Mississippian Rugosa Coral to ID

[minnbuckeye]

A new coral was found when geode hunting in NE Missouri. Likely Warsaw Formation, maybe Keokuk. In either case it is Mississippian. I am leaning towards an ID of Acrocyathus floriformis, a colonial rugosa known to occur in the Mississippian. But I prefer that coral experts chime in before I label it!!!    @TqB

Thanks

 Mike

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2022 by minnbuckeye

[FossilDAWG]

I'm inclined to agree with your suggested ID.

 

Don

[FossilNerd]

I’d agree as well. Looks like the Acrocyathus I find in the early Carboniferous (Mississippian) of Kentucky. The cerioid form would put it as A. floriformis.  Nice example. 

I think it is fitting that you found it in Missouri, since it is considered a guide fossil for finding the formation know as the “St. Louis Limestone” here in Kentucky.  
 

This post of mine may help for comparison photos and links to a couple of papers regarding Acrocyathus. 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2022 by FossilNerd

[TqB]

Strictly speaking, you'd need sections to confirm the ID and I can't clearly see the lonsdaleoid dissepiments that Acrocyathus usually shows. It's still the most likely though. 

[FossilNerd]

18 minutes ago, TqB said:

Strictly speaking, you'd need sections to confirm the ID and I can't clearly see the lonsdaleoid dissepiments that Acrocyathus usually shows. It's still the most likely though. 

 

You are right, of course.  

 

Sections would be needed to confirm the ID.

 

Corals are silly that way with their need for sections and acid peels. As if they are too fancy for simpler methods. So posh! 

 

Still, I also agree that Acrocyathus likely what this is.