Pros Stumped By 3 In. Fish-Gator

[fishgator]

This fossil was inherited so unfortunatly I don't know the background on it. The creature within is approximatly three inches in length. It appears to have skin like an alligator with the tail of a fish, most resembling a coelocanth tail. My interest in the fossil was renewed after reading about the discovery of tiktaalik. Unlike other supposedly pre-tetrapod fishes, there is no sign of any anterior fins (besides caudal) or appendages. This has given pause to some professional paleontologists who will not even hazzard a guess as to whether what I have is, as I believe, even a vertibrate. (I can't help but wonder if it may be some sort of transitional species, possibly even one with growth stages likened to a modern amphibian.) The previous owner of this fossil was a long-time resident of Corpus Christi, Texas. He also once lived near Fayetteville Arkansas. My suspicion is that the fossil is from the Nueces River Basin. GoodLuck.

Edited March 2, 2012 by fishgator

[Interpaleo]

Looks like an invert, possibly a trace fossil...

Almost certainly not a vertebrate in my opinion.

[fishgator]

Thanks for the reply, Interpaleo. While I agree the jury may still be out on the Subphylum (possibly even Phylum, and Kingdom). I must say this certianly has more the feel of a Body Fossil than a Trace Fossil.

[mikeymig]

It looks plant to me almost cone like.

mikey

[Foshunter]

Doesn't look fish to me---Tom

[paleozoicfish]

I know fish quite well. I assure you it is not and I wonder who these pros were.

-PzF

[Fossildude19]

Looks plant like to me, as well.

Some type of Calamostachys?

Regards,

Edited March 2, 2012 by Fossildude19

[Boneman007]

I would be very surprised to find out this is vertbrate. My vote is plant as well.

[Xiphactinus]

agreed with the others. Definitely a plant fossil.

[FossilDAWG]

"...I wonder who these pros were."

Possibly this is what happened?

1. "What kind of fish is this?"

2. Paleoicthyologist: "I don't think it's a fish."

3. "The pros are stumped."

I'm not a pro, but it's not a fish.

Don

[Harry Pristis]

It looks like mischief to me . . . You know, the sort of thing a mischievous child might make with a stick in wet clay.

[flyguy784]

I thought plant as well, at first. As Tim mentioned, some sort of cone. After looking at how robust the structures are, I think not. Almost coral like. Not having the faintest idea of where it came from doesn't help. Cool little piece though. I hope it gets ID'd.

[Fossildude19]

This is the symmetry I'm seeing.

Looks very 3 dimensional, like John says more robust than I've seen before.

Mysterious indeed.

[flyguy784]

Compare to this drawing. notice the similarity of th structural elements. http://surfacecurrents.blogspot.com/2011/05/know-fossil-rugosa.html

[Auspex]

Is there anything else in the rock that might give us a clue as to the depositional environment?

[FossilDAWG]

Compare to this drawing. notice the similarity of th structural elements. http://surfacecurren...sil-rugosa.html

I have to say that is an extremely stylized drawing of a rugosan, and in my opinion there is so much "artistic license" taken as to almost be a work of fiction. Rugosans were surrounded by an outer layer called an epitheca, except at the opening for the calyx at the top, and you would only see the framework-like structures depicted on the side in a weathered specimen in which the epitheca is abraded off, or dissolved if the coral sat exposed on the sea floor for some significant time before being buried. At any rate, the structural elements in the drawing are horizontal and vertical, like the frame of a building, with cavities in between them. The fossil in question has superficially similar rectangular structures, but they stick out not into the fossil, so they are actually opposite to the drawing.

I've probably seen thousands of solitary rugose corals, and there is nothing about the specimen in the photo that definitively says "solitary rugosan" to me.

Don

Edited March 2, 2012 by FossilDAWG

[flyguy784]

I hear what you're saying Don. I'm by no means a coral expert. I googled Rugos coral images and in fact found another "early" drawing of these structures. I cannot recall anything else that has those structural elements. I understand what you're stateing about the epithica, I also believe oddities in types of preservation occur. I hope this one gets ID'd.

[flyguy784]

Found another image. Transverse striations and interseptal ridges. Where's our coral expert when you need them?

[flyguy784]

And I think the small rectangular elements do go "into" the fossil, not sticking out. It's an odd image. When you first look at it, they do appear to "stick out" I don't think that's the case. Or there's something wrong with my monitor or my contacts. Cool post though, I'm havin fun and learning a little sumpin as we go.

[JohnJ]

Additional photos of the whole specimen and close-ups of the rock would be useful.

[piranha]

I will throw my hat in the ring for a weathered pith cast of a Calamites.

[flyguy784]

I again have to say, that is one odd photo. Maybe someone else has seen this effect. There are times when I look at it that the small rectangular "bumps" appear to be standing proud above the surface. Then, there are times where they are clearly recessed. In each case, the image appears to be totaly normal. What's goin on here?

[piranha]

One more hat is thrown in the ring Getting warmer?

A paleobotany specialist also adds: it appears to be a Calamites suckowi rhizome pith cast.

[Auspex]

...it appears to be a Calamites suckowi rhizome pith cast.

This is another possibility which is supported by the (scanty) evidence. I really wish we had more to go on.

I have it on good authority that more pictures are forthcoming ; with a little luck, there might be something else in the rock to clue us in to the 'when and where'.

[Fossildude19]

I again have to say, that is one odd photo. Maybe someone else has seen this effect. There are times when I look at it that the small rectangular "bumps" appear to be standing proud above the surface. Then, there are times where they are clearly recessed. In each case, the image appears to be totaly normal. What's goin on here?

John,

I think these kinds of images have a 3-D type of effect that messes with your depth perception.

I've seen that occasionally where there are small areas of high contrast in the photo. I can make it change by focusing and unfocusing on the photo - an optical illusion. I believe the fossil in question is an "imprint" - pushed into the rock?

Maybe further photos will make it clear. Or the OP will tell us if the rectangles are in or out???

Regards,

Edited March 2, 2012 by Fossildude19