ssuntok Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 (edited) I found these fossils at the Kohl's Ranch site off AZ260, about 15 miles East of Payson AZ. I believe the fossils in that area are Cambrian in age, though I don't know the name of the formation they're from or anything else about them. Can anyone help me with an ID? Photo 1: on the far right is a lacy bryozoan of some sort (species anyone?) beside it is a brachiopod. and to the left of the brachiopod is something that looks coral-like but may be some kind of stick-like bryozoan. I've another rock literally covered in hundreds of these little guys, all of which are about 3-5mm in length, and none of which are branching. Can anyone help me ID what I'm seeing in this photo? Photo 2: a close-up with better focus on what I'm calling the stick-like bryozoan from photo number one. Photo 3: not sure what this is at all. the total length of the specimen is approx 2 inches, so the "sticks" in it are about 1 inch long. These appear to be branching, but without any of the "spores" i'd expect to see on bryozoa or coral. any idea as to what these might be? Thanks everybody. Any help sure is appreciated. I wish I'd had a LOT longer in Arizona - only managed to get out fossiling one afternoon with all the family/kid activities we had to do each day. I'd love to go back some time and see more of the dozen or so sites I'd picked out that I wanted to hit up. snarge AZ's beautiful Steve Edited June 6, 2013 by ssuntok Steve Suntok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Good looking Paleozoic 'hash'! The 'sticks' are bryozoans too, like the branching ones. The 'lacy fans' are fenestrate bryozoans. These are a little younger that Cambrian; someone here will probably recognize the brachiopod and be able to date the sediment. "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...
Missourian Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 (edited) That all looks really similar to Pennsylvanian material. The brach is very similar to Derbyia. The stick bryozoans are just like Rhombopora. The fenestrate bryozoans look like those of the Penn, at least. The stick-like things in the last pic may be Archaeocidaris spines, but they could be something else. Edited June 6, 2013 by Missourian Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 The Kohl Ranch site is Pennsylvanian (Naco Formation), not Cambrian. In this thread I posted a pdf of a paper that will help you to ID your finds. The brachiopods are a species of Derbia; all the other photos are of bryozoans. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssuntok Posted June 6, 2013 Author Share Posted June 6, 2013 Oops - I meant Carboniferous, not Cambrian. I know the difference, but for a guy who's spent all his time digging in the late Cretaceous here on Vancouver Island the two paleo periods starting with "C" sometimes slip out wrong Thanks for your help thus far everyone. Steve Suntok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 (edited) Oops - I meant Carboniferous, not Cambrian. I know the difference, but for a guy who's spent all his time digging in the late Cretaceous here on Vancouver Island the two paleo periods starting with "C" sometimes slip out wrong In any case, I would love to collect from some Cambrian deposits that are as fossiliferous. Edited June 6, 2013 by Missourian Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssuntok Posted June 6, 2013 Author Share Posted June 6, 2013 Missourian, I'm wondering about the last picture. fossilDAWG says bryozoan, and I know nothing about this stuff, but to my uneducated eye i'm wondering if it couldn't be archaeocidaris as you suggest. What makes me wonder is that there are no surface details like the "spores" seen on bryozoan - the sticks appear to be totally smooth, and look very much like this picture of archaeocidaris I found online with a good search: What do you think? FossilDAWG? Again, I really appreciate your guys' help here cheers Steve Suntok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilForKids Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Definitely Pennsylvanian. I love this site because you can carve a few plates of Brachs from it. Here are some of the more common brach and the site itself. kohls ranch.bmp If only my teeth are so prized a million years from now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Definitely Pennsylvanian. I love this site because you can carve a few plates of Brachs from it. Here are some of the more common brach and the site itself. The brachs on the left and right appear to be Spirifer, which I believe is indicative of the Desmoinesian Stage (middle Penn). Have Mesolobus been found there as well? Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Missourian, I'm wondering about the last picture...to my uneducated eye i'm wondering if it couldn't be archaeocidaris as you suggest. What makes me wonder is that there are no surface details like the "spores" seen on bryozoan - the sticks appear to be totally smooth, and look very much like this picture of archaeocidaris I found online with a good search: AW12C.jpg You may be right; they sure are straight... Put a loupe on them. "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...
Missourian Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Missourian, I'm wondering about the last picture. fossilDAWG says bryozoan, and I know nothing about this stuff, but to my uneducated eye i'm wondering if it couldn't be archaeocidaris as you suggest. What makes me wonder is that there are no surface details like the "spores" seen on bryozoan - the sticks appear to be totally smooth, and look very much like this picture of archaeocidaris I found online with a good search: I do have some larger spines with relatively few barbs that are similar to yours, but I don't have any good photos at the moment. I did find these in a thread by 'Texas Fossil Hound': http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/35668-texas-pennsylvanian-roundup/ Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Hi, Is there several species of Archaeocidaris ? I have a part of an Archaeocidaris brownwoodensis from Pennsylvanian age, and the spines have very tight "denticles" on each side. On your photo, I don't see these small spines on what would be big spines. See here what I say : http://www.google.fr/imgres?q=Archaeocidaris+brownwoodensis&um=1&sa=N&hl=fr&rlz=1T4GGNI_frFR526FR527&biw=1280&bih=598&tbm=isch&tbnid=HyUXJQqy0q3RHM:&imgrefurl=http://www.jagvives.jazztel.es/fichas/archaeocidaris.htm&docid=ngY74M7lsTPbMM&imgurl=http://www.jagvives.jazztel.es/fotos/Archaeocidaris%252520brownwoodensis.jpg&w=850&h=638&ei=QwexUbXSJPTc4QTnzYDQAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=686&vpy=290&dur=1526&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=133.20001220703125&ty=140.4000244140625&page=1&tbnh=130&tbnw=188&start=0&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:22,s:0,i:153 Coco ---------------------- OUTIL POUR MESURER VOS FOSSILES : ici Ma bibliothèque PDF 1 (Poissons et sélaciens récents & fossiles) : ici Ma bibliothèque PDF 2 (Animaux vivants - sans poissons ni sélaciens) : ici Mâchoires sélaciennes récentes : ici Hétérodontiques et sélaciens : ici Oeufs sélaciens récents : ici Otolithes de poissons récents ! ici Un Greg... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 (edited) Is there several species of Archaeocidaris ? In my immediate vicinity, at least, there appears to be two 'types': 1. Smaller spines with many barbs, and 2. Larger spines with few barbs. Both are present in Texas Fossil Hound's photo. I assume they are two different species, but there is the chance that the barbs were reduced in number as the animal grew. Edited June 6, 2013 by Missourian Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilForKids Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Here are some spins from that general area urchin spines.bmp If only my teeth are so prized a million years from now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 I haven't collected Archaeocidaris myself, so I'm not really familiar with the spines. I assumed the "twigs" were worn bryozoans, but if they are absolutely smooth with no indication of "pores" perhaps they are Archaeocidaris spines. Don't exclude the possibility on my account. Did you get to visit southern AZ? I moved from Vancouver to Tucson, wow was that ever a change! I did grow to love the desert, but it took a while after being used to the Pacific Northwest temperate rain forest. Plus, in AZ the mountains are upside down: bare on the bottom, and forested on top. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssuntok Posted June 7, 2013 Author Share Posted June 7, 2013 I haven't collected Archaeocidaris myself, so I'm not really familiar with the spines. I assumed the "twigs" were worn bryozoans, but if they are absolutely smooth with no indication of "pores" perhaps they are Archaeocidaris spines. Don't exclude the possibility on my account. Did you get to visit southern AZ? I moved from Vancouver to Tucson, wow was that ever a change! I did grow to love the desert, but it took a while after being used to the Pacific Northwest temperate rain forest. Plus, in AZ the mountains are upside down: bare on the bottom, and forested on top. Don Hey Don, being from Vancouver Island, I can relate - the move to the desert would be a pretty extreme change I didn't get to visit anywhere else in AZ - was travelling with family and little kids, and only 1 rental vehicle. I couldn't go off on my own with the vehicle, other than the 1 day I managed to get out and do a couple hours of fossiling. I'd love to go back though - I had a list of about a dozen promising sites to check out, and it killed me to be so close to them and not able to actually go. Steve Suntok 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