Orthocone Cephalopod Or Ancient Devonian Tree? (Tully, Ny)

[hitekmastr]

UPDATE: August 20, 2013 - A new site for Wattieza - the world's oldest known tree

Since posting this, the debate about "orthocone" versus "Devonian tree" has been settled. The Devonian tree experts have weighed in and confirm that these are Devonian tree shoots. They were growing in a swampy shallow marine environment similar to how modern mangroves grow. Since our original discovery - which represents an entirely and previously unknown site for Devonian Wattieza trees - my wife and I have collected more than a dozen separate fossils including some with surrounding substrate, from this site.

I have cleaned most of the specimens and am taking closeup photos from all perspectives, now, to show such things as the central tube (called a stele) that runs through the core and the texture of the outer covering. In addition to Wattieza we have also discovered a separate Devonian plant species which we are attempting to evaluate and identify.

Here is a photo from our SECOND site visit that shows the actual small Wattieza stump fossil that we collected, placed in front of a photo of the same fossil in the substrate as we found it. You can also see the adjacent "stick" which we currently believe is NOT part of the Wattieza stump - a separate closeup of the stick is included. We are currently looking at our several "stick" fossils and planning to cut one to look at the cross-section pattern, to try to determine the plant species.

We feel that these finds have the potential to add new information about Devonian trees and plants, from this new site. It is also significant that we found these in a Devonian site where there are normally only marine fossils so we appear to have found a rare "island" of ideal conditions where young mangal Wattieza trees were growing in a paleosol where the conditions allowed fossilization. Geologically, these fossils are at the lower end of the "Tully limestone" formation.

Our Devonian tree/plant finds confirm our thinking as "advanced amateur" paleontologists that as amateur fossil hunters we all can and should be using our time and knowledge to discover new sites and add to the fossil record. The small "army" of fossil hunters represented on The Fossil Forum have a unique opportunity to look in places where scientists may not have an opportunity - or inclination - to search. Once in awhile we discover something important, which seems to be the case here.

OUR ORIGINAL POST

Before I write our 4th of July trip report, I asked for some ID help with 3 tube shaped fossils we discovered at Tully, NY (Devonian, Hamilton Group) - the first opinion I received is that these are orthocone cephalopods. A contrary view is that these are Devonian trees! I modified the description slightly from the original post to reflect the current debate which has made this a "hot" topic. Have to admit, it's kind of cool that our first major fossil trip this year has sparked such an interesting discussion!

Nan and I found these in situ sitting vertically in the substrate of a new construction site. I had found a few very large (2 inch diameter) cylinder shaped segments in the rubble that looked like cephalopod pieces and they were the largest we have seen to-date, so we were intrigued and started pulling away the substrate in the vertical walls exposed by the bulldozer.

The first two fossils were found about a meter apart and the third was found about 300 meters away over a hill, but in the same level strata and depth. I'll do some minor cleaning, take better pix of the recovered fossils and segments, and add them soon - there appears to be a siphuncle structure running through the center, and other clues to the identity. Here is a quick view of how and where they were found - of course we realize it's very rare to find this type of fossil vertically embedded in the substrate.

Nan found the first one, I found the next two and excavated all three - will provide more photos soon but hoped to get an ID first. The third sample had about 2/3 with the bottom portion missing. The first two appear to spread out slightly at the bottom.

Several people suggested these could be trees and a few said other creatures but most people I talked to before posting this seem to agree they are orthocone cephalods. Aside from their size and shape (which is unusually large for the Tully shale so these are rare especially found in situ) - the primary convincing evidence is the siphon (siphuncle) protruding from the tip of the top of one of the specimens. This structure runs like a worm through the center - the other segments show holes in the center where the "wormlike body" ran through it. This argues against trees or other creatures but a few people claim that Devonian trees did have a similar center structure. The most confusing aspect is the lack of hard shell which should be present if this were a cephalopod - so what does that suggest? Another type of creature? Did they moult their shells and is this the "soft shelled" phase? Or is this a tree? Here is the top segment from the best specimen which clearly shows the siphuncle protruding at the center.

In addition to the segmented tube shaped structures (they are all about the same diameter and length) there appear to be tentacle shaped structures on the left side although I didn't recover those when I extracted the tubes. Of course if this is a tree, then it is possible that those structures could be shoots. The tentacles or shoots were not recovered and are only shown in the photo which unfortunately limits the analysis.

Here is how the debate seems to be shaping up:

Pro Orthocone Cephalopod - These 3 specimens were found in what appears to be a Devonian marine environment where all of the fossils found there have been marine fossils. They have a small center "worm like" structure running through the center that looks like a siphuncle (siphon). They are all segmented and all the same approximate length and diameter. One was partially collapsed and distorted (some segments bulging outward). No one has suggested a cephalopod species that this might represent.

Pro Devonian Tree - The horizontal strata where they were found contained very few if any marine fossils so they could be small young trees growing in the water. There is no trace of any shell fragments which is unusual if this is a cephalopod and the segments don't resemble cephalopod shells. There is a thin outer "skin" which could be consistent with ancient horsetail type bark. In the cross section of the segments, there are no concentric circles - in early trees there was pith, not traditional wood with concentric growth circles and some people have indicated that the first Devonian trees did have a similar center structure. The center core that looks like a siphuncle would be a core structure called a stele. Piranha suggests that this could be Wattieza sp., a prehistoric cladoxylopsid tree from the Middle Devonian that was discovered in Gilboa, New York which would be consistent with the location which was the Hamilton Group near Tully, NY. This genus has been called the earliest known trees.

One of our goals for this fossil trip was to find something larger and distinctive/unusual and apparently we've done that. Another goal we've had since last year was to find a Devonian plant of some sort and it would be cool if that's what this turns out to be. I'll be just as happy if these are orthocones. The debate is hot on the ID for these and with all the attention and help from everyone, we should zone in soon. I'll take some more closeup photos this week and post them here.

These are some of the largest fossils Nan and I have found so far and certainly the largest we have found in situ - it's fascinating that we found these exactly where they died and were preserved, 385 mya. I have to admit I felt like RomanK, who finds a lot of stunning in situ fossils and I have to admit, I was consciously trying to think like Roman and inspired by his example while searching for these fossils, which involved a lot of "excavation."

UPDATE: NEW PHOTOS/CLOSEUPS

At the end of this blog (page 3 and 4) I posted some new closeup images.

Edited August 20, 2013 by hitekmastr

[lissa318]

I hope you don't mind me asking but could they possibly be tree fossils? I know I've seen I situ pics where trees have fossilized like that and maybe the tentacles could be roots? Just a suggestion based on what I am familiar with-primarily carboniferous plants. Very cool you were able to retrieve them!!! Congrats and hope you get a confirmation on your ID for them!

[Auspex]

I think it would be very unusual to find critters fossilized in vertical orientation, crossing many bedding planes.

Burrows and standing tree trunks are all that come to my mind for that.

[hitekmastr]

TULLY NY - CEPHALOPOD - ORTHOCONE (?)

A paleo friend in the UK said he did his PhD on orthocone cephalopods and indicated he has seen these in the UK and Illinois. I think the telling feature is the siphon in the middle of the top piece of one of the tubes. The center siphuncle (?) is sticking out the top (cap) of one of the tubes and the second image shows as disarticulated piece. The second piece was found first - when I found this, I started looking for the rest of the cephalopod and Nan pulled away some of the shale from the vertical face of the formation.

I agree that finding three vertical cephalopods in situ is rare but that doesn't make it improbable.

I've noticed that when rare fossils are found there are always a few people who jump in and immediately shout "concretions." These are definitely not concretions. You can see the "skin" of the critter, the segment spacing is the same in all three specimens, I also found disarticulated pieces scattered around the site, and all three fossils were found at the same depth in the geological formation although one was found 300 yards away. Some of this is "circumstantial" but I think the morphology speaks for itself.

I have only started photographing the individual fossils and pieces but I think there is enough for a first level confirmation...interested in other opinions especially what species this might be and who may have found similar species in the Hamilton/Tully formations.

[hitekmastr]

I hope you don't mind me asking but could they possibly be tree fossils? I know I've seen I situ pics where trees have fossilized like that and maybe the tentacles could be roots? Just a suggestion based on what I am familiar with-primarily carboniferous plants. Very cool you were able to retrieve them!!! Congrats and hope you get a confirmation on your ID for them!

I'm always on the lookout for Devonian plants, trees, sticks, etc. - have a few Devonian sticks but nothing more that can be ID-ed. These cephalopods are from the shale below the Tully Limestone strata. I've never seen anything that looks like this and can't find much on the web so I went to the Paleontology facebook page and a UK paleo friend said he looked at orthocone cephalopods in Illinois and the UK as part of his Ph.D. project. A few people have tried to say these are just geological tubes or concretions because it's hard to believe there are such finely positioned fossils found in situ (in the formation).

Nan and I are beginning to find more fossils "in situ" which is basically, where they died - this is different from death assemblages where they are sort of jumbled up, or in a hash pile, which means they could have died any time and just collected there due to wave or wind action or from piling up over time. In the next day or two I'll post pictures of the trilobites we founds this weekend at Lake Cayuga - those trilos were scattered all through the shale (which was mud when they died) and we found them right where they died. I took a few photos showing them exactly as we found them. Here's one picture showing one of the trilobites - as you can see, the shale is very fragmented which made it tricky to extract them, but we succeeded in collecting quite a few:

Edited July 9, 2013 by hitekmastr

[erose]

I think it would be very unusual to find critters fossilized in vertical orientation, crossing many bedding planes.

Burrows and standing tree trunks are all that come to my mind for that.

Auspex, yes it does seem counter-intuitive but they are definitely orthocones and it is not unusual to find them like that in those Middle Devonian rocks of NY. We all have this idea of thin shales or mudstones being laid down slowly and quietly but apparently that was not always the case.

The other possibility is that the original shells were repositioned by bioturbation. Who knows what other critter may have been digging around and moved things from here to there?

Edited July 10, 2013 by erose

[Auspex]

Auspex, yes it does seem counter-intuitive but they are definitely orthocones and it is not unusual to find them like that in those Middle Devonian rocks of NY. We all have this idea of thin shales or mudstones being laid down slowly and quietly but apparently that was not always the case.

The other possibility is that the original shells were repositioned by bioturbation. Who knows what other critter may have been digging around and moved things from here to there?

I did not mean to imply that they could not be orthocones; just wondering how their positions in the strata came to be.

I'd think it would take a locally massive submarine landslide. Any sign of graded bedding or turbidity flow? Any signs of random orientation, or are the orthocones there only vertical? Something interesting happened here!

[lissa318]

I read quite awhile ago about a mass kill off out west where a layer of nautiloids were found positioned like that... Very interesting! I think those may have been imploded or something though? Will have to look it up again! Congrats on the finds!!! Very exciting!

[Roz]

Is there anyway you could take a really closeup shot of what might be tentacles?

[hitekmastr]

I did not mean to imply that they could not be orthocones; just wondering how their positions in the strata came to be.

I'd think it would take a locally massive submarine landslide. Any sign of graded bedding or turbidity flow? Any signs of random orientation, or are the orthocones there only vertical? Something interesting happened here!

You can see some of the surrounding strata in my post to the "Show us your orthocones" thread here on the Fossil Forum.

I should also clarify my remark about people rushing to say a find is geological, not a fossil. Actually, what happened is that I had posted the orthocone pix on another paleo site and a couple of people rushed immediately to judgment and tried to claim in several posts that these had to be concretions or geotubes because it was very doubtful that we could have found 3 of them sitting right in the substrate vertically like that - which was a "glass half empty" approach but I proved these are orthocones by showing the siphuncle and other close details. Actually, Auspex, your assessments of our finds during the past year have always been very objective and helpful and you have always gone out of your way to help us in many ways for which we are extremely appreciative.

[hitekmastr]

Is there anyway you could take a really closeup shot of what might be tentacles?

Unfortunately, I didn't take home the adjoining substrate because I didn't see the tentacle shaped items until I looked at the photo, so this photo is the only evidence I have. Most people seem to think they are not tentacles although if you look at the photo it looks like several parallel three dimensional strands, one of which has a small bulb at the end.

[erose]

I did not mean to imply that they could not be orthocones; just wondering how their positions in the strata came to be.

I'd think it would take a locally massive submarine landslide. Any sign of graded bedding or turbidity flow? Any signs of random orientation, or are the orthocones there only vertical? Something interesting happened here!

I understood exactly what you meant. I was perplexed by them as well when I first encountered specimens like that in the Mahantango (Middle Devonian) of NY as well as out at Portland Point in similar strata. The adjacent layers appear to fit evenly and smoothly right up against the tube shape. And I as well was sure they were ichno fossils or concretions until I looked closely. There are lots of things like this in the geological record that don't exactly match our ideas of how stuff gets preserved. For example I have many large Texas stein kerns with fossils attached. It implies that the stein kern was formed first and then the worms and oysters attached. All during some length of time on the bottom of the Cretaceous sea. Makes you wonder how much time passed between: years, decades, centuries? All are very tiny periods of time in the geological sense.

[piranha]

I wasn't convinced on orthocones because the casts are conjoined in photos 1a and 2a. If not tree casts the other possibility I considered was Prototaxites.

Here is the response just received from one of the UO paleobotany specialists:

These are tree casts alright, probably cladoxylalean (early fern releative) Wattieza (aka Eospermatopteris). It would be hard to distinguish Prototaxites in this kind of preservation, but generally Prototaxites has vertical ribs and prominent growth rugae.

[mikeymig]

I just call them concretions because that's what they are. I find bucket loads of them and the thin shale around them only "looks" like shell. To find tree trunks in life position within a marine environment is highly unlikely. I collect tree trunks and 3D plants from Upper Devonian formations here in NY and they are from very hard concretions. Shale tends to "squish" them and Orthocones that large from that formation and locality and in that position would be a first for me. Sorry, but I'm pretty sure what have there are concretions.

Mikey

[piranha]

I just call them concretions because that's what they are. I find bucket loads of them and the thin shale around them only "looks" like shell. To find tree trunks in life position within a marine environment is highly unlikely. I collect tree trunks and 3D plants from Upper Devonian formations here in NY and they are from very hard concretions. Shale tends to "squish" them and Orthocones that large from that formation and locality and in that position would be a first for me. Sorry, but I'm pretty sure what have there are concretions.

Mikey

The professor who provided the ID has authored a number of peer-reviewed papers on the Devonian tree floras of NY. Not a random shot in the dark!

[mikeymig]

Okay, well they dont look like other tree cast I have seen but Im no fossil plant expert so if they are tree cast then the next time I see them I will say "look at those tree cast. Now out of my way Im here for Trilobites?"

Mikey

[piranha]

Here is the citation for the most recent paper:

Retallack, G.J., & Huang, C. (2011)

Ecology and evolution of Devonian trees in New York, USA.

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 299(1):110-128

[hitekmastr]

I wasn't convinced on orthocones because the casts are conjoined in photos 1a and 2a. If not tree casts the other possibility I considered was Prototaxites.

Here is the response just received from one of the UO paleobotany specialists:

These are tree casts alright, probably cladoxylalean (early fern releative) Wattieza (aka Eospermatopteris). It would be hard to distinguish Prototaxites in this kind of preservation, but generally Prototaxites has vertical ribs and prominent growth rugae.

I think the siphon protruding from the top of one of the specimens confirms that it is an orthocone and there are no rings or other structural elements that would suggest a tree although of course it would be cool to have Devonian trees. I'm just beginning to prep and clean and photograph the individual pieces.

[hitekmastr]

Okay, well they dont look like other tree cast I have seen but Im no fossil plant expert so if they are tree cast then the next time I see them I will say "look at those tree cast. Now out of my way Im here for Trilobites?"

Mikey

Haha - if you're here for trilobites, check out my "trilobite city" post in the ID section...

[hitekmastr]

I just call them concretions because that's what they are. I find bucket loads of them and the thin shale around them only "looks" like shell. To find tree trunks in life position within a marine environment is highly unlikely. I collect tree trunks and 3D plants from Upper Devonian formations here in NY and they are from very hard concretions. Shale tends to "squish" them and Orthocones that large from that formation and locality and in that position would be a first for me. Sorry, but I'm pretty sure what have there are concretions.

Mikey

Concretions don't have siphuncles, sorry...

[hitekmastr]

The spirited debate over the ID is refreshing and cool.

[hitekmastr]

I wasn't convinced on orthocones because the casts are conjoined in photos 1a and 2a. If not tree casts the other possibility I considered was Prototaxites.

Here is the response just received from one of the UO paleobotany specialists:

These are tree casts alright, probably cladoxylalean (early fern releative) Wattieza (aka Eospermatopteris). It would be hard to distinguish Prototaxites in this kind of preservation, but generally Prototaxites has vertical ribs and prominent growth rugae.

Did you send him the images from my second post (above) showing the siphuncle? Or just the in situ photos? If you just look at the fossils in the substrate you could make a case for several different species including trees I guess but I think the center punch hole in the segments and the protruding siphon in the piece which is from the very top of one of the fossils, suggests orthocone or something similar.

[Auspex]

Paleozoic lycopods lacked growth rings, and had a 'pith' (which is commonly preserved even in casts) very similar in appearance to the purported siphuncle in your specimens. Again, this does not preclude yours of being orthocones, but it is another thesis that is consistent with the evidence.

[erose]

I just call them concretions because that's what they are. I find bucket loads of them and the thin shale around them only "looks" like shell. To find tree trunks in life position within a marine environment is highly unlikely. I collect tree trunks and 3D plants from Upper Devonian formations here in NY and they are from very hard concretions. Shale tends to "squish" them and Orthocones that large from that formation and locality and in that position would be a first for me. Sorry, but I'm pretty sure what have there are concretions.

Mikey

Ugh! I don't want to go out into the hot garage (101 in Austin right now) and dig them out. Pretty sure mine which are much smoother and distinct and show both the siphuncle and concave septal divisions. I would agree that these look rather concretion-like. Also, many concretions will form around an object or maybe a thin burrow which could easily be mistaken for a siphuncle. Give me a day to dig around in my Devonian material.

Edited July 10, 2013 by erose

[piranha]

Get ready to label them for the permanent archive as Wattieza sp. tree casts. Here is the answer just received on the mysterious protruding feature:

Yes it is the stele, so Wattieza and definitely not Prototaxites.

*stele: The central conducting cylinder in an axis; maybe a single cylinder or composed of two to several parts.