evannorton Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Hi Folks, Any thoughts on the attached...to me it looks a square of bark from a Medullosa noei (picture on Page 44 of The Mazon Creek Fossil Flora - Jack wittry). Any one have other thoughts - is this a square of seed fern bark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evannorton Posted January 27, 2013 Author Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) Another pic with quarter for size reference. Edited January 27, 2013 by evannorton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evannorton Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share Posted January 28, 2013 Anyone have thoughts on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stocksdale Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Hi Evan, Did you ever get an ID on this? I found some similar wood/bark recently in Coal City area. Was this just loose in the shale? Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.–Carl Sagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stocksdale Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 What is that huge leaf that is just behind the bark fossil? Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.–Carl Sagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 What is that huge leaf that is just behind the bark fossil? It looks like Neuropteris. "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...
Stocksdale Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Looks much larger than usual... maybe just in relation to the other items. Either way, a nice looking leaf. Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.–Carl Sagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evannorton Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 Hi NE, I did receive a private response from Jack Wittry. Btw....I try not to email him very often as he must get quite a few requests. See Below: The larger example is an indeterminate trunk/axis. That said, it is not calamite and lycopsid in nature and likely not Psaronius in my opinion. This leaves two possibilities, cordiates and medullosa. Both produced trunks with some wood in them so were not as easily crushed and are thought to make up the majority of what is often mistakenly called petrified wood. Of these, cordiates is the only one that branches. The branches have very diagnostic leaf scares, but the trunks are poorly known, as is the exact nature of the tree as a whole. Its overall look has been interpreted in different several ways. Cordiates is a relatively rare member of the Mazon Creek flora and there is only one known species of foliage. There are dozens of species of medullosan foliage including the most common species of any type, Macroneuropteris scheuchzeri. If one was to play the averages I would say without any hard evidence it is a part of a medullosan trunk. As you will find in paleobotany names are placeholders were similar items are grouped that may have no biological relationship but share some characters. Think of it like how a grocery store is laid out, where all the meats are together regardless of there origins. In paleobotany this is due to the fact plants are never found complete. This is also why there is no good answer to your question. If it helps, I have labeled the specimens like yours as indeterminate axis in both The Field Museum and the Smithsonian collections. Wish I could do better.I see you wished to pursue literature on "bark" identification. To the best of my knowledge authors have only applied names to Psaronius if the shed frond scars are visible. These scars are diagnostic and their arrangement and vascular traces can be used to separate the form to a species level, though most are only to a generic level. The other more commonly speciated group are the lycopsids. The sub barks have several names and are not worthy of a species name as they can not be separated in any meaningful way (similar to using Stimaroides on Psaronius). This did not stop Lesquereux, who erected several names on theses types of forms and most have been generally ignored. Only the outer bark of lycopsids have been treated in any meaningful way by authors and are useful in helping describe a flora and understand its relationship with other floras. The best reference to the different lycopsid barks is Crookall 1964, Fossil Plants of the Carboniferous Rocks of Great Britain. [second section]. Vol. 4. Part 3, Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain. Or you can more easily pursue Lesquereux 1866, 1870, in the Illinois State Geological Surveys Vols. 2 and 4. And the Pennsylvanian Survey 1879-1880 available from several sources.Short answer, you have a piece of what was a trunk, probably medullosan, for which there is no name for, but is still neat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evannorton Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 And yes the leaf is neuropteris and is cut off on the distal end - but still a good find for braidwood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plantguy Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Thanks for the post and sharing the find. nice! Regards, Chris 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