Show Us Your Sponges

[piranha]

This is the only sponges I've got, i"m still looking

Nice! I propose a new designation for Spongebob squarepantsoides to TOONTYPE

[astron]

Not too many people pay much attention to one of the earliest forms of multi-cellular life on this planet - unless its time to wash the car!

So lets give em' some love..

I'll start with an example from the Ordovician - Dystactospongia...

I had originally thought this was a bryo, but after examining it with a loupe I realized it was a sponge.

Hello. Excelent the items displayed. I add one of my sponges I found recently in middle Crete island, Greece. It's a late Miocene ZITTELOSPONGIA MEANDRIFORMIS (thanks Piranha) and measures 22 x 19 x12 cm.

[MikeR]

Great fossil! I'm confused however with regard to the attribution of Rigadrella. The treatise volume of Porifera does not list it as a valid genus. The closest I found in name is Rigbyella and these are described from the Cambrian of Iran and Texas. Ophiraphidites is described in the literature from Cretaceous deposits exclusively which leads to a different conclusion on this fossil.

Prof. Rigby would be the first to admit to being an oldtimer these days but he was in his heyday in 1981 not 1881 - that's the most obvious problem with the attribution. Can you shed any light on how your fossil was evaluated? The structure appears tabulate - is it possible this is a coral?

First I would like to apologize for the typo in the author citation, a mar on my otherwise excellent key board skills.

The reference used is Rigby's RIGBY, J. K. 1981. The sponge fauna of the Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone from east-central North. Carolina. -Tulane Studies in Geology and Paleontology 16

I had a photocopy that I made from Rutgers Univ that I cannot find in either my Castle Hayne or North Carolina file folders. It is probably stashed away in some unopened box from my relocation from Pennsylvannia to Georgia a couple of years ago. Despite that I cannot physcially confirm the identification with paper in hand, I do take very good notes and capture information in my access database. Taxonomy for both sponges as described in Rigby's paper are as follows:

Phylum: Porifera

Class: Hexactinellida

Order: Lyssacinosa

Family: Euplectellidae

Genus: Rigadrella

Species: trabecula

Author: Rigby, 1981

Reference: Rigby, 1981

Phylum: Porifera

Class: Demospongea

Order: Choristida

Family: Cephaloraphiditidae

Genus: Ophiraphidites

Species: infundibuliformis

Author: Schrammenn, 1899

Reference: Rigby, 1981

Massive tabulate corals at least in the Eocene of the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains are not very common. The only coral that I have found in the Comfort member of the Castle Hayne Formation is the wide spread solitary coral Endopachys maclurii (Lea, 1833). I have a single branching coral from the Spring Garden member of the Castle Hayne which is typical of the limestone of the region in preserving the mold and shows the "star-like" protrusion of each corallite. The "bumps" (sorry, I lack the paper or a reference with proper Porifera structural descriptions) are low and rounded with no ornamentation. Also the overall external shape is very un-coral-like. The photo of R. trabecula in my previous post shows an individual that is missing the middle section. That particular specimen if complete would be conical with longitudinal ridges running from top to bottom. I have included a photo of the same specimen at another angle which shows the ridges and another complete specimen of the species. Although not very apparent in the photo, it too has the same ridges running down its length.

Mike

Edited December 4, 2010 by MikeR

[PaleoPastels]

Do these count? I have stromatoporoids.... 0.o I just posted these on another thread, so why not add them to this one too! The more pictures, the merrier.

[piranha]

First I would like to apologize for the typo in the author citation, a mar on my otherwise excellent key board skills.

The reference used is Rigby's RIGBY, J. K. 1981. The sponge fauna of the Eocene Castle Hayne Limestone from east-central North. Carolina. -Tulane Studies in Geology and Paleontology 16

I had a photocopy that I made from Rutgers Univ that I cannot find in either my Castle Hayne or North Carolina file folders. It is probably stashed away in some unopened box from my relocation from Pennsylvannia to Georgia a couple of years ago. Despite that I cannot physcially confirm the identification with paper in hand, I do take very good notes and capture information in my access database. Taxonomy for both sponges as described in Rigby's paper are as follows:

Phylum: Porifera

Class: Hexactinellida

Order: Lyssacinosa

Family: Euplectellidae

Genus: Rigadrella

Species: trabecula

Author: Rigby, 1981

Reference: Rigby, 1981

Phylum: Porifera

Class: Demospongea

Order: Choristida

Family: Cephaloraphiditidae

Genus: Ophiraphidites

Species: infundibuliformis

Author: Schrammenn, 1899

Reference: Rigby, 1981

Mike

Thanks for providing this information Mike. It unravels part of the mystery although there are still elements that don't quite fit. The sponge genus you allude to as Rigadrella is in fact Regadrella. Searching the treatise Family of Euplectellidae unlocked that discrepancy for us. The treatise volumes of Porifera are invaluable with thousands of taxa across well over 1000+ pages in multiple parts. Unfortunately the searching process is not sorted in any thoroughly cohesive way with regard to time period. Apparently there are two spellings that I could find in online reference for the species name trabecula or trabeculata(?). The newest revision of the treatise (2004, Vol.3) does not account for this particular species or its distribution in North America. The form and description seem to be entirely different so my assumption is that the type specimen in question here is sorely in need of revision.

As for the Ophiraphidites, this to me is a sliperry slope as well. If it was named as such initially I suspect a bit of nomenclatural tidying up is in order for that one as well. The problem with the name at the species level is that it's known exclusively from the Cretaceous. LINK

If you're really keen on discovering its true affinities and determining whether it's in fact one or two species then testing is called for. A few smallish samples with the aid of acid dissolution and microscopy will yield the spicular arrangement and details. That my dear Holmes will put this conundrum to rest. Any of the folks studying the faunal assemblages of Castle Hayne should be thrilled to examine it. Perhaps a revision or renaming of the type will be possible because of your spectacular specimen.

Attached are the description and figures for Regadrella:

Edited December 4, 2010 by piranha

[piranha]

Additional sleuthing has uncovered this NUGGET

The species described by Rigby is in fact hadros and not infundibuliformis which is a Cretaceous form. My limited research appears to indicate that only small sponge fossil fragments and isolated spicules are known from the Castle Hayne Formation. At a minimum your specimen was labeled hastily and without proper due diligence. At the worst the fossil may simply be something entirely different than indicated. BTW different is not always a terrible outcome. I had a very similar situation with a fossil that I was convinced must be spongiform. (labels are not always reliable) Luckily I was a little suspicious when I couldn't nail it down. Persistence paid off and I was thrilled to subsequently discover I actually had a complete and very rare specimen of Favosites. So rare in fact that Museum Victoria in Australia prevailed upon me to acquire my fossil as they had nothing remotely close in their collections. I politely declined but did put them in touch with the folks that could lead them to the type locality.

As the trail grows cold it also heats up to other equally exciting possibilities. At this point it really is a good whodunit. To say it is this to the exclusion of that or vice versa becomes a contest of who knows what and when they knew it. I cannot say what it is or what it is not - especially given the inaccurate accompanying data. Fair to say there are more questions then answers - skepticism is always inestimably valuable and at this point it looks like we've been relegated to the small universe of best guesses. That's OK in the short term but woefully lacking of any genuine satisfaction of conviction. I would be remiss not to mention here that the sponge workers always insist upon thin section analysis to classify beyond genus level - differentiation of the species is mostly problematic - without this step often impossible. I would enthusiastically urge you to have this exceptional fossil thoroughly evaluated.

Perhaps your name will become forever associated with a new and undescribed species? ICZN rules for naming are inclusive for finders and wouldn't that be great? Regardless of the outcome your fossil is truly amazing and magnificent - and that is indisputable!

[docdutronc]

Here's a few sponge holdfasts from the Warsaw Fm. St. Louis. Any help on a genus ID would be appreciated.

Hi

These specimens from upper Devonian from northern France ,look similar corals or sponges ??? 15 and 20 millimeters wide

Bruno

[Roz]

I am enjoying this thread after finding it... Lots more sponges out

there and I enjoy seeing all the different types.. I am including some

type of encrusting sponges that I found.. Pennsylvanian in age.. (Texas)

My hunting buddy Lance and I find these in the Graham Formation..

Unknown at this time of exactly what they are..

The second sponge is a Heliospongia Sponge that I also found in Texas..

Pennsylvanian age, Chico Ridge Limestone

[piranha]

I am enjoying this thread after finding it... Lots more sponges out

there and I enjoy seeing all the different types.. I am including some

type of encrusting sponges that I found.. Pennsylvanian in age.. (Texas)

My hunting buddy Lance and I find these in the Graham Formation..

Unknown at this time of exactly what they are..

The second sponge is a Heliospongia Sponge that I also found in Texas..

Pennsylvanian age, Chico Ridge Limestone

Hi Roz,

Barry recently pointed out that those mystery 'sponges' are actually corals. The attached link has a few spot-on figures at plate 1.3 & 1.10. Are you in agreement or do you and Lance still have reason to think otherwise?

LINK

[Roz]

Hi Roz,

Barry recently pointed out that those mystery 'sponges' are actually corals. The attached link has a few spot-on figures at plate 1.3 & 1.10. Are you in agreement or do you and Lance still have reason to think otherwise?

LINK

Where was I when he posted that link??

I thank you so very much! That sure looks like it!! I have

a very hard time with the differences with coral and

sponges.. The texture of what I thought were sponges

I would never think of as coral..

This is an example of what I always think the texture of coral looks like

to me..

[piranha]

Where was I when he posted that link??

I thank you so very much! That sure looks like it!! I have

a very hard time with the differences with coral and

sponges.. The texture of what I thought were sponges

I would never think of as coral..

This is an example of what I always think the texture of coral looks like

to me..

Thanks Roz!

I just noticed that Barry's original link is now inoperative. Here is another link (cached) to the pdf. Palaeacis kingi is recorded from Bridgeport in Wise County. How does that square exactly with the Graham Formation? I meant to post at the other thread as soon as I realized that old puzzle was solved but I forgot. Another case of sometimers!

Repaired Link

[Roz]

Thanks Roz!

I just noticed that Barry's original link is now inoperative. Here is another link (cached) to the pdf. Palaeacis kingi is recorded from Bridgeport in Wise County. How does that square exactly with the Graham Formation? I meant to post at the other thread as soon as I realized that old puzzle was solved but I forgot. Another case of sometimers!

Repaired Link

Hi Scott,

The Graham is a little younger than Bridgeport by maybe several million years...

The strange thing is that it still looks more like sponge to me than coral.. I think I need to

do some reading on how the difference is decided since this seems to be the

source of my confusion.. I see that I can't rely on the texture and look of these..

[LanceH]

Ok, that Jeffords paper shows the cup side of a "Palaeacis" coral (plate 1, fig 1a) BUT the backside (plate 1, fig 1b) of the coral looks nothing like the actual backside of a "Palaeacis" coral that is found commonly at Jacksboro and in the Texas Penn Fossil book.

In fact the backside looks exactly like the encrusting organism (also figure 3) that we've found covering other stuff. Roz has posted 3 good examples and they are not even shaped like "Palaeacis" anyways under the surface.

I think Jeffords has linked two fossils as one.

Jeffords or whoever must have found a "Palaeacis" with the encrsuting thing on back and assumed it was part of it. I've seen one of the mystery things that look just like figure 1b where the edge (blue line) is raised forming an irregular shaped bowl except it was on the backside of a smooth shell. Roz also has an example of it wrapped around the core of horn coral.

The question is still what the heck is it?

Edited October 8, 2011 by LanceH

[piranha]

Back to square one Lance? I remember at your thread on encrusting sponges that none of the experts on Pennsylvanian sponges of Texas could place these within any known genus. I appreciate your evaluation with specimen in hand, that certain morphological features are not indicated, but this does appear to be correct with regard to appearance and could fit the general description of P. kingi fragmental material. Is it possible to forward this new info to the folks you corresponded with previously?

[LanceH]

Back to square one Lance? I remember at your thread on encrusting sponges that none of the experts on Pennsylvanian sponges of Texas could place these within any known genus. I appreciate your evaluation with specimen in hand, that certain morphological features are not indicated, but this does appear to be correct with regard to appearance and could fit the general description of P. kingi fragmental material. Is it possible to forward this new info to the folks you corresponded with previously?

Sorry, I kinda don't understand unless you are saying our encrusting things are just the backside of a "Paleacis" coral just because Jeffords says so? Clearly not the case. The mystery fossil is a seperate encrusting organism that we have many examples of. The main locality we find them I don't even think I've even seen a "Paleacis" and the Jacksboro locality that is loaded with "Paleacis" I have seen only one encrusting thing and certainly not on the backside of a "Paleacis".

In the graphic I put together the 3 black & white images (figs 1a, 1b, and 3) are from Jeffords paper where he says they are the same thing.

Edited October 8, 2011 by LanceH

[piranha]

Sorry, I kinda don't understand unless you are saying our encrusting things are just the backside of a "Paleacis" coral just because Jeffords says so? Clearly not the case. The mystery fossil is a seperate encrusting organism that we have many examples of. The main locality we find them I don't even think I've even seen a "Paleacis" and the Jacksboro locality that is loaded with "Paleacis" I have seen only one encrusting thing and certainly not on the backside of a "Paleacis".

Just trying to understand what they should be called. Clearly, there are similarities from that paper, so perhaps we are getting closer regardless of what Jeffords had to say. Often enough, old papers that have misidentified a fossil that will still lead to the correct taxonomy. Just updating collection records and verifying valid names we discover that the old data is incorrect. Either an oversight or no longer valid many decades later.

[Kosmoceras]

Ventriculites spp. Cretaceous age. Gravel used for foot paths, UK.

[JimB88]

Hindia sphaeroidalis

[JimB88]

Ventriculites spp. Cretaceous age. Gravel used for foot paths, UK.

Thats cool! rescued from the stomping feet of doom!

[piranha]

Splendid sponges Jim & Thomas! Here are a few favorites from my collection that are currently on display. At some point I will endeavor to photograph each specimen individually and post, but for right now at least, a couple of group shots that spotlight the spectacular diversity and forms of this incredible phylum of primitive metazoans.

[Kosmoceras]

:greenwnvy:

[piranha]

Thanks Thomas!

Somehow I missed this thread. Here is a new sponge I picked up from an old collection. It is from Crawfordsville, the famous crinoid locality; this specimen is one of the largest known.

-PzF

A brief follow-up on PZF's colossal sponge from Indiana and a bit of research leads me to the conclusion of Lebedictya crinita as a likely candidate for ID. This was made difficult by the fragmentary specimen figured in the treatise, but thankfully the description and scale is spot-on. At a minimum this will lead to a description of the recorded sponge fauna from Crawfordsville.

[mikeymig]

Hydnoceras-Glass Sponge-Upper Devonian-New York

[Fossilcollector]

Two sponges from North Germany, Cretaceous:

1) A sponge on a sponge on a sponge.

2) A sponge on an echinoderm.

[Plax]

some Castle Hayne sponges? Note that the amorphous one is flinty. There are at least two other types. Just above the Comfort Member in plastic clay with no other recognizable mega-fossils. Probably sequence 3 of Castle Hayne. Rocky Point, NC