Jump to content

fishgator

Recommended Posts

Thanks Tim. I'll wait for further photos. I as well think it's "pushed into the rock". How weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For continuity I've added Fishgator's new photo. I'd like to double-down on my previous ID please :)

post-4301-0-09673600-1330714394_thumb.jpg

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that we are looking at some type of plant structure. It appears to me to either be a pith cast of calamites or possible a cone. i am attaching a picture of Macrostachya which appears very similar.

post-1202-0-97448600-1330715199_thumb.jpg

post-1202-0-23106800-1330715269_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, I'd like to thank everyone for their interest. Due to new member limitations I do not yet have gallery access. For now I have used the new member introduction forum to post another picture. I will be more than happy to post many more once I have access, if necessary. (any admin who can lift that limitation would be greatly appreciated) please use this original posting for all replies. In response to previous replies... the "pros" who I will not name did say they were stumped. Cannot knock anyone for not knowing. All I said is "they would not hazzard a guess." As far as the Rugosa guess goes you should be able to tell by the new photo that the srtuctures are opposite that of Rugosa. Good eye though on similar structural elements. And for others I wish I was that good with a stick and clay. At this point I just really want to know what I have. Thanks again to everyone for the help. And I would like to encourage anyone with an even an inkling to not be shy, as I am following all leads. Great site Guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admire your ferver. The new picture certainly does look Calamites like. I'll stick with "still have doubts". I've never seen that type of preservation in Calamites, not that its not possible, I don't know. If it is Calimites its a very unusual specimen I would think. It's hard to rationalize how only those parts would be preserved. Especialy the radial material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we have a width on this specimen?

And Fishgator, why can't you just add more photos via new replies?

You should just have to click the More Reply Options button, to use the full editor to upload new pics.

Regards,

EDIT: Fishgator, Do you have both halves of this? Or only the one piece?

    Tim    VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  VFOTM APRIL - 2015  

__________________________________________________
"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks."
John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~   ><))))( *>  About Me      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can add pictures to this topic by simply replying to it and adding the picture to the reply.

"There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant

“Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley

>Paleontology is an evolving science.

>May your wonders never cease!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I interprete the new picture (added by piranha) correctly, the short longitudinal parallel "tubes" are standing, at least in part, "free". If that's right, then they are the internal molds of some sort of channels of tube-like hollow structures.

Here is a link to a page about Calamites:

http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://steurh.home.xs4all.nl/calstam/RecCalNd.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.xs4all.nl/~steurh/engcalst/ecalstam.html&usg=__R-amAF3M8BvHl6UPv8BOmMJupSc=&h=450&w=406&sz=41&hl=de&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=X-49_iD4DKBPSM:&tbnh=168&tbnw=152&ei=djJRT8jsNoih4gSExrn0DQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3DCalamites%2BAND%2BInner%26hl%3Dde%26biw%3D1244%26bih%3D801%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=752&vpy=143&dur=8032&hovh=236&hovw=213&tx=120&ty=133&sig=107356588319130979430&page=1&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0

The drawing (black and white) shows carinal canals © arranged in a circle. The histological sections in the lower part of the page show also carinal canals arranged in a circle. So what about this specimen being a small calamitacean stem, and the longitudinal tubes are carinal canals filled with sediment?

However, the interpretation as carinal canals applies only if the "tubes" are actually "free", as the new pictures suggests at several places, but I'm not really sure about that.

araucaria1959

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I will add to the pile and say that it is not a fish, and I have seen a few ;)

As for the "pro's" reluctance to hazard a guess, I will say that reputation is everything to these guys. Photo identification can be tricky or down right impossible at times. Most professional paleontologists will not take a chance at being wrong just out of a need to protect their reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the first person our man Fishgator came to and the one who suggested the Fossil Forum, I feel I need to jump in here. My reputation is not what I am protecting as much as accuracy. I have been IDing fossils of all kinds from all places and times for people for decades and have learned only to say I'm sure when I am sure. And if Science truly seeps into one's soul, one realizes that true knowledge is indeed very rare. For reference, here is my full original response:

"I’ve had a look at your photo and all I can say with reasonable certainty is that you have a fossil there. I’m afraid you have me stumped. I can’t even decide if it’s plant, vertebrate, or invertebrate! It’s a bummer that you don’t know where it came from because that would likely help narrow it down. I suspect that it is a marine invertebrate of some kind. Here’s a suggestion: post this to the Fossil ID Forum at thefossilforum.com. There are many very capable eyes over there and there’s a pretty good chance that someone there will be able to ID it."

As far as I can tell, it is still very consistent with the conversation here in this forum and I stand by it.

Onwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I interprete the new picture (added by piranha) correctly, the short longitudinal parallel "tubes" are standing, at least in part, "free". If that's right, then they are the internal molds of some sort of channels of tube-like hollow structures.

Here is a link to a page about Calamites:

http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://steurh.home.xs4all.nl/calstam/RecCalNd.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.xs4all.nl/~steurh/engcalst/ecalstam.html&usg=__R-amAF3M8BvHl6UPv8BOmMJupSc=&h=450&w=406&sz=41&hl=de&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=X-49_iD4DKBPSM:&tbnh=168&tbnw=152&ei=djJRT8jsNoih4gSExrn0DQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3DCalamites%2BAND%2BInner%26hl%3Dde%26biw%3D1244%26bih%3D801%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=752&vpy=143&dur=8032&hovh=236&hovw=213&tx=120&ty=133&sig=107356588319130979430&page=1&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0

The drawing (black and white) shows carinal canals © arranged in a circle. The histological sections in the lower part of the page show also carinal canals arranged in a circle. So what about this specimen being a small calamitacean stem, and the longitudinal tubes are carinal canals filled with sediment?

However, the interpretation as carinal canals applies only if the "tubes" are actually "free", as the new pictures suggests at several places, but I'm not really sure about that.

araucaria1959

Your explanation has some credence. I thought the same of the carnial tubes, as the only possible infill channel. It seems the odds of that happening are astronomical. Couple that with how robust, not only the "carnial replicas" are, but the nodes as well. It's just hard to swallow. I grant all, that it sure does look Calamites like. Unfortunetly, we may never know for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I will add to the pile and say that it is not a fish, and I have seen a few ;)

As for the "pro's" reluctance to hazard a guess, I will say that reputation is everything to these guys. Photo identification can be tricky or down right impossible at times. Most professional paleontologists will not take a chance at being wrong just out of a need to protect their reputation.

I've been more or less a "professional" for a couple years now, and I'll give you lots of random guesses :). Then again, my reputation is that of a goofy shark tooth crazed Northern Californian.

Sure could be a plant, such as a Calamites sp. but it looks a little loose. That could be due to dessication before fossilization though. A lot can happen before a plant gets permanently locked in stone that can change how it looks dramatically.

I still stick with my original thought that this is some sort of trace fossil left over from a creature we can only theorize about. Wish we knew the age...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a picture of another potential candidate Calamites suckowi.

That's a beautiful specimen by the way, as is your earlier posted picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the runway model of corals, coralus birthdaysuitus ! Could the epitica be removed by wave action? The coral rolling on the sea bottom for example before it came to rest? Sand IS the ultimate abrasive...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the carpenters perspective ...If you want to bring out the grain of the wood, sand it. Now back to the scientists...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like a very worn longitudinal cross section of a rugose coral to me.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"_ Carl Sagen

No trees were killed in this posting......however, many innocent electrons were diverted from where they originally intended to go.

" I think, therefore I collect fossils." _ Me

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."__S. Holmes

"can't we all just get along?" Jack Nicholson from Mars Attacks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to cloud the issue further but I'm going to say it is a cast of a rugose coral like Heterophrentis or Heliophyllum. I'm attaching a copy of the original pic with notes.

post-1408-0-49864600-1330980793_thumb.jpg

I agree that it must have lain on the floor of the sea and was eroded before complete burial in order for the internal structures like tabulae and septae to be exposed. It looks like the growth proceeded from left to right in the specimen based on how some of the far right tabulae are concave which is typical for rugose corals.

I don't think it's plant matter as it just doesn't seem to be "planty" enough for me plus the rock looks crystalline (limestone) to me instead of sandy or shaly. The type of rock it's preserved it will make all the difference as to what it is. If it is a sandstone then I could see it being a cone. However, if it's a limestone or dolostone then it's marine in origin and likely a coral. The second photo that Fishgator uploaded also looks crystalline to me.

Are there any other fossils or cavities within the rock that might help us determine the depositional setting?

-Dave

__________________________________________________

Geologists on the whole are inconsistent drivers. When a roadcut presents itself, they tend to lurch and weave. To them, the roadcut is a portal, a fragment of a regional story, a proscenium arch that leads their imaginations into the earth and through the surrounding terrain. - John McPhee

If I'm going to drive safely, I can't do geology. - John McPhee

Check out my Blog for more fossils I've found: http://viewsofthemahantango.blogspot.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

closest things i've found are an excavation site for those of you voting trace fossil, and Aspidorhynchus which i know it isn't

post-8094-0-86452000-1331891391_thumb.jpg

post-8094-0-48127800-1331891800_thumb.jpg

post-8094-0-87138600-1331891802_thumb.jpg

post-8094-0-05239300-1331891961_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that a new photo of it on the right hand side? If so, that looks very different from the first image, and a lot more like a rugose coral.

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The trick to telling if parts of an image "stick out" or dip "into" the fossil is to consider the shadows. Once you realize the light is comming from the top in both photos, that puts the shadow at the top of the "dip".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trick to telling if parts of an image "stick out" or dip "into" the fossil is to consider the shadows. Once you realize the light is comming from the top in both photos, that puts the shadow at the top of the "dip".

The phenomena I was seeing was far more dramatic than just the position of the light vs shadow. I was similar to the weird posters you see that have a hidden image hidden by the main picture. I think I figured it out however. I wear a set of different focal length contacts. Left eye for distance, right eye for close up. They call it mono vision I think. My mind takes both images in and kind of combines both to give me a full field of focus. I think at times it (my brain) locked in on say the left lens and other times the right lens. Maybe ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...