paleofsl Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Could somebody help me identifying this fossil? It comes from the Medium Ordovician of the West of Spain. In the left side of the rock you can see also a fragment of a calymenid trilobite. I think it could be a cystoid, but really I haven't seen anything similar before. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 What a bizarre and intriguing first fossil you are sharing with us. I have been looking at Burgess and Chengjiang as well as referencing the Ordovician Lagerstatte of Fezouata. images shown in negative aspect with varying b/w & color comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Edonihce Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I don't mean to be contrarian, but I don't see either the protrusions (I just see the relief of walls and spaces where the 'walls' tend to stick out more as you go toward the edge because there's no more 'space' there). Also, I don't see any 'clear differentiation of progressively rearward uniform segmentation'. What I see are randomly placed 'walls' and 'spaces' compounded by randomly placed 'holes'. The only thing that comes to my mind on this one is the surface texture of the dried up cacti that I see once in a while here in Colorado. Any chance this thing is some kind of plant or other non-animal fossil? ....wait.....as for the segmentation....do you mean like this?.... . ____________________ scale in avatar is millimeters ____________________ Come visit Sandi, the 'Fossil Journey Cruiser' ____________________ WIPS (the Western Interior Paleontological Society - http://www.westernpaleo.org) ____________________ "Being genetically cursed with an almost inhuman sense of curiosity and wonder, I'm hard-wired to investigate even the most unlikely, uninteresting (to others anyway) and irrelevant details; often asking hypothetical questions from many angles in an attempt to understand something more thoroughly." -- Mr. Edonihce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleofsl Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 Hello Piranha and Mr Edonihce First of all, thank you for your wellcome; I must apologize for my poor english. I'm from Spain. To help with the determination of the fossil, I was looking for some documentation about the fauna of the area where I found it. The best documents I found are in spanish, but from them you can get the most usual species. The addresses where you can get them are: http://revistas.ucm.es/geo/0378102x/articulos/CGIB8484110287A.PDF http://estudiosgeol.revistas.csic.es/index.php/estudiosgeol/article/download/680/707 Thanks for your answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) That is an interesting fossil... could it be a worm of maybe a fish or a bryozoan from the ordovician? Is it Similar to this... bryozoan/ sponge from Devonian Bois Blanc Formation in Chert matrix Edited March 3, 2011 by pleecan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest N.AL.hunter Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I am also thinking sponge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I have highlighted with boxes the spines that emanate from the margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleofsl Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 In other spanish fossil forum where I put the photographs (http://nautilus.foroactivo.com.es/t2471-ordovicico), some people have suggested that the specimen could be a cystoid (probably Calix sp.) What do you think about? Thank you very much again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest N.AL.hunter Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 In the first pictures you posted, I see holes. In the pics Piranha posted, I see protrusions. Do they poke out on in? If they poke out, I would go with crustacean, if they poke in (holes) I stick with Sponge. I do not see cystoid structure at all (so that is what it will probably end up being). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 In the first pictures you posted, I see holes. In the pics Piranha posted, I see protrusions. Do they poke out on in? If they poke out, I would go with crustacean, if they poke in (holes) I stick with Sponge. I do not see cystoid structure at all (so that is what it will probably end up being). Thankfully this thread has been resurrected from the depths. I would really be thrilled for a positive ID on this thing. To Del's point, there might be confusion on the features we are discussing. I am not referencing the ornamentation (protrusions) on this specimen. I was alluding to the spine-like features emanating from the margin of the fossil. The image on the left now highlights all five that appear to be present. The fossil might be an internal cast so it would be difficult to know whether the protrusions are in or out. For that reason I attached the negative aspect so both options might be considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleofsl Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 Thank you Piranha, thank you N.AL.hunter for your answers. Assuming, as Piranha says, that the fossil could be and arthropod, what are we seeing in this fossil? A cut of the internal soft structure of the abdomen? It would be great, but I have no news of another soft bodies fosilization in the area. Here you have some fotographs that I received in the spanish forum of cystoids from the same age and area. The holes pattern it's not the same, but it bears a certain resemblance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 JB of UK has responded with a reply: "Fascinating... although I think the arthropod argument is a bit off. Rather than segmentation with bilateral symmetry, this has irregular, very definite plating. It's superficially similar, but no more than that. Before I saw the scale, I thought a weird palaeoscolecidan. It's still theoretically possible, but the plates would have to be 100 times bigger than any previously known... and they should be phosphatic, so the preservation would be weird. In other words, not palaeoscolecid. The only real option I can see here is echinoderm. The plate sculpture is similar to some crinoids from the Ordovician of Wales, although the plate arrangement isn't regular enough to be crinoid. However, some "cystoids" (an ambiguous term!) have very strange plate ornament, and this is entirely plausible. I'm sure it's not Calix (I've seen these in Morocco, and they're quite different in many ways), but some sort of "cystoid" is the best bet. Diego Garcia Bellido would be the guy to know, probably - I'll drop him a message and see if he's seen this before. " end of quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 JB of UK has responded with a reply: "Fascinating... although I think the arthropod argument is a bit off. Rather than segmentation with bilateral symmetry, this has irregular, very definite plating. It's superficially similar, but no more than that. Before I saw the scale, I thought a weird palaeoscolecidan. It's still theoretically possible, but the plates would have to be 100 times bigger than any previously known... and they should be phosphatic, so the preservation would be weird. In other words, not palaeoscolecid. The only real option I can see here is echinoderm. The plate sculpture is similar to some crinoids from the Ordovician of Wales, although the plate arrangement isn't regular enough to be crinoid. However, some "cystoids" (an ambiguous term!) have very strange plate ornament, and this is entirely plausible. I'm sure it's not Calix (I've seen these in Morocco, and they're quite different in many ways), but some sort of "cystoid" is the best bet. Diego Garcia Bellido would be the guy to know, probably - I'll drop him a message and see if he's seen this before. " end of quote Thank you Peter and JB, The extra effort to research this mysterious creature is sincerely appreciated. Indeed, cystoid had been mentioned as a possibility as was pointed out by the original poster. I did endeavor to track down the dozen or so Spanish species of Calix sp. but unfortunately could only find a few examples. Perhaps it is another genus or a particularly fine example as the representations I discovered were strikingly different. The spines still give me pause even conceding Joe's point that the segmentation is only superficially similar. The determination of the cystoid expert will hopefully settle the matter with a degree of specificity to its exact classification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 You are welcome Scott. This is a real puzzle. That is what makes this forum interesting! PL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleofsl Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share Posted March 27, 2011 Thank you very much again for your answers. My sorrow is that the debate has reached a point where I can contribute little, because my level was exceeded long ago. I can only, if necessary, clarify any questions with the fossil in hand or, if anyone considers it necessary, provide new pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) Update: JB from UK contacted Diego Garcia Bellido and JB posted... "Just letting you know that Diego hasn't seen it before and is asking around some of his colleagues in Spain... " This is an unknown... To me.... it looks like a giant worm... annelid.... or bryozoan PL Edited March 29, 2011 by pleecan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleofsl Posted March 30, 2011 Author Share Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) When I found the fossil breaking the rock sheet, I was accompanied by a friend who lives in the area. He was very surprised with the fossil, because he never have seen nothing similar. So, I give him one of the parts. Now, he send me this photographs. I hope they could be a help for the determination of the specimen. Edited March 30, 2011 by paleofsl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOROPUS Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Two possible fossils may match: -Some sort of Calix sp. -In the second post, there is a pattern that it is very similar to one of those cystoids you talk about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goupil Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 A calyx, i have the same piece more or less to the same contry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleofsl Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 Finally, it seems we have a positive identification for the fossil. A member of the spanish forum (Gerastos) visited the Geomineral Museum in Madrid and there he found exposed a similar specimen, labeled as Calix rouaulti. He send us a photograph (apologizing for the poor quality). Here you have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Mystery solved! Thanks for sharing this interesting fossil! PL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 WAIT!!!! JB from UK disagree and is still A Mystery.... Possible Cystoid instead.... It's nothing like the Calix roualti described by Chauvel in "Echinoderms de'l Ordovician du Maroc" (Cahiers de Palaeontologie, 1966) - and since he erected the species, he ought to know. I still think it's a cystoid, but not Calix sp. Not solved, as far as I'm concerned - If it's the same species on display (I can't see an image of it on TFF for some reason) then I guess the museum got it wrong too (it happens more often than we'd like to think). Peter, I'll send you a photo of the plate from the reference by email. `` PL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleofsl Posted April 3, 2011 Author Share Posted April 3, 2011 Oh, my god!! I can't believe! That's a nightmare. I'll need a another label for the fossil... Thank you very much, Pleecan, for the effort you are doing to identify the fossil. And thank you very much to JB too. Do you know if he had some news from the Garcia Bellido colleagues? Perhaps the solution could arrive from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 I showed JB the museum photo and compared it to your unknown fossil... and this is his reply.. " Interesting - first impression is that it's somewhere between C. roualti as illustrated, and the mystery specimen, but certainly closer to the latter. Might have to track down the original description as well as Chauvel's Moroccan paper. " So it could be C . roualti.... please don't shoot the messenger.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paleovision Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) Hello ! It sure ressembles Megalograptus carapace texture... I would say prob. a megalograptid/eurypterid fragment... See picture : b-t-w : Hello Peter !!! :-) Edited September 7, 2011 by Paleovision 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