Rockin' Chica Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Is this a vertabral column? Gratitude and Well Wishes! Ashley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sward Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Ashley, Nice piece, but I'm thinking more of a possible hamite of some sort. I'll let the experts way in with their thoughts. SWardSoutheast Missouri (formerly Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX) USA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Cephalopod.That's a nice one, Ashley. 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...
Al Dente Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Are all three photos of the same fossil? The first two photos look like the axial lobe of a trilobite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockin' Chica Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 Yes, all 3 are the same! Gratitude and Well Wishes! Ashley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Are all three photos of the same fossil? The first two photos look like the axial lobe of a trilobite. Yes, all 3 are the same! Flash from the Past (Show Us Your Fossils)MAPS Fossil Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 The small sections are the siphuncle and the larger sections are the chambers surrounding them. The cephalopod was mostly eroded away on the sea floor exposing the siphuncle and the outer sections were preserved buried in the sediment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 I concur completely with Erose and Fossildude. The large siphuncle, its shape, and its proximity to one side (the ventral side) of the shell suggests that it is an actinocerid nautiloid. Several genera are possible, including Actinoceras, Armenoceras, Cameroceras, Lambeoceras, etc, and I wouldn't try to ID the genus without being able to examine the specimen. Nice find! Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Here's why I was thinking trilobite. There appears to be ornamentation on the axial lobe (small bumps). There is continuous shell from the axial lobe onto the pleural lobe. Most nautiloids don't have shell preserved, just internal molds, this specimen looks like shelly material. I would expect the siphuncle to be round and separate from the shell, not connected on either side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockin' Chica Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 What is very interesting about this particular fossil is that the Axial Lobe is rather flat (for lack of a better term). Thank You for your input, it is greatly appreciated! Gratitude and Well Wishes! Ashley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 At almost 5 inches in length, this would be a monster trilobite, were it an axial lobe. Not sure there were any trilos in the Ordovician of Tennesee with that kind of axial lobe, that large. Cephalopods on the other hand grew very large, and seems a more likely possibility, based on what Ashley has been finding. 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...
Al Dente Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 At almost 5 inches in length, this would be a monster trilobite, I agree that it might be too big for trilobite. The third picture is most likely nautiloid but I have a hard time accepting that the first two pictures are of a siphuncle. I've never seen one that wasn't circular in cross section unless this is a crushed specimen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockin' Chica Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 At almost 5 inches in length, this would be a monster trilobite, were it an axial lobe. Not sure there were any trilos in the Ordovician of Tennesee with that kind of axial lobe, that large. Cephalopods on the other hand grew very large, and seems a more likely possibility, based on what Ashley has been finding. Regards, Admitting that I know absolutely nothing about this thing. I will say that, the area this is from is Carboniferous! I will also say, that this area has a layer of soft tissue fossils that are rather large! I have no idea what this is, but for the sake of discussion, I feel that it is essential that it is known. Here is a soft tissue fossil from this area: Gratitude and Well Wishes! Ashley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) Admitting that I know absolutely nothing about this thing. I will say that, the area this is from is Carboniferous! I will also say, that this area has a layer of soft tissue fossils that are rather large! I have no idea what this is, but for the sake of discussion, I feel that it is essential that it is known. Here is a soft tissue fossil from this area: Hey Ashley - Would you mind letting us know what town/county it was found in? I see in this geologic mapthe area around Franklin looks to be Ordovician and Mississippian with some Devonian and Sillurian thrown in for maximum confusion! A HUGE part of ID is based upon what aged rocks the specimens were found in. I'm assuming that when you say Carboniferous, you mean that you found it in the Mississippian aged rocks? (Your location is listed as Franklin TN.Which is what I was going by, due to lack of any other location info.) Carboniferous is too vague a word, as it encompasses the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian ages. Pennsylvanian aged rocks are much further east of Franklin. Make sure to mention where things were found, as to avoid allot of confusion. If you know the names of the Formations you are hunting, that's even better, as we can look to scientific literature to point to what your finds might be. Did the "Soft Tissue Fossils" get ID's/Looked at by a paleontologist or geologist? I'm not really seeing anything other than vague mineral stains. Hope this is helpful, Regards, Edited October 15, 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...
Rockin' Chica Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 Hey Ashley - Would you mind letting us know what town/county it was found in? I see in this geologic mapthe area around Franklin looks to be Ordovician and Mississippian with some Devonian and Sillurian thrown in for maximum confusion! A HUGE part of ID is based upon what aged rocks the specimens were found in. I'm assuming that when you say Carboniferous, you mean that you found it in the Mississippian aged rocks? (Your location is listed as Franklin TN.Which is what I was going by, due to lack of any other location info.) Carboniferous is too vague a word, as it encompasses the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian ages. Pennsylvanian aged rocks are much further east of Franklin. Make sure to mention where things were found, as to avoid allot of confusion. If you know the names of the Formations you are hunting, that's even better, as we can look to scientific literature to point to what your finds might be. Did the "Soft Tissue Fossils" get ID's/Looked at by a paleontologist or geologist? I'm not really seeing anything other than vague mineral stains. Hope this is helpful, Regards, I am on the South West corner (literally) of Williamson County TN. This is on a hill (obviously an ancient reef) that is litteraly surrounded by rivers and streams! Gratitude and Well Wishes! Ashley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockin' Chica Posted October 16, 2012 Author Share Posted October 16, 2012 I am on the South West corner (literally) of Williamson County TN. This is on a hill (obviously an ancient reef) that is litteraly surrounded by rivers and streams! I wrote that wrong! I am sorry I am on the County Line of Williamson and Maury County! I am in Franklin but half my neighborhood is actually in Maury County! I believe that the Mississippian runs the perimeter of this property! It actually may be that little blue circle that you see on the usgs map! Gratitude and Well Wishes! Ashley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teres Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Here's why I was thinking trilobite. There appears to be ornamentation on the axial lobe (small bumps). There is continuous shell from the axial lobe onto the pleural lobe. Most nautiloids don't have shell preserved, just internal molds, this specimen looks like shelly material. I would expect the siphuncle to be round and separate from the shell, not connected on either side Could this possibly be a Gonioceras? I have seen preservation like this in the Ordovician of Tn. there are lots of internal molds but if your lucky.... 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