might be from the Finis Shale. 11 looks like nautiloid fragments, the ones with nodes could be Metacoceras.

The teeth look Paleozoic to me. Best guess would be Fadenia.

From the "Handbook of Paleoichthyology" Volume 3D.

 

 

I see, very interesting! With the new photos I also agree they look like crusher shark teeth, especially with the bony porosity in the roots. They do seem much narrower than Ptychodus, and Fadenia does seem like a tentative match. Thank you!

 

I have a couple of Conulariids from the Finish shale but on the small side, they do look similar. I'm surprised 11 are nautiloids, the noded one does look like a fragment of Metacoceras based on pictures I can find online. Learning a lot!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jikohr]

18 minutes ago, connorp said:

It looks like most of these pieces are Carboniferous. My guess is that this collection is from the Pennsylvanian of Texas. Maybe some Texas collectors could weigh in. @BobWill @JamieLynn

The plethora of well-preserved conulariids might be from the Finis Shale. 11 looks like nautiloid fragments, the ones with nodes could be Metacoceras.

The teeth look Paleozoic to me. Best guess would be Fadenia.

From the "Handbook of Paleoichthyology" Volume 3D.

WOW!!

I've never even heard of Fadenia before. I tried googling it and there was not much. Wiki said it's a small relative of Helicoprion (so a chimera which is technically not a shark but pretty easy to mix up) and had tooth whorls but I couldn't find decent pictures of teeth. Apparently it was about human sized which would be really weird given how big those are.

Of course given the source of this info a lot of that could be inaccurate so if anyone familiar with this genus can chime in I'd love to hear accurate details.

I cannot believe my completely off the wall guess might actually have been kinda close.

I mean yeah, Ptychodus is a Cretaceous shark and Fadenia is a Paleozoic Chimera, but haven't we all though that Ptychodus teeth look like they belong in the Paleozoic?