Pennsylvanian Crinoid Id Key

[Missourian]

Many years ago, I made an identification key for the various crinoids found in the Pennsylvanian of the Kansas City area:

As this was at a time before the internet, the only options were to photocopy photos and drawings of fossils from publications or make your own. Because I like to draw, I sketched the various crinoids in my collection. I scanned the original drawing, cleaned it up, moved the individual parts around to fit the page better, and added the names in a photo-editing program.

Some crinoids here, such as the Aesiocrinus crown, are idealized renderings. A couple others, such as Schistocrinus, aren't in my collection (yet), but have been found in Kansas City rocks.

I hope some Pennsylvanian fossil collectors out there are able to find some use for this.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Missourian

[Coco]

Hi,

good job !

Coco

[Roz]

That's excellent! I can now ID some of my crowns much easier.. I have seen some

publications with drawings online and have a few pdfs but they must have been old copies and it was very hard

to see any of the details.. Things just got much easier! Thanks for sharing that! It is

much appreciated!! I have it on my desktop already

[Indy]

As this was at a time before the internet, the only options were to photocopy photos

and drawings of fossils from publications or make your own.

Thanks for sharing...brings back fond memories

Before the Internet...A friend and I worked for over a year photocopying

images of fossils from various sources to make our fossil field guides.

Nice to hear from others who remembers a time "Before the Internet"

Today, many just take the Internet for granted and often frustrated when

not being able to find everything of interest.

The inspiration for many websites (including mine) came from a time "Before the Internet"

Edited January 9, 2012 by Indy

[erose]

Indy, that will be very useful. Can you tell me what age/stage of the Pennsylvanian your strata represents?

[Texas-Tunnel Rat]

Thanks for sharing.

Now just need to find one that can ID using stems.

[Indy]

Indy, that will be very useful. Can you tell me what age/stage of the

Pennsylvanian your strata represents?

Middle Pennsylvanian Series

Desmoinesian Stage - Marmaton Group - Altamont Formation

St. Louis Pennsylvanian Fossils of the Altamont Formation LINK

Most of the fossils were collected from the Lake Neosho Shale Member

[Kehbe]

Now I just need to find more crowns! Thanks for the post Missourian!

[Missourian]

Doggone it! I just realized I didn't include a side view of Delocrinus, which can, in part, be identified by the single, symmetrical anal plate that is similar to those of Apographiocrinus and Aesiocrinus.

One of the reasons for my illustration was to help me tell the many different crinoids apart from the more common Delocrinus. At least now it's easy to add an extra item to my drawing.

[randygeki]

Really nice job on the key

[Bullsnake]

Thanks Missourian!

I realize this isn't the ID section, but I was about to post there until I saw this.

So, let's see if I got these right.

Aesiocrinus

Delocrinus

Thanks again,

Steve

[Missourian]

The cup seems to be most similar to Exaetocrinus, assuming there are no anal plates. Could you show top and side views too?

I'll have to check the publications for this one. I may get to add another to my drawing.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Missourian

[Bullsnake]

Don't know if the top view will help you as it's full of matrix.

But I hope these help. If you'd like or need to see it in person, let me know.

Thanks

Top

Side

[Missourian]

Yes,

Don't know if the top view will help you as it's full of matrix.

But I hope these help. If you'd like or need to see it in person, let me know.

Thanks

Yes, that does help. It appears the anal plate is insignificant or absent with that type.

[Mr. Edonihce]

Wow! This is great!

Thanks a lot, Missourian.

[malts]

Great!

Thank you for sharing. Even if the species do not always correspond to Texas specimens this should help with the genus designations.

[thanatocoenosis]

It is incredibly difficult to identify a critter to the species level. Usually, when I see someone has a specific ID, unless that person has published in that specific genera, they are full of it. The intricacies involved in specific identification is far above what most people are capable. I know working paleontologist that readily specify an order, but then, call in those that are knowledgeable... read published.

Edited May 10, 2012 by thanatocoenosis

[piranha]

It is incredibly difficult to identify a critter to the species level. Usually, when I see someone has a specific ID, unless that person has published in that specific genera, they are full of it. The intricacies involved in specific identification is far above what most people are capable. I know working paleontologist that readily specify an order, but then, call in those that are knowledgeable... read published.

Should we drop the binomial system in favor of something like Phylocode? Your prerequisite of having a published pedigree seems to create a false argument about the expertise of an amateur or expert specialist to accurately interpret beyond general observations about an organism or order. My reply is that basis of investigation runs counter to all of the peer-reviewed processes that I'm accustomed with. I can assure you it is a fairly easy and reasonable procedure to confidently evaluate and determine a given genus or species. For the most part, just a matter of simple due-diligence and homework.

Everyone else generally enjoys pointing out any discrepancies along the way... that's the fun part.

[AgrilusHunter]

It is incredibly difficult to identify a critter to the species level. Usually, when I see someone has a specific ID, unless that person has published in that specific genera, they are full of it. The intricacies involved in specific identification is far above what most people are capable. I know working paleontologist that readily specify an order, but then, call in those that are knowledgeable... read published.

I disagree with this comment wholeheartedly. I see no reason an unpublished amateur cannot accurately identify to species. Frankly, this comment seems to speak against the existence of this forum in general. Should posters here withhold identifications to the species level unless they have published on that taxon?

[Missourian]

I'd imagine someone could publish on a species and still be full of it....

[Kehbe]

It is incredibly difficult to identify a critter to the species level. .

Depends on the critter

[Mr. Edonihce]

Wow! I had no idea there was this much enegy here.

I thought I was the only one that cares this deeply about this stuff.

Great discussion.

Let's take a look at the original statement more carefully now...

It is incredibly difficult to identify a critter to the species level.

This statement, on its own, seems very general, and broad. If it were about all species of all kinds of organisms everywhere, it would certainly not be accurate, and should be thwarted.

However, in light of the often minute (I would say insignificant) details that separate many of the Pennsylvanian crinoid species that I hunt here in Colorado, this statement could very easily be applied, and not sound extreme at all....especially since this IS a thread about Pennsylvanian crinoids.

My vote would be to let this one slide....in fact, in context, I think I agree with it. Granted, I would probably want to add a word like 'sometimes' or 'in some/many/most cases' to the beginning as a clarifier, but I think it can stand on its own.

Usually, when I see someone has a specific ID, unless that person has published in that specific genera, they are full of it.

This one started off so well, but then perhaps got a little pushy.

I could imagine myself saying something like...

"Usually, when I see someone has a specific ID, my eyes roll back in my head, and I start getting out my list of important, clarifying questions."

The problem here is the fact that it appears to completely belittle all non-degreed paleontologists everywhere, and that is a mistake.

The flip-side to this argument though (and the part he was really talking about) is the fact that many, many, many people are way, way, way too eager to fling names out there in order to make sure others know that they are knowledgeable (no one here, of course...we're all friends, and this is not that serious here... so, just sayin), and/or to gain some kind of stature in the community (whether that's on a forum like this, or on a hunting trip with a paleo society or just a couple other paleo pals).

Beyond that, even if that's not the case (i.e. no attitudes of superiority involved whatsoever, but just a genuinely honest attempt to help others with the knowledge we've gathered through our experiences), what happens quite often is that someone will have knowledge of a certain amount that seems significant to them, and they will share that knowledge in an authoritative way without knowing for sure whether or not there are any other valid possibilities for a given specimen (when often, there are).

It's like this....I have now probably hunted in most of the good, Pennsylvanian localities (mostly around the

Middle Pennsylvanian, late Atokan-early Desmoinesian boundary) that have crinoids in Colorado (public and private), and I have gathered quite a knowledgebase on these guys. Sometimes I am able to recognise genera (or even species if it's an extremely easily identifiable one) from even a broken fragment of a basal or radial plate. However, other times, based on the indepth investigations I have gotten into over the years, even if I have two whole, pristine specimens (with cup, arms, tegman and column attached and good preservation), the differences betwen two species is so minor that I can't tell for sure if I have one or the other until I clean it off really well, do some prep work, and perhaps even get out the digital calipers to take some measurements....and even then, I find myself arguing (in my mind) with the professionals that originally named them as different species on occasion; thinking they could simply be two individuals representing slight differences within the same species.

The intricacies involved in specific identification is far above what most people are capable.

Again, given the context, this ^^^^ is a completely legitimate and fair statement.

I know working paleontologist that readily specify an order, but then, call in those that are knowledgeable... read published.

Since this is a personal account, there's nothing to argue with. Besides that, I know people that do the same thing.

Beyond all of this, it seems to me that the idea here on this site is not necessarily to arrive at an absolutely correct ID of any given specimen, but rather to help each other get closer to IDing the things we're wondering about.

If someone says, "I think that's a such-n-such" or "That looks like a #$%@$%", I usually take it lightly....not as an absolute declaration, but as a pointer. It's really up to the one asking for ID help to do their own research (especially since they're the one that actually has the specimen in-hand), and hopefully they are mature and responsible enough to label their specimens properly..... i.e. don't just go off and tell people that it's a such-n-such, just because billybob said so on the Fossil Forum..... a more appropriate thing to do would be to say that it's 'possibly such-n-such', or if you have the genus, you can say 'Genus, sp. (possibly hawthorni)' or somethign like that.

So, that just to say that, there's a lot of gray area to it, and while it's better to not make hard declarations of species unless you've actually studied them closely for a long time, it's certainly OK to make suggstions as to which species the person might want to consider when looking for an ID for their latest find.

[FossilDAWG]

It is incredibly difficult to identify a critter to the species level. Usually, when I see someone has a specific ID, unless that person has published in that specific genera, they are full of it. The intricacies involved in specific identification is far above what most people are capable. I know working paleontologist that readily specify an order, but then, call in those that are knowledgeable... read published.

I get what you are saying (I think), but I respectfully disagree. The whole point of publishing species level descriptions is so that any suitably educated person can use that description to ID a suitable specimen (that is, a specimen that actually preserves diagnostic characters). IDing a specimen is not the same as being able to critically evaluate the veracity of a species, it certainly takes a lot of experience and knowledge to be able to decide that a described species is really just an example of morphological or preservational variation with another species, or alternatively to decide that what is described as one species may actually contain specimens of two or more distinct species. However, deciding that a particular specimen is consistent in all observable features with a particular species description is usually not all that difficult, if you are familiar with the language of morphology and description. I know several serious amateurs, in both paleontology and entomology, who know the published literature quite well and are perfectly competent to ID species within their range of expertise.

Personally, I have at least three modes of IDing fossils. One is to become quite familiar with the genera and species that are known from a particular formation. It is possible to learn to recognize all the ammonites that have been described from the Cretaceous Nanaimo Group on Vancouver Island, for example, which consists of a total of a few dozen genera and species, described in a couple of dozen publications. Ideally, this will lead to curiosity about related ammonites (or other fossil groups of your choice) from other localities and time periods, in which case one might become familiar with a large proportion of the described species in a few genera or even families. This level of knowledge allows one to see a "bigger picture" and begin to critically evaluate described taxa, and recognize new forms if they are discovered. This is where professional taxonomists end up; they know a limited range (for entomologists, maybe a family, or a set of genera within a family) in great detail, and they can usually correctly ID (but not critically evaluate) many families and genera. This is the level you need to achieve to be able to publish, but again I know several amateurs who can do this. No-one can possibly learn all the insects (or snails, or clams) in the world, living or fossil, but it is possible to really know the weevils (or murids, or whatever). Indeed, in insect systematics there are some groups of insects where the current "world experts", to whom you would turn for a definitive ID of an especially important specimen, are actually amateurs. For me, the third level of IDing is just picture matching to images from the web or generalized fossil books; I have little confidence in such IDs, but it provides a starting point so I can read up on this or that group, and eventually build enough knowledge base to make more confident IDs. Perhaps some (many) amateurs never progress beyond this level, but there are also many who do. I think some of the discussions that go on in this forum, where people quote published papers and make strong statements about ID based on specific morphological characters, indicates that we have many such knowledgeable amateurs within our Fossil Forum community.

Even for professional paleontologists, the days are long past when anyone could really "know" every Paleozoic species, or even every species of Paleozoic coral/brachiopod/whatever. Everyone has to specialize. If a given ID has to be very high confidence, such as when (for example) you are using it to make a correlation between specific rock formations, it makes sense to have that ID verified by "the expert" in that fossil group. Most of the time, there will be some serious knowledgeable amateur who could also provide that ID, but their opinion would not carry the same weight. That doesn't mean there are no competent amateurs.

Don