SteveInTiverton Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) Hello, I've been beach combing the Cory Lane RI shale beds for a few years now and have pulled out many small Carboniferous Ferns. However, my best finds are coming from up and down the coast in loose hard shale pieces with obvious veins of iron minerals. This is my latest find from a dry stream bed about a mile south of Cory Lane. I'm assuming its Pecopteris but try as I may I'm unable to determine the species. It's about 17" by 2" and broken into 4 images to catch the detail. Any help including the reasoning behind the classification (so I can learn) would be very appreciated. Thanks fossil identifiers Steve Edited October 15, 2012 by SteveInTiverton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Hey Steve, Nice find. I've always wanted to hunt Cory's lane. Maybe someday. I'm not sure there is enough detail on your piece to ID it further than Pecopteris sp. Your specimen seems to have undergone some weird diagenesis that makes it look kind of stretched out and elongated. I would go with Pecopteris based on the fact that it appears that the pinnules attach to the stem completely along the base of the pinnule, rather than by a stem of it's own. Also the alternating nature of the pinnules on opposite sides of the stem. I am by no means an expert on plants, and perhaps one of the more experienced plant collectors could provide better insight, or a more firm ID. Regards, Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER 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 More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 I cannot add to what has been said, except that I think it is a very showy fossil, and would grace anyone's shelf! "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 More sharing options...
Bullsnake Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 That is a cool looking piece! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
araucaria1959 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 I agree with Pecopteris, but for further ID it can be helpful (i) to show pics directly from above the fossil (and not inclined as your pics seem to be), (ii) to know the exact size of the leaflets, and (iii) the exact stratigraphic age of the specimen. araucaria1959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) I believe that the location is part of the Rhode Island Formation, which is supposedly Middle to Upper Pennsylvanian in age. Regards, Edited October 14, 2012 by Fossildude19 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER 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 More sharing options...
piranha Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Nice find... here are a few correlations and images for the Rhode Island Group flora. If you would like a copy of this paper please send me a PM with your email address RE: A late Middle Pennsylvanian flora of the Narragansett basin, Massachusetts Geological Society of America Bulletin March, 1978 v. 89 no. 3 p. 433-438 Authors: Paul C. Lyons and William C. Darrah 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Dactyll Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 WOW... That is a seriously long frond... The longest I have ever seen...Well done on retrieving that... Great find Cheers Steve... And Welcome if your a New Member... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
araucaria1959 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Thanks Piranha, your informations help a lot. Beside the limitations I mentioned in my posting above, I would have suggested Pecopteris arborescens or at least P. cf. arborescens if the fossil was from western/central europe. However, due to the regionalism of the upper carboniferous flora, I thought I cannot apply our species names to north american material. But your floral list shows many names that are also wellknown in the european flora. Together with the high frequency of P. arborescens in your floral list, we can now consider P. arborescens as a possible ID. However, it would be necessary to have better pictures to get more sure, e.g. to see the exact proportions (length/width) of the leaflets and the venation. araucaria1959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Wow, that thing is really metamorphosed. Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveInTiverton Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 Hello. I wasn't expecting such quick response ... thanks so much. I've uploaded a more detailed image taken from above (but had to remove two previous images of the last 8 inches of the 16 inch specimen). I don't know what I'm looking for to confirm the Pecopteris arborescens (thanks Piranha) but the frequency list will help alot in my pile of smaller pieces waiting for classification. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Steve, I think they need to see more detail on the pinnules. Any chance of a close up of one of the fronds? Do you have a digital camera with a "Macro" mode? (Flower icon?)If you do, try using that feature in natural light. Also, please post new pics in new replies, by going to the "More Reply Options" Button to the right of the post button - that will give you the tools/options to upload more images. Hate to see you have to remove the others to put new ones in. Regards, Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER 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 More sharing options...
araucaria1959 Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Now I understand. The fossil is distorted somewhat. That makes it difficult to calculate the proportion (length/width) of the leaflets, and they may look narrower than they were originally. With this in mind, P. arborescens is still an option. araucaria1959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveInTiverton Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 Hi Tried the Reply More Options yesterday but it gave me an error that made me think my brand new account wouldn't allow me access to this yet. It works now I see. I'm at the limits of my iPhone camera so I'm asking my wife to take some pics with her very expensive manual digital. She's laughing cuz last week I told her to get rid of it since she never used it. I think she may charge me per pic. I'll post them in a day or two. As for the distortion, along what axis is it distorted? Length, width or height? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockin' Chica Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Hello, I've been beach combing the Cory Lane RI shale beds for a few years now and have pulled out many small Carboniferous Ferns. However, my best finds are coming from up and down the coast in loose hard shale pieces with obvious veins of iron minerals. This is my latest find from a dry stream bed about a mile south of Cory Lane. I'm assuming its Pecopteris but try as I may I'm unable to determine the species. It's about 17" by 2" and broken into 4 images to catch the detail. Any help including the reasoning behind the classification (so I can learn) would be very appreciated. Thanks fossil identifiers Steve That is beautiful! How did you clear the matrix from it? Gratitude and Well Wishes! Ashley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveInTiverton Posted October 16, 2012 Author Share Posted October 16, 2012 Found it face down in the mud - it was naturally split along the fracture. I need to spend some time looking for the other half. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockin' Chica Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Found it face down in the mud - it was naturally split along the fracture. I need to spend some time looking for the other half. Steve Very Nice! Congrats on a great find! Gratitude and Well Wishes! Ashley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Hey Steve, To me, it looks like the specimen is distorted lengthwise - in it's current orientation, it looks stretched from left to right. It looks like you used some kind of wide angle lens to take the pic, except the tape measure/ruler looks perfectly fine. I've seen this type of preservation in some of the trilobites from France and Spain that I've seen here on the forum. Regards, Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER 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 More sharing options...
araucaria1959 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I agree with Fossildude19 - lengthwise. That's why the leaflets are narrower then they were originally. araucaria1959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveInTiverton Posted October 16, 2012 Author Share Posted October 16, 2012 Okay, this is as close as I can get to individual pinnules. I can see the central vein and can tell they are oblong but my amateur eyes can't tell much more than that. Sorry no ruler in the pics but the pinnules seem consistent at 4-5mm in length. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrangellian Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Hi guys, Interesting fossil. Who says RI has no fossils? Why not try stretching the pics to restore the original shape of the fern, like so: You won't get any more detail but it might be easier to see what you're looking at for an ID? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 ...Why not try stretching the pics to restore the original shape of the fern... Smart feller! "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 More sharing options...
araucaria1959 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I see you did all you could do with that specimen. The problem is that details of the venation pattern are not preserved. You can only see the central vein of the leaflets (which is compatible with Pecopteris), but not the details of the venation like the tiny lateral veins and their branching pattern. But the latter is an important key feature. It is very probable that P. arborescens (like other fern foliage species too) is not a natural species, but only a morphospecies. For exemplare, its longevity argues against a true single species (it has a long stratigraphic range and I have P. arborescens from the uppermost autunian). Fern foliage is assigned to a specific morphospecies if it shares the defining features of that species. As already said, the pattern of the venation is one of the key features for the ID of fossil fern foliage. If this is not preserved, it becomes dubious to assign a solitary specimen (without more material from the same layer that may show, at least in part, these missing features) to a specific morphospecies with certainty. However, taking into accout the overall morphology and dimensions of your specimen (after correction for distortion) as well as statistical reasons (most common species in the local floral list), I would label that specimen as "Pecopteris sp., probably P. arborescens." I think a higher degree of certainty of the ID is not possible for that specimen; except you find similar material with preservation of the venation pattern in the same layer. Nevertheless, a great specimen! araucaria1959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveInTiverton Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 I agree that the specimen is telling us about all it can tell. Thanks to everyone who helped me with my first post. I learned a lot and am ready to dive into my pile of previous finds and start applying some of the resources that have been shared. At least I have a showpiece for inspiration. Happy hunting. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) Steve, Here are a few more resources for you: George's Basement West Virginia Plant Fossils Google Books I've found them helpful for general plant fossil knowledge. Regards, Edited October 17, 2012 by Fossildude19 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER 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 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