Bullsnake Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 no ones thinking oyster, eh? :coldb: And coming out of left-field... crushed conularid? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 Another nodule opened just a bit ago that looks like the same thing but it is much, much larger.. The first shot is the nodule by the penny after it opened.. I think it's the same orthocone type fossil as I originally posted on this thread so I thought I would add it here.. All the close ups are with a loupe in front of my camera lense.. There are some shots that are the same section but taken from different angles.. I included the images that I thought showed the best.. It is irregular like the tiny ones I posted here.. Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 And coming out of left-field... crushed conularid? I don't think conularid because of how the sutures are lined up.. Not sure sutures is the word I mean Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LanceH Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The sides are not very straight and the "sections" are not regularly spaced like an orthocone. The flaky blue "shell" says chitinous material to me, like Lingulid brachiopods and Conularia. I have no clue if not orthocone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) It's hard to tell from a photo, but do the sections seem to overlap each other like growth rings might on a bivalve or brach? I wonder if you could take a picture with the pieces of the new one lined up as they go together? Edited January 30, 2012 by BobWill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Just a guess... because of the convolutions.... could be a conularia as Bullsnake and Lance has point out.... Edited January 30, 2012 by pleecan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 It's hard to tell from a photo, but do the sections seem to overlap each other like growth rings might on a bivalve or brach? Yes, they do appear to overlap and the layers run perpindicular to the big fold down the length... The layers are stacked perpindicular to the big fold.. Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Makes me wonder if xonenine was on the right track with his suggestion of bivalve and the longitudinal grooves are radial ribs. Of course this would mean that only a broken piece was encased. Edited January 30, 2012 by BobWill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 I glued the end and the rest I can't or it would cover the fossil.. the pieces in the background are the other sides.. I'm afraid not such good shots but the loupe doesn't work inside well.. That's just a closeup with my camera.. Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 Here is a little better one .. Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Appendage of something larger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 Appendage of something larger? Well the rest goes into that little top piece so I think it may all be there, imo.. Just a guess of course Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrangellian Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 We may be just taking shots in the dark but the only other thought I had was scaphopod (I think they existed at that time)..? I have seen similar ones from my local Cretaceous, they sometimes are found with that fold down the middle due to crushing, and with similar faint growth lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 Yes, I read there were actually many types of them in the Pennsylvanian age.. I didn't see any images that had enough details to compare.. You may be onto something.. Does anyone have a scaphopod that is Pennsylvanian in age they could post to compare? Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Today while surfing our forum I noticed 2 images of a Devonian Cephalopod with creases and thought of this unknown. "Edited" the original pictures to point to the "faint" creases. In order to clear my head of what the mystery fossil might represent... I'm going to go with cephalopod until someone comes up better comparable image or references Flash from the Past (Show Us Your Fossils)MAPS Fossil Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 Thanks, Indy.. Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boneman007 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I have to say, I think the original photo is a partial crinoid crown, and the other iridescent fossils are orthocones. You would NEVER have cephlopods with identical sutures. It's a mathematical impossibility. Given that, they must be associated. Given that they are associated, it removes almost everything from consideration except a crinoid crown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Not sure I follow you there. Ammonites are also cephalopods and the shape of their sutures is one way of identifying them. KOF, Bill. Welcome to the forum, all new members www.ukfossils check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) I have to say, I think the original photo is a partial crinoid crown, and the other iridescent fossils are orthocones. You would NEVER have cephlopods with identical sutures. It's a mathematical impossibility. Given that, they must be associated. Given that they are associated, it removes almost everything from consideration except a crinoid crown. I thought we had established that the first fossil was an "it" instead of a "they" since what originally looked like lines of separation between parts were really just shallow grooves running perpindicular to the lines (sutures or growth lines) going around them. The second, larger specimen gives us a better view of this but otherwise seems identical. Edited February 1, 2012 by BobWill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Roz This would be a neat fossil to put in the hands of an expert for an ID. Sometimes pictures just don't show enough information for identifications. That doesn't mean different views or larger imaging...Just means sometimes it is necessary for some unknowns to be examined in person (in hand) Flash from the Past (Show Us Your Fossils)MAPS Fossil Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Is there a cross-section of shell material visible anywhere along the edge? That would determine if we're dealing with a shell surface or an internal mold. Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 925 views and no positive ID Mmmmm.... My Link Flash from the Past (Show Us Your Fossils)MAPS Fossil Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xonenine Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 :eat popcorn: "Your serpent of Egypt is bred now of your mud by the operation of your sun; so is your crocodile." Lepidus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boneman007 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) What I was trying to communicate was that Pathologic or environmentally modified (not-regularly-spaced) sutures would not be a commonality between animals. Especially animals of different sizes (maturity) And they wouldnt have died to that the sutures match up. Edited February 1, 2012 by Boneman007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Ah, sorry. I get you now. KOF, Bill. Welcome to the forum, all new members www.ukfossils check it out. 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