connorp Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 17 minutes ago, jikohr said: 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? I’m just making a guess on the genus. Paleozoic sharks are mostly known from isolated teeth, and there’s a probably a lot of within-jaw tooth variability in many species, so not much is really known about most. I will tag @jdp to see if he has any comments on these teeth. They definitely are quite interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jikohr Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 25 minutes ago, connorp said: I’m just making a guess on the genus. Paleozoic sharks are mostly known from isolated teeth, and there’s a probably a lot of within-jaw tooth variability in many species, so not much is really known about most. I will tag @jdp to see if he has any comments on these teeth. They definitely are quite interesting. Right, right I got you. If it's anything like the Cretaceous/Miocene sharks I'm used to there's probably dozens if not hundreds of these things with very slight differences. Also aren't almost all fossil shark just known from isolated teeth? I think that's just shark paleo in general minus a few exceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connorp Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 11 minutes ago, jikohr said: Right, right I got you. If it's anything like the Cretaceous/Miocene sharks I'm used to there's probably dozens if not hundreds of these things with very slight differences. Also aren't almost all fossil shark just known from isolated teeth? I think that's just shark paleo in general minus a few exceptions. I know nothing about sharks outside of the Paleozoic so I can't comment on those. At least in terms of Carboniferous sharks, many tooth forms are known from only a few specimens. Some complete dentitions are known, here is an example of a putative Agassizodus dentition figured in the Illinois Geological Survey Vol. 6. As you can see there is a huge amount of within-dentition variability, hence many genera based on isolated teeth are likely form genera. Plus sharks back then were a lot weirder and unlike modern sharks, making it harder to infer what complete dentitions look like. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted September 21, 2022 Share Posted September 21, 2022 2 hours ago, Mochaccino said: 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! The one on the left probably is Metacoceras but the others are examples of one of the Cretaceous heteromorph ammonites someone mentioned, or maybe Idiohamites fremonti. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mochaccino Posted September 23, 2022 Author Share Posted September 23, 2022 (edited) On 9/20/2022 at 6:59 PM, BobWill said: The one on the left probably is Metacoceras but the others are examples of one of the Cretaceous heteromorph ammonites someone mentioned, or maybe Idiohamites fremonti. Oh I see what you're saying, that top left one with no ribbing is Metacoceras, while the ribbed ones such as the one right next to it are Heteromorphic ammos? That seems to check out, if these are generally Pennsylvanian fossils from Texas as connorp pointed out. Edited September 23, 2022 by Mochaccino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mochaccino Posted September 23, 2022 Author Share Posted September 23, 2022 (edited) PS. I'm still quite curious on these two, if anyone has any more guesses? The first specimen seems like it might be echinoderm but I have nothing beyond vague suspicions. For the second specimen, someone suggested plant, I wonder if it could also be something like Bactrites, which is a Pennsylvanian orthocone genus: http://inyo2.coffeecup.com/kansasfossils/cephalopods1.html Edited September 23, 2022 by Mochaccino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted September 23, 2022 Share Posted September 23, 2022 4 hours ago, Mochaccino said: Oh I see what you're saying, that top left one with no ribbing is Metacoceras, while the ribbed ones such as the one right next to it are Heteromorphic ammos? That seems to check out, if these are generally Pennsylvanian fossils from Texas as connorp pointed out. I think you have a mix since the ammonites would be Cretaceous. 4 hours ago, Mochaccino said: PS. I'm still quite curious on these two, if anyone has any more guesses? The first specimen seems like it might be echinoderm but I have nothing beyond vague suspicions. For the second specimen, someone suggested plant, I wonder if it could also be something like Bactrites, which is a Pennsylvanian orthocone genus: The first one may be a crinoid infrabasal glommed on to other material. The next is likely to be scaphopod like Dentalium. The next two are orthoconic cephalopods but you may not be able to tell if they are nautiloids or bacrtites unless you can see the siphuncles on either end. Nautiloid, unless it is against one edge, and then it is a bactrites or possibly a coleoid related to the spirulids like Shimanskya postremus. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mochaccino Posted September 23, 2022 Author Share Posted September 23, 2022 5 hours ago, BobWill said: I think you have a mix since the ammonites would be Cretaceous. The first one may be a crinoid infrabasal glommed on to other material. The next is likely to be scaphopod like Dentalium. The next two are orthoconic cephalopods but you may not be able to tell if they are nautiloids or bacrtites unless you can see the siphuncles on either end. Nautiloid, unless it is against one edge, and then it is a bactrites or possibly a coleoid related to the spirulids like Shimanskya postremus. Ah I see, so Pennsylvanian nautiloid, cretaceous ammonite. To be clear, you think this one is a scaphopod like Dentalium? The last photo I posted with the two orthocones is not one of the specimens in question, but a photo I found of two Bactrites online, which I posted for comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted September 23, 2022 Share Posted September 23, 2022 30 minutes ago, Mochaccino said: Ah I see, so Pennsylvanian nautiloid, cretaceous ammonite. To be clear, you think this one is a scaphopod like Dentalium? The last photo I posted with the two orthocones is not one of the specimens in question, but a photo I found of two Bactrites online, which I posted for comparison. I see. I would say the longitudinal striations are not typical of any cephalopods I know of. That's why I thought of scaphopod. However the possible segmentation would not be seen on them but may just be cracks since it doesn't seem uniformly spaced. I suppose it could be small enough for an echinoid spine. If so, magnification might show the grid pattern of some stereom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mochaccino Posted September 24, 2022 Author Share Posted September 24, 2022 6 hours ago, BobWill said: I see. I would say the longitudinal striations are not typical of any cephalopods I know of. That's why I thought of scaphopod. However the possible segmentation would not be seen on them but may just be cracks since it doesn't seem uniformly spaced. I suppose it could be small enough for an echinoid spine. If so, magnification might show the grid pattern of some stereom Yeah the striations are weird and it does look like the segmentation is just from cracks through the specimen. Wonder if it could also be some sort of plant material as been suggested, as the cross-section doesn't look very uniform/symmetrical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted September 24, 2022 Share Posted September 24, 2022 3 hours ago, Mochaccino said: Yeah the striations are weird and it does look like the segmentation is just from cracks through the specimen. Wonder if it could also be some sort of plant material as been suggested, as the cross-section doesn't look very uniform/symmetrical. Yeah, it could be wood. I can usually see a thin shell around the outside of my scaphopods on the ends. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 4. look like scaphopods (Paleodentalium kansasense) we've found in the Pennsylvanian Farley Limestone in Johnson County, Kansas. Many found loose in shale partings resemble yours. Here's my best example: 13. reminds me of cordaite wood found in the Pennsylvanian Winterset Limestone in Kansas City, Missouri. A couple loose examples: This is Artisia: 2 Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mochaccino Posted November 24, 2022 Author Share Posted November 24, 2022 1 hour ago, Missourian said: 4. look like scaphopods (Paleodentalium kansasense) we've found in the Pennsylvanian Farley Limestone in Johnson County, Kansas. Many found loose in shale partings resemble yours. Here's my best example: 13. reminds me of cordaite wood found in the Pennsylvanian Winterset Limestone in Kansas City, Missouri. A couple loose examples: This is Artisia: Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mochaccino Posted November 24, 2022 Author Share Posted November 24, 2022 (edited) So thanks to the generous help of everyone I have most of these at least somewhat identified, but this one still stumps me. Upon close inspection it has a tiny star-shaped protrusion in the center of the "crater", and that fivefold symmetry makes me think of echinoderm, particularly the pentalobate lumen of a crinoid stem. From certain angles it also has a vague fivefold symmetry, perhaps just worn. But other than that it doesn't look like anything I've ever seen, and there is no segmentation or plate-ossicle structure. Perhaps it is something like a worn plate of an echinoderm? Edited November 24, 2022 by Mochaccino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 10 hours ago, Mochaccino said: So thanks to the generous help of everyone I have most of these at least somewhat identified, but this one still stumps me. Upon close inspection it has a tiny star-shaped protrusion in the center of the "crater", and that fivefold symmetry makes me think of echinoderm, particularly the pentalobate lumen of a crinoid stem. From certain angles it also has a vague fivefold symmetry, perhaps just worn. But other than that it doesn't look like anything I've ever seen, and there is no segmentation or plate-ossicle structure. Perhaps it is something like a worn plate of an echinoderm? The preservation has a 'Missouri Ozarks feel' to it. It may be dolomitized, which can degrade details in fossils. I would guess this is a crinoid calyx. Possibly Mississippian. 1 Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mochaccino Posted November 24, 2022 Author Share Posted November 24, 2022 2 hours ago, Missourian said: The preservation has a 'Missouri Ozarks feel' to it. It may be dolomitized, which can degrade details in fossils. I would guess this is a crinoid calyx. Possibly Mississippian. I had a feeling it was crinoid-related, that could definitely explain it. Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packy Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 1-3 Brachiodpod lophophores don't recognize the age or matrix. the #9 could be from the new providence in KY, 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRLE Posted November 25, 2022 Share Posted November 25, 2022 20 hours ago, Mochaccino said: So thanks to the generous help of everyone I have most of these at least somewhat identified, but this one still stumps me. Upon close inspection it has a tiny star-shaped protrusion in the center of the "crater", and that fivefold symmetry makes me think of echinoderm, particularly the pentalobate lumen of a crinoid stem. From certain angles it also has a vague fivefold symmetry, perhaps just worn. But other than that it doesn't look like anything I've ever seen, and there is no segmentation or plate-ossicle structure. Perhaps it is something like a worn plate of an echinoderm? I am by no means an expert but it reminds me of a find I made earlier this year. Could it be a worn rugose coral? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahnmut Posted November 25, 2022 Share Posted November 25, 2022 Hi, concerning no. six. my first impression was barnacle, but not on a closer look. If the people who know their crinoids are not put off by the six sides, then this is most probably it. While at the word "crater" and considering location, rudists came to my mind. Just a thought though. The craterlike rudist fossils I have seen are not that regularly shaped either. Best Regards,J Try to learn something about everything and everything about something Thomas Henry Huxley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mochaccino Posted November 26, 2022 Author Share Posted November 26, 2022 22 hours ago, PRLE said: I am by no means an expert but it reminds me of a find I made earlier this year. Could it be a worn rugose coral? I see the resemblance, but I think my specimen is way too smooth to be a coral...no segmentation or corallites visible, even considering it may be worn or dolomitized. 16 hours ago, Mahnmut said: Hi, concerning no. six. my first impression was barnacle, but not on a closer look. If the people who know their crinoids are not put off by the six sides, then this is most probably it. While at the word "crater" and considering location, rudists came to my mind. Just a thought though. The craterlike rudist fossils I have seen are not that regularly shaped either. Best Regards,J Yeah it does seem to have six sides, doesn't it? Almost like an industrial nut...very strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted November 28, 2022 Share Posted November 28, 2022 On 9/18/2022 at 9:31 PM, piranha said: Ameura missouriensis Pretty sure this is actually a brachiopod mold with the preserved brachidium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted November 28, 2022 Share Posted November 28, 2022 4 hours ago, Carl said: Pretty sure this is actually a brachiopod mold with the preserved brachidium. Photo 8 is unequivocally the pygidium of Ameura missouriensis. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted November 29, 2022 Share Posted November 29, 2022 19 hours ago, piranha said: Photo 8 is unequivocally the pygidium of Ameura missouriensis. Whoops! My bad. I saw the thumbnail as the first specimen in the post. Thanks for catching that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now