Alien Found In Florida

[Lori LuvsFossils]

What the heck? Anyone else find anything like this? I found it Monday in some of my matrix. The scale is mm. I've been focusing on crabs, but I can't find a match. The majority of my material comes from the Peace river area, but this little guy lived further north. A fellow hunter told me this material came from Citrus County, Florida.

[Al Dente]

It looks like insect cuticle.

[Indy]

Fossil of the Month ??

[Auspex]

It looks like insect cuticle.

Yeah, something like part of a dragonfly's 'face'?

[Lori LuvsFossils]

I tried researching insects. I can't find good resources.

I also thought it looked like a face. I was commenting about the eyes (on another site). I was then informed that the eyes wouldn't fossilize. I asked about Trilobites and the way their eyes look. I guess Florida isn't old enough to have fossils with preserved eyes (?). I suppose it could be "body armor", but it sure looks like a face to me!

Thanks Indy! It might be the first "Whats-it" to make the list. Hahaha

[painshill]

Yeah, something like part of a dragonfly's 'face'?

I think Auspex is on the money.

It seems to have a similar morphology to the mentum (the distal part of the extendable mask-like labium) in some dragonfly and damselfly nymphs.

Here’s a sketch of the mouthparts of an Anisopteran “spiketail” from the family Cordulegastridae (note the characteristic shape of the ligula) for comparison:

[pic from “Identification Keys to Northeastern Anisoptera Larvae” by Ken Soltesz]

The striations drawn on the mentum in that pic represent the mental setae (bristles) and I think that they may be present as a pair of thick bristles in some species which would be attached where the two eye-like depressions are present in your specimen. Some species have a central ridge too - as in your specimen.

Edited July 5, 2013 by painshill

[Lori LuvsFossils]

Great information Painshill !!!!! Thank you!

[Doctor Mud]

Hi Lori,

Thought I would continue on this thread so other members who probably know the site can chime in.

I methioned that I think it looks like insect cuticle (like Al Dente said) and to me looks like a beetle prothorax. The view would be ventral (from underneath). The "eyes" look like the bits where the front legs would attach.

Any chance of a photo with a view from different angles?

I was checking whther this is the sort of site where you would get preservation of such material and Lori said this was a river bottom find. I'm guessing this is the sort of site where you get multiple sources from different rock units representing different time periods.

It's a dead ringer for a prothorax. These parts are not usually diagnostic to genus but I can pass on the contact details for someone who works on fossil beetles who may be able to help you - you never know!

Does it seem like the fossil is mineralised at all? If you gently touch the fossil is it pliable - does it bend? Coming from a river bed there is the chance that this is modern, or recent (Quaternary - last few million years). But may still be older.

Cool find!

[painshill]

It does indeed also resemble the prosternum from a beetle. Initially I had a flick through Usinger's "Aquatic insects of California" (yes I know the find was from Florida) hoping to see something similar, but - apart from the general shape - I didn't see anything which has that distinctive ligula. I was only looking at modern species for a steer on the morphology. I stopped looking when I saw ligulae like that on some dragonfly nymph menta of similar shape and then switched to literature on Anisopterans.

I you have access to an expert on Coleoptera then it would be great to know if he/she can pin it down to something more specific.

[Doctor Mud]

No problem. I sent the existing images to an expert in New Zealand, who will confirm it is a rare species from the Neolithic....sorry couldn't resist referring to another controversial thread on TFF

....anyway I did actually send the images to an expert I know in New Zealand who works with fossil beetles to get her first impression of what this thing is and whether or not it is diagnostic to genus.

I'll keep you posted.

[ckmerlin]

This is a very interesting thread and a very interesting find Im looking forward to hearing what the expert has to say

[Lori LuvsFossils]

By adding 2 more light sources and changing the background color I FINALLY got some better pictures. Sorry for the delay!

The first 2 images are from what I am calling the back side.

The last 2 are the same side I showed you earlier, but you can now see the "horns in the eyes". They don't (or don't seem to) have a hole anywhere.

This thing just gets cooler / creepier every time I look at it.

THANK YOU TO EVERYONE taking an interest in this piece.

Oh, as far as how flexible it is....it isn't. I'm afraid of breaking it, however, so I'm pushing on it, but not with great force. I know color can't be used as an age indicator, but the fossils from this area tend to be darker while the more modern pieces are lighter. Probably not the brightest statement on my part since many beetles are black. I also screen through water so the fossils sink and the junk floats. That isn't always fail proof either.

[mikecable]

It's a baby gremlin.

Nice find.

[Lori LuvsFossils]

Thanks Mike! I'm really loving this little guy (or piece thereof).

You know, the mother ship will probably be coming for this soon. LOL

[mikecable]

Thanks Mike! I'm really loving this little guy (or piece thereof).

You know, the mother ship will probably be coming for this soon. LOL

The mother ship may be coming for you as well.

[Lori LuvsFossils]

Hahaha, It's been nice knowing you! I'll send some sort of signal from beyond.

[lissa318]

LOL! Can't wait to find out what it is! Wonder if where you are going has internet?!?!

[painshill]

Interesting. Those "sockets" are now very clearly for appendages that are more substantial than bristles. Still potentially a mentum from the mouthparts, but those sockets would then have to be for a pair of palps and I would then also doubt that it's from an Anisopteran. If the sockets are for legs and it's from a beetle, then it would have to be a prosternum (the anterior ventral plate). I'm still inclined to think it's a mentum, based on the unusual ligula but I really don't know from what.

[Herb]

It's obviously a baby transformer mask

[Lori LuvsFossils]

Lissa, Our spaceship moves faster than the internet. I'll just zip back and forth as needed.

Good one Herb!

Ok Painshill, I had to look up a couple of those words. Mentum (chin), Anesopteran (dragonfly). Although everyone on this site is smarter than me, I've been stuck on it being a head......HOWEVER, now that you mention that it could be the rear, I see that too. So you think it's possible we are looking at the belly side of the bug, far rear and the "horns in the eyes" could be the start of tiny little legs?? I'm just trying to keep up. THX

[painshill]

Lissa, Our spaceship moves faster than the internet. I'll just zip back and forth as needed.

Good one Herb!

Ok Painshill, I had to look up a couple of those words. Mentum (chin), Anesopteran (dragonfly). Although everyone on this site is smarter than me, I've been stuck on it being a head......HOWEVER, now that you mention that it could be the rear, I see that too. So you think it's possible we are looking at the belly side of the bug, far rear and the "horns in the eyes" could be the start of tiny little legs?? I'm just trying to keep up. THX

Sorry Lori... I'm always torn between using the right scientific terms or the simple ones that are more easily understood. Yes, you've got it, except that if its from the belly of a bug, it's from the front (anterior) end and the appendages you see could be the first segments of the front pair of legs. If it's a mentum then it's one portion of the mouthparts of an arthropod and the appendages could be the stump of the mouthpart structures called palps/mandibles. There's then a wider set of possibilities for which arthropod we might be talking about (and probably not a dragonfly nymph). The junior stage of the dragonfly is known as a larva or nymph and those live in the water until they are ready to become flying insects.

[Lori LuvsFossils]

Thank you so much! All of that makes sense to me now.

[Doctor Mud]

Hi guys,

I sent the original images to Maureen Marra who is a paleo entomologist - specialising in fossil beetles. She is currently based at the University of Waikato in New Zealand.

Here's what she said:

"The fossil does not look Miocene – but it does look like the epicuticle is missing as you would expect in a fossil. What is the surrounding rock? Hard? Soft?

It’s a beetle prosternum. It’s not carabid because the procoxal cavities are closed. It does not look like an aquatic species - but it may have been washed in. Looks weevil to me. Sorry –ventral elements are not usually much help for identification"

I've attached a diagram of the underside of a beetle (above). PS = pro-sternum

And this is the underside of a weevil (above) showing the pro-sternum and the areas where the legs attach

Because this is material that wasn't found in situ - i.e. you didn't remove it yourself from the surrounding matrix. We have to guess as to how old it is based on the preservation. Maureen is saying that the epicuticle (the thin outer waxy layer of the beetle exoskeleton) is missing - so this beetle bit has been around for enough time for this to be removed. But the preservation is too good for Miocene.

So the best guess is somewhere in between Miocene and recent (Geologically recent). I work with fossil insects (in lake and bog sediments) as well but I specialise in aquatic insects - mostly midge larvae. But - I do come across beetle material all the time. It is possible for material preserved like your beetle bit to be thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years old. As long as the source sediments haven't undergone serious diagenesis - which is alteration due to heat, pressure or mineralisation. I can't remember where you said this is from. Did you say near Florida? Is it possible that this has been reworked from Pleistocene deposits? You should have preservation of lake and bog sediments there for many thousands of years because the ice sheet didn't make it that far south during the last glacial.

To give you an idea of insect preservation in older sediments and why Maureen might think this doesn't look to be Miocene, I've attached an image of an Oligocene weevil fossil from Germany.

So - in summary. Looks like weevil (Curculionoidea) pro-sternum. Age unknown - possibly as old as Pleistocene. Do you get Pleistocene mammal fossils there?

Edited July 9, 2013 by Doctor Mud

[Doctor Mud]

HI guys,

So I looked up some info on the Peace River and found this information (below from http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/vertpaleo/peaceriver3A.htm) about one of the localities that includes Pleistocene mammal fossils.

The preservation of your weevil makes late Pleistocene (20,000 - 11,000 years ago) a distinct possibility. I can't be 100% sure but lets say it looks pretty good for a late Pleistocene weevil fossil!

This little guy could have been crawling around during the last ice age and trying not to get stomped on by the Pleistocene megafauna.

See the comments on re-working. The Peace River is doing a lot of the work for us and essentially mining Miocene to Pleistocene deposits. Takes away a lot of the work for us but adds in an element of guess work as to the age of th fossil, unless it is a plant or animal that is known to have lived in a distinct period of time.

Location: in channel of Peace River about 1 mile northwest of Nocatee, DeSoto County, Florida; 27.2° N, 81.9° W.

Age: late Pleistocene Epoch; Rancholabrean Land Mammal Age. About 11,000 to 20,000 years old (estimated).

Basis of Age: vertebrate biochronology (presence of Bison antiquus, Canis dirus, Tremarctos floridanus, and Glyptotherium floridanum indicates a Rancholabrean age). Attempts to radiocarbon date the fossils failed due to lack of preserved collagen (this is often the case for Florida river fossils).

Geology: fossils derive from an unnamed deposit of alternating layers of gravel and sand. Entire deposit is about 150 feet (50 meters) long, 21 feet (7 meters) wide, and 4 feet (1.3 meters) thick. The top of the deposit is about 10 feet (3.3 meters) below the surface of the river. The Peace River 3A deposit rests on top of the eroded surface of the Peace River Formation, and contains reworked phosphate pebbles and Miocene fossils from the Peace River Formation.

Depositional Environment: river channel/alluvial.

Excavation History and Methods: Discovered by Andreas Kerner in 2000; excavated by Andreas Kerner, L. Jefferson-Kerner and R. Sinibaldi from 2000 to 2007. Representative specimens of all species recovered donated to the Florida Museum of Natural History. Matrix not screenwashed for microfossils. No grid system employed.

Comments: Although fossil vertebrates have been collected from the bed and banks of the Peace River since the late 1800s, most specimens derive from the surface or modern deposits and are a mix of Miocene, Pleistocene, historic, and modern ages. The Peace River 3A is one of the few Peace River sites collected from an in place Pleistocene deposit. Although it does contain a few reworked Miocene fossils, most notably a tooth of the three-toed horse Neohipparion trampasense, these are not likely to be mixed up with the Pleistocene fauna. Significant finds include one of the few very late Pleistocene records in Florida of the giant ground sloth (Eremotherium laurillardi) and the best known fossil example of the collared peccary (Pecari sp.) from the United States (Hulbert et al., 2009). Note that the locatity was orignally thought to lie within the section of the Peace River designated by the Florida Museum as Peace River 5, and was called the Peace River 5A locality in Hulbert et al. (2009). Consulations with the collector later determined that the site was actually within the Peace River 3 zone, so its name was changed to Peace River 3A.

[painshill]

Thanks Doctor Mud

... now we know!