Self-taught Posted January 2, 2023 Share Posted January 2, 2023 Hello everybody! Someone offered me a Scabrella to buy... As it is a rare trilobite I have doubts about its authenticity. Can you help me? Please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted January 2, 2023 Share Posted January 2, 2023 The name Scabrella Wenndorf (1990) is no longer valid. Scabrella was discovered to be preoccupied by a Miocene gastropod genus and therefore Scabrellana has been introduced as a replacement name. Many of the spines appear to be embellished or wholly reconstructed. It shares some similarities with Interscabrella or Spiniscabrella but I would hesitate to label it with any confidence without knowing all of the details of restoration. Harzhauser, M., Landau, B.M. 2021 The Columbellidae (Gastropoda, Buccinoidea) in the Miocene Paratethys Sea—Striking Diversity of a Negelected Group. Zootaxa, 5025(1):1-75 ABSTRACT LINK Müller, P. 2005 Revision der Gattung Scabrella (Trilobita; Unter-Devon). [Revision of the Genus Scabrella (Trilobita; Lower Devonian.] Geologica et Palaeontologica, 39:1-27 PDF LINK 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self-taught Posted January 2, 2023 Author Share Posted January 2, 2023 I show you everything I received in photos on the preparation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeon.rocks Posted January 2, 2023 Share Posted January 2, 2023 (edited) Real and undescribed spiniscabrella. The classification in the 2005 paper is a mess. This has been prepped by removing spines and reattaching later. Some restoration, but normal. They are rare, mostly found disarticulated, partials, a pain to prep. PS: Btw., interesting fact: white spots on the pleuras are pores! Edited January 2, 2023 by aeon.rocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted January 2, 2023 Share Posted January 2, 2023 10 minutes ago, aeon.rocks said: The classification in the 2005 paper is a mess. Besides the unfortunate oversight of the preoccupied name, would you care to elaborate on the so-called classification "mess"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeon.rocks Posted January 2, 2023 Share Posted January 2, 2023 Sure, it's just my opinion, but what I mean is that that paper needs more work (based on new finds). The problem I see is, that you can't really well describe holotypes based on partial segments (of pygidiums) only. I have 3 different scabrellas in prep and as you realized already "they share some similarities with Interscabrella or Spiniscabrella, but I would hesitate to label it with any confidence" based on that paper (not because of restorations or bad prep). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted January 2, 2023 Share Posted January 2, 2023 10 minutes ago, aeon.rocks said: ...as you realized already "they share some similarities with Interscabrella or Spiniscabrella, but I would hesitate to label it with any confidence" based on that paper (not because of restorations or bad prep). My statement was only predicated on the restoration percentage, not the content of the paper. Quote: "I would hesitate to label it with any confidence without knowing all of the details of restoration." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeon.rocks Posted January 2, 2023 Share Posted January 2, 2023 Quote My statement was only predicated on the restoration percentage, not the content of the paper. What if I tell you the spines are real and there's only a small % of restoration on this specimen? Can you "label" it? No, you can't, because there's similarities with Interscabrella and Spiniscabrella. I have the same problem with short-spine scabrella, so it's not just 1 case. At best it's undescribed, but I fear you can't describe species from partial remains only. Just saying paper describing the Scabrellas needs more work. Here's another one of this type: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 3 hours ago, aeon.rocks said: Just saying paper describing the Scabrellas needs more work. The fact that more information can be added to the record is not in dispute. However, I do take exception at your characterization of the classification being a 'mess'. Full disclosure: Peter Müller is a good friend and because he is not a member of TFF, I feel obligated to defend his undisputed reputation as a brilliant trilobite worker. If any other aspiring trilobitologist were to achieve only a tiny fraction of his published work, that would be quite a gargantuan accomplishment. The fact that new undescribed species have been discovered in the last 18 years does not diminish the systematic paleontology as it was understood based on the best available material in 2005. Furthermore, the oversight of the preoccupied name is hardly an unusual occurrence or cause for great consternation. Even the illustrious Richard Fortey has had such a 'mess' on a couple of occasions. Most notably for Opipeuter Fortey, 1974 for a trilobite genus preoccupied by a lizard. It only took 31 years for the mistake to finally be corrected: "I PROPOSED the new trilobite genus Opipeuter from the Ordovician of Spitsbergen (Fortey, 1974). I am indebted to Abigail Brown for pointing out to me that the name had been used a few years previously for a lizard (Uzzell, 1969). I here propose the replacement name Opipeuterella (type species: O. inconniva Fortey, 1974) for Opipeuter Fortey, 1974, preoccupied." Fortey, R.A. 2005 Opipeuterella, A Replacement Name for the Trilobite Opipeuter Fortey, 1974, Preoccupied. Journal of Paleontology, 79(5):1036 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeon.rocks Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 (edited) Quote The fact that more information can be added to the record is not in dispute There's hardly any dispute! Nothing against Peter Müller here! His work and reputation are not in question... He did a great job, based on material he had available. Of course I would love to see classification based on complete specimens (not just pygidiums*), but I realize that's not always possible and that especially in case of scabrellas, such endeavour would require years of field work, digging, splitting rocks, preparation. So maybe I shouldn't have gone as far as using the word "mess", but it's really hard to pick another word that will not offend someone... Again, what I meant was simply that I'm sure we will see an update to this paper, due to the fact that new species have been discovered and complete specimens brought to light. *if, it shares some similarities with Interscabrella and Spiniscabrella, but you would hesitate to label it with any confidence without knowing all of the details of restoration, you would probably hasitate to label it with any confidence even when you have a pygidium only. Edited January 3, 2023 by aeon.rocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 1 hour ago, aeon.rocks said: So maybe I shouldn't have gone as far as using the word "mess", but it's really hard to pick another word that will not offend someone... I have to disagree. Numerous other words are available if your intent was not to be offensive. It should be very easy to be polite and respectful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 9 minutes ago, piranha said: I have to disagree. Numerous other words are available if your intent was not to be offensive. It should be very easy to be polite and respectful. Let's not infer intent, please. I agree, it should be easy to be polite and respectful. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeon.rocks Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 (edited) Quote I have to disagree. Numerous other words are available if your intent was not to be offensive. It should be very easy to be polite and respectful. I was definitely not trying to be offensive! Don't find it offensive and didn't imagine someone would be offended... Sorry if that's the case. It's interesting however, how quickly people get offended nowadays. Edited January 3, 2023 by aeon.rocks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FranzBernhard Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 mess: Durcheinander, Unordnung, Kuddelmuddel. To present just the least offensive German words for mess. Yes, its easy to use more polite and respectful words. Franz Bernhard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 23 hours ago, aeon.rocks said: I was definitely not trying to be offensive! Don't find it offensive and didn't imagine someone would be offended... Sorry if that's the case. It's interesting however, how quickly people get offended nowadays. I would never describe the work of anyone that I respect as a mess. And I will always defend a friend, especially one that is not here to speak for himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeon.rocks Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 (edited) Well, it seems I unintentionally offended you (or your friend) without realizing it until later, when you brought it to my attention. Sorry about that! Hope Peter is not offended! I honestly just tried to post a fast comment about the scabrella, without thinking much and with a good intended criticism... I'm often critical, especially when it comes to my own work. Edited January 3, 2023 by aeon.rocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self-taught Posted January 4, 2023 Author Share Posted January 4, 2023 Hi everyone! I'm going to show you two specimens that were shown to me recently. I have very serious doubts about their authenticity. And this person does not have the photos on the work of the preparation.. The first specimen is a Parapilekia cf. olesnaensis from the Ordovician of Fezouata in the Zagora region. The second specimen is a Homalonotid (Iberocoryphe?) Upper Ordovician, from Agdez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket Posted January 4, 2023 Share Posted January 4, 2023 I think both are partially artwork End of the spines of Nr. 2 seems to be done, the first one I think is not more than 50% real, looks like engraved cephalon, done body and the pygidium is funny... 1 3 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