Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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.

1158541284_ScreenShot2022-09-20at8_09_29PM.thumb.png.6175f0b8bf9fd5ec5410cda0b9256b01.png

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.

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mochaccino
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.


1C1CF0E7-3E5A-4A2C-B5DC-6596901EE191.thumb.jpeg.0e8e568fe44d4f5c660f58caaf7d3f68.jpeg

Edited by Mochaccino
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mochaccino

PS. I'm still quite curious on these two, if anyone has any more guesses?

0D724BA2-8008-4624-9984-C1C779BB56BC.jpeg

E2545F55-242B-4875-B5A3-1236297496E8.jpeg
 

A2A0C0DB-E9B8-43B9-B3ED-D97F380B324A.thumb.jpeg.2261a6f1d7990269c32f2e6300358613.jpegCA838855-20EC-4BE1-8232-5A2D25BBE866.thumb.jpeg.224ddef198dfa3d859d9a0f68a4359eb.jpeg
 

 

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:

image.jpeg.4730b4de219a9360a821b6c0e35bb7ba.jpeg

http://inyo2.coffeecup.com/kansasfossils/cephalopods1.html

Edited by Mochaccino
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mochaccino
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?

2A62CB91-008E-45FC-8761-F451B40CBB0E.thumb.jpeg.b8200c28ffb8cfc1dcb32943f5548a96.jpeg

 

 

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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
Mochaccino
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 post
Share on other sites
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.

 

IMG_20220923_232436.thumb.jpg.de9c8466bc1c1cca92ff55aa24735e75.jpg

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

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:

 

post-6808-0-96388600-1321180555.thumb.jpg.c465d85585d9a14078489b9cd0bda88f.jpg

 

13. reminds me of cordaite wood found in the Pennsylvanian Winterset Limestone in Kansas City, Missouri. A couple loose examples:

 

post-6808-0-87851400-1336084007.jpg.f14de116107270e19752e5b252cc0f7f.jpg

 

This is Artisia:

 

post-6808-0-76082600-1336084009.thumb.jpg.bea887316d95e20eeb117fd94439b652.jpg

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

 

post-6808-0-96388600-1321180555.thumb.jpg.c465d85585d9a14078489b9cd0bda88f.jpg

 

13. reminds me of cordaite wood found in the Pennsylvanian Winterset Limestone in Kansas City, Missouri. A couple loose examples:

 

post-6808-0-87851400-1336084007.jpg.f14de116107270e19752e5b252cc0f7f.jpg

 

This is Artisia:

 

post-6808-0-76082600-1336084009.thumb.jpg.bea887316d95e20eeb117fd94439b652.jpg

 

Thank you! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

A7827B39-4364-469E-AC1D-0F5C58B623E7.thumb.jpeg.e45e8a54344cfd8bd91734c3a70190d9.jpegA92B905E-E509-4007-8E54-F87778C34810.thumb.jpeg.12bdfbb7f9e9f194db87e7225af5b889.jpeg16B4F5D5-3A49-4703-ADCC-F28B8E13415D.thumb.jpeg.e2731ad4d449f43b181102b11ebb34ed.jpeg9DEC1E8D-E1FC-4EED-8116-E45BAAC65C8C.thumb.jpeg.4bd533bdf2fb1d8352f1a9e23e68748f.jpeg3D3E80D1-45E2-4621-8AEB-BEFB7C77E05C.thumb.jpeg.de66a026af9321a1409f6aeeb61d30e5.jpeg16AC08A8-7424-44F4-BF08-98D47F87A6E0.thumb.jpeg.fa4ee57b89ace7731e301c27760efba6.jpeg

Edited by Mochaccino
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

A92B905E-E509-4007-8E54-F87778C34810.thumb.jpeg.12bdfbb7f9e9f194db87e7225af5b889.jpeg

 

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 found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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?

 

A7827B39-4364-469E-AC1D-0F5C58B623E7.thumb.jpeg.e45e8a54344cfd8bd91734c3a70190d9.jpegA92B905E-E509-4007-8E54-F87778C34810.thumb.jpeg.12bdfbb7f9e9f194db87e7225af5b889.jpeg16B4F5D5-3A49-4703-ADCC-F28B8E13415D.thumb.jpeg.e2731ad4d449f43b181102b11ebb34ed.jpeg9DEC1E8D-E1FC-4EED-8116-E45BAAC65C8C.thumb.jpeg.4bd533bdf2fb1d8352f1a9e23e68748f.jpeg3D3E80D1-45E2-4621-8AEB-BEFB7C77E05C.thumb.jpeg.de66a026af9321a1409f6aeeb61d30e5.jpeg16AC08A8-7424-44F4-BF08-98D47F87A6E0.thumb.jpeg.fa4ee57b89ace7731e301c27760efba6.jpeg

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?

 

 

 

20220814_145207.thumb.jpg.06f634b5c99fdb1d70342c6cb25f2c72.jpg

20220814_145204.thumb.jpg.b1a9cf2c9fb9e2c6f6d231a752eae3ba.jpg

  • Thank You 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

 

 

20220814_145207.thumb.jpg.06f634b5c99fdb1d70342c6cb25f2c72.jpg

20220814_145204.thumb.jpg.b1a9cf2c9fb9e2c6f6d231a752eae3ba.jpg

 

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 post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, piranha said:

 

 mail?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.yimg.com%2Fok%2Fu%2Fassets%2Fimg%2Femoticons%2Femo20.gif&t=1669657364&ymreqid=23281213-8dc1-3cff-1c49-44000501c800&sig=Odft5QPFuNYMip.kJoJGWA--~DPhoto 8 is unequivocally the pygidium of Ameura missouriensis.

 

image.png.ac190958fc7a2f9be099c1c0555acd8b.png

Whoops! My bad. I saw the thumbnail as the first specimen in the post. Thanks for catching that!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...