Show Us Your Sponges

[Missourian]

Maybe somebody can identify these Pennsylvanian Period sponges me and Roz found in Wise county, Texas. I think the geologic unit is Devil's Den LS or there about.

Some of these look a bit like like "Heliospongia" but not exactly.

Can someone ID these or check the Treatise Part E Porifera? I've checked the 6 sources I have but no match I'm comfortable with.

Those are Heliospongia excavata. You can tell by the 'excavations', i.e. pits, on the sides of the cylinders. Unfortunately, the treatise doesn't have an illustration showing this.

Beautiful and well-formed specimens, by the way. There's a good chance some can be reassembled, though you may have to go back to get a few missing pieces.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Missourian

[docpaleo]

Sorry to disagree but they are Heliospongia ramosa.

I have many in my collection from Wise County in and around Lake Bridgeport. Most of mine came from the Pioneer Quarry. These are well documented here but not excavata.

Edited June 12, 2014 by docpaleo

[piranha]

On 6/12/2014 at 11:33 AM, docpaleo said:

Sorry to disagree but they are Heliospongia ramosa.

I have many in my collection from Wise County in and around Lake Bridgeport. Most of mine came from the Pioneer Quarry. These are well documented here but not excavata.

 

 

According to Rigby et al., Heliospongia excavata is present in multiple Wise County localities including Devil's Den.

 

Quote

Heliospongia excavata King, 1933 was initially described and named for fossils collected from Pennsylvanian rocks now included in the Graford Formation, from exposures in the Bridgeport area near where some of the fossils described here were collected.

 

Sponges from Locality 1 were collected from their original stratigraphic position in the Graford Formation or very near to it, along the shoreline of Lake Bridgeport (Fig. 2). This locality exposes a hard-ground surface of Devil's Den Limestone and upper Bridgeport Shale of the Graford Formation, and that hard-ground surface contains large sponges, such as Heliospongia excavata King, 1933, still cemented in place.

 

Rigby, J.K., McKinzie, M.G., & Britt, B.B. (2008)

Pennsylvanian Sponges from the Graford Formation, Wise County, Texas.

Journal of Paleontology, 82(3):492-510

 

 

 

[Missourian]

I was going primarily by the pits circled in red here:

but I could be mistaken.

[docpaleo]

I can't tell from this image.

To me it looked like this is where branches of the sponge had broken off but it may well be H. excavata. The specimens I have seen all had a concave pitting in H. excavata.

[Missourian]

After trying to re-remember what I thought I knew about these sponges, I had to dig up and dust off an old publication:

Late Paleozoic Sponge Faunas of the Texas Region - The Silicious Sponges
Finks, Robert M., 1960
Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 120: Article 1

The descriptions given are systematic and very detailed. Many illustrations are provided, though I wish there was more on the overall sponge forms for Heliospongia, especially H. ramosa. This publication also describes the Pennsylvanian sponges Coelocladia and Coelocladiella, as well as several Permian forms. I assume an accompanying article on calcareous sponges was planned, but apparently one was never published.

Here are the diagnoses given in the descriptions of each species:

Heliospongia excavata - "Form of sponge commonly flabellate (frond-like), but also digitate with slender, cylindrical branches; cloacae (large openings) multiple, very narrow and short, opening on sides as well as at upper end, and absent from axial region except near termini of branches; skeletal net more open than in H. ramosa (or H. vokesi), with horizontal layers spaced more than 1.0 mm apart and ascending tracts spaced approximately 0.9 mm apart."

Heliospongia ramosa - "Form of sponge digitate, with slender, cylindrical, subparallel branches, each with a deep, relatively narrow, central cloaca opening terminally;horizontal layers spaced approximately 1.0 mm apart, and ascending tracts spaced approximately 0.6 mm apart."

Bolded emphasis is mine. It seems that the nature of the cloacae can make for easy identification at the species level, even with small fragments. If the cylinder has a central canal (cloaca), then it is H. ramosa. If it lacks one, then H. excavata. 'Fortunately', most sponges found will be broken, allowing one to see this.

There's a chance that both species are represented in LanceH's collection shown above. The descriptions of the species are based on material found at the type localities. Differing characteristics between the two species could overlap and may be arbituary. I wonder if it's possible that both species are actually the same sponge that can vary depending on environmental conditions.

The Heliospongia in my collection are mostly H. ramosa. The vast majority were found in abundance at one shale locality. Many have a flabellate form, but they all have cloacae characteristic of H. ramosa. H. excavata tend to be more scattered throughout certain thick limestone units, where specimens are usually silicified. A few H. ramosa are mixed in.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Missourian

[hammada]

Sponges of Alpine Carnian age, in a stone now already incorporated into a layer of building cement.

[docpaleo]

Here are four images of the terminal ends of H. ramosa. The last image has good detail of the outer dermal layer.

[Missourian]

Here are four images of the terminal ends of H. ramosa. The last image has good detail of the outer dermal layer.

That last one is beautiful.

[docpaleo]

Thank you. It's not fully prepared yet.

These specimens came from the Pioneer Quarry, Bridgeport, Texas. About 3/4 of a mile from the shore of Lake Bridgeport. I have many genus and species from this locality that are mostly covered in Finks 1960. A few though are still undescribed.

[Missourian]

A few though are still undescribed.

I'm really looking forward to seeing these.

[Ludwigia]

I'd forgotten that I wanted to post some things in this very interesting and informative thread. Now that it's popped up again I thought I'd do just that before I forget again. Maybe I've shown some of them in another thread, but if I did, that was quite a while ago and they do fit in here anyway.

I've made a number of visits over the past few years to the classic sites in Hoever and Misburg near Hannover where among other things extremely well preserved sponges from the Campanian occur. Here are a few for starters. Most of my ids are just based on the outer form or I've been advised by some experts, but I can't guarantee that they're all correct.

This first one is one of my favorites. Verucculina ?macrommata with the roots still attached. There's even a Scaphites sp. ammonite stuck on the back.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Ludwigia

[Ludwigia]

Here are a few more. First, two different samples of a species that has the appearance of a bouquet of flowers. Polyblacidium racimosum. At least these ones were easy to id.

The next one is called Tremabolites ?megastoma.

I'll post some more as time goes on.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Ludwigia

[Ludwigia]

Verruculina tenuis

Callopegma accaule

[Ludwigia]

?Phyllodermia sp.

This one has earned the nickname Bugs Bunny. ?Prokaliapsis sp.

[Missourian]

Those are some exquisite sponges.

[Ludwigia]

Those are some exquisite sponges.

Thanks . Here are a couple more.

Another one with roots. Procorallistes polymorphus

Phymatella ?tuberosa

[Ludwigia]

Scytalia turbinata with a Neovermilia ampullacea tube worm.

Procorallistes ?polymorphus attached to 2 other unidentified sponges.

[Ludwigia]

Verruculina aurita

Sporadiscinia venosa

[Ludwigia]

?Napaea sp.

Porosphaera globularis with pyrite crystals

Stichophyma multiformis

[Wrangellian]

That's quite the collection, Roger! Fantastic.

Is that also a bryo on the Scytalia w/tube worms, or another sponge?

[Ludwigia]

That's quite the collection, Roger! Fantastic.

Is that also a bryo on the Scytalia w/tube worms, or another sponge?

Thanks! There are still a few more to come. You're correct in your assumption about a bryo: Lacazella sp.

[Wrangellian]

Thanks! There are still a few more to come. You're correct in your assumption about a bryo: Lacazella sp.

That would be a good one of the 'association' thread.

[Ludwigia]

Sporadoscinia venosa with a Gonioteuthis sp. belemnite.

Coeloptychium agaricoides

Aphrocallistes alveolites

[Ludwigia]

That's about it for the ones I have from Hannover, but I still have a number of sponges picked up at various sites along the Danube river. There are a lot of sponge reefs from the upper Jurassic Kimmeridgian and Oxfordian here and although they're not as well preserved as the Hannoverian ones, being mostly Steinkern molds, some of them are worth collecting.

Laocetis sp.

Tremadictyon ?reticulatum

Cnemidiastrum rimulosum

Hyalotrogus ?rugosus