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

[dragonsfly]

Thanks for adding that info . Looking forward to the concretion photos.

Edited July 13, 2013 by dragonsfly

[hitekmastr]

Site UPDATE and - Considering the Rocks, Strata and Concretions

I am currently discussing a return visit to the site to do some followup, hopefully in the next 2 weeks. In the meantime, I'm working with what we have to continue the analysis and address some of the many questions that were raised by our finds.

I have my own opinion at this point, obviously, and it may differ from some people and agree with others. I've received input from experts on Devonian trees, who provided very helpful comments that are both strongly supportive that this is a new location for Wattieza which is the oldest known Devonian tree...and one expert who remains a bit skeptical. A few people continue to argue that these are simply geological concretions although most of the concretion theorists are not experts on Devonian trees and plants. There is growing consensus that the strata is different from the surrounding marine and fossil formations which argues in favor of an environment that could have supported these kinds of Wattieza shoots. One authority in the field has reminded me that if there are shoots, it is quite possible that somewhere in the formation there could be more mature tree stumps. The problem is that the site is disappearing due to construction which is carving into the strata and removing it to be dumped elsewhere.

In terms of identification and species - I personally believe that these are mangal shoots in a shallow marine environment which was an anomaly among the other marine deposits which are associated with this particular location. Fossils found in the other strata and surrounding area are more "traditional" Devonian marine fossils which we and others have collected previously. However, in this particular location that was revealed by construction work, the rock in the strata appears to be a different color and consistency than the layers above and below, there is little or no marine life associated closely with these "mangal" shoots (I'll call them "mangal shoots" for now). The layers above include a layer of shale and also "Tully limestone" and there is a large (several meters deep) strata directly below this strata that consists of very hard bluish-purple shale with orange highlights with virtually no marine life in that strata rock.

In my previous post I mentioned that I had collected two oval disk shaped concretions that contained smaller "hash" assemblages of marine life. The centimeter ruler is provided to show the scale - note that most of these fossils are tiny compared to marine fossils found in other strata in the vicinity, and in the formation going several hundred meters away in all directions which tend to be "fossil rich" formations. Concretion 1 opened cleanly into two halves which is shown below. Concretion 2 was more brittle and fragmented into several pieces which is also shown below. These were NOT found in exactly the same formation or strata as the "tree/shoot fossils" but were found in the vicinity and may offer some additional insights concerning other concretions observed in the surrounding strata:

CONCRETION 1

Concretion 1a

Concretion 1b Internal View

Concretion 1c - Internal View

CONCRETION 2

Concretion 2a - Outside

Concretion 2b - Internal View

Concretion 2c - Internal View

Concretion 2d - Internal View

Concretion 2e - Internal View

Concretion 2f - Internal Closeup - This is the largest fossil found in the two concretions

Edited July 14, 2013 by hitekmastr

[hitekmastr]

Here is a photo of one of the fossils after collection - not processed or prepped/cleaned yet - may provide more details/clues:

[dragonsfly]

Are you sure this isn't one of M.C. Esher's early ceramic pieces?? the right hand side has a floral, almost sea cucumber look to it. Is that the natural edge of the fossil? John

Edited July 14, 2013 by dragonsfly

[lissa318]

Well. I don't know what to say! The concretions are fabulous!!! Looking forward to following this journey of yours!

[hitekmastr]

Are you sure this isn't one of M.C. Esher's early ceramic pieces?? the right hand side has a floral, almost sea cucumber look to it. Is that the natural edge of the fossil? John

There is something artistic in all fossils, that's for sure. I'm writing a book on nanotechnology and in my book I mention that a famous pioneer in structural DNA solved a 10 year problem when he saw a woodcut (fish) by Escher! Actually, I think the far right spherical piece might be reversed in this photo - I think the tip of that end piece is facing left. I'll reorder and match up the pieces when I clean and process them.

When we first discovered these I thought we might have found a soft tissue creature such as a sea cucumber or sea squirt, but now the consensus seems to be that these are mangal tree shoots. I will try to get some better images of the "skin" or "bark" to show the texture.

[Herb]

Nice thread, Michael.

[dragonsfly]

There is something artistic in all fossils, that's for sure. I'm writing a book on nanotechnology and in my book I mention that a famous pioneer in structural DNA solved a 10 year problem when he saw a woodcut (fish) by Escher! Actually, I think the far right spherical piece might be reversed in this photo - I think the tip of that end piece is facing left. I'll reorder and match up the pieces when I clean and process them.

When we first discovered these I thought we might have found a soft tissue creature such as a sea cucumber or sea squirt, but now the consensus seems to be that these are mangal tree shoots. I will try to get some better images of the "skin" or "bark" to show the texture.

Lookinhg forward to it.

[hitekmastr]

Nice thread, Michael.

Thanks, Herb - wanted to find something significant this year esp. since we didn't have many chances to get out on site visits, so this was a pleasant surprise. The response to the thread has been extremely gratifying. Next steps include: 1) examining the fossils in more detail to see what might be revealed from closer inspection, and 2) a return visit to the site which hopefully hasn't been hauled away (!).

[hitekmastr]

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!

Scott - You were absolutely right about these being Devonian trees - if you can consider what at this point looks like mangal (mangrove-type) shoots. The intriguing thing that your professor contact mentioned to me is that if there are shoots this size, there may be larger sized tree stumps somewhere in the formation which would be really interesting!

Edited July 15, 2013 by hitekmastr

[hitekmastr]

UPDATE - CLOSEUP PHOTOS

Here are some images of a base piece of one of the 3 Devonian tree shoot fossils. These are closeups of the base piece from the second photo pictured in my original post. These are images after cleaning one of the tree segments - the top and bottom end views show the stele in the center. These images are all the base (lowest) piece of Fossil 2a - the second fossil shown in situ in the photos above. There is also a root or shoot coming off at the bottom - at first I thought the extra extended piece was part of the substrate but when I removed a fragment covering the extension (see image), I found that the protruding section appears to be a horizontal root or branch, which also seems to have a stele in the center. Also, I found a section that captured the impression of the outer covering, which seems to show vertical grooves.

Closeups of the Bottom (Base) Section of Devonian Tree Shoot Fossil 2

Top End of the Main Stem showing stele and thickness of outer covering

Bottom End of the Main Stem

End View of the horizontal root or branch

Closeup showing the texture of the outer surface

[Auspex]

This may be an important Mid-Devonian plant puzzle piece!

[AgrilusHunter]

Good stuff Michael! Not much room for doubt after that last image. Congrats!

Edited August 3, 2013 by AgrilusHunter

[piranha]

Excellent photos.... Congrats!

[hitekmastr]

Still not sure what these are and maybe our Devonian tree experts will weigh in as I clean up and display additional pieces. Is this Wattieza which was found in Gilboa, or something else? There doesn't seem to be much written about what may have been very ancient mangrove trees, but it sort of stands to reason that the first trees were marine or semi-marine, with mangal morphology and habits. Here are some questions that beg to be answered:

1. Why are these the same approximate size and shape?

2. Are these emergent shoots of ancient mangrove type trees which were larger - in which case larger specimens are needed to confirm? Or are they more like ancient fern trees? One expert suggests that the roots and stems were "tangled" but probably not exactly like mangroves or what we would call "mangal" so more verification is needed.

3. Are there traces of small round off-shoots which would either be rootlets or branch stems (something I'll be looking for in the other samples)?

4. Was there a separate layer of "bark"? Is the "skin" which is shown in this piece the outer covering as it existed in the young tree shoot, or is it an inner lining that survived after the outer bark was destroyed. (If there was a separate bark, then I would think that at least one of the 3 specimens would have at least a fragment in the substrate or attached).

5. One Devonian tree specialist doubted there would be a stele and another said he would expect a stele to exist, especially in a young shoot which needs it to distribute moisture and nutrients.

6. Why are they all cracked and segmented at approximately the same distances? Was the tree segmented in some way that isn't apparent, or did they just crack like this do to the geology?

7. Are there larger specimens such as large stumps, branches? Leaves? Better trunk patterns? A very important consideration is whether these shoots grew into larger forms, or were they submerged or dried out at this size although without larger parents there probably couldn't be these small guys.

These are a few questions. I would like to invite anyone reading this thread to offer additional questions you would like answered and I'll add them to my list - maybe some of these can be answered from closer inspection of the other samples, from future samples, or from the Devonian tree experts at universities who have been nice enough to offer their opinions off line.

Not sure where this is leading but our three small discoveries seem to have opened a door. My main question is, are these samples of Wattieza or a known Devonian mangal tree, in which case this would be a newly discovered site for that species - or - is it something new that provides more insight on Devonian trees that seem to resemble mangrove trees in habitat and form.

Planning to return to the site in the next 2 weeks.

Edited August 5, 2013 by hitekmastr

[hitekmastr]

UPDATE - RETURN VISIT to DEVONIAN TREE SITE

We did manage to arrange a return visit to the Devonian tree site. Access is restricted but we were able to spend a day there and the original site was exactly as we left it. We just returned this evening - these photos document one of the goals for our site visit - to find evidence of branches or roots coming off of the central core.

The first photo shows a dark red colored core with an adjacent "stick." Most of the cores are dark red in color. Most are also surrounded by grey shale adjacent to or covering the fossil - although the strata is otherwise limestone. This may suggest that these small ancient tree shoots were either growing in exposed mud in a shallow marine environment, or were buried and preserved by mud.

The first photos show a dark red core similar to the samples we collected on our first trip, with a small adjacent stick (is this a branch or root?). This is the first "stick" we found that was associated with these tree fossils. It is possible that the stick is not part of the tree but part of a plant that grew in association with these trees (see below).

A Devonian Plant (not tree)

These photos (below) show a plant stem with a fairly long branch in-situ. The thin offshoot (branch) is coming horizontally from the central core - all yellow-orange colored. The vertical and horizontal pieces were VERY fragile and crumbly although they were mostly recovered. This was an exciting discovery since the pieces are connected and clearly part of the same plant. The vertical main stem is much thinner than the tube shaped Wattieza tree shoots/stumps we found. You can see the relative size from the tip of my rock hammer at the far right.

I'll post more photos as I have time to clean, prep and photograph them - but I thought that given the interest in this topic, you might want to see some of these right away.

We did collect other tree samples - all the same approximate size and shape as the first fossils so all of these are uniform. I thought we might find a large "parent tree" but all of these appear to be the same size. We also thought there might be more root structures but most of the roots are broken off near the core although the roots seem to be pretty thick and not too fragile at least near the core. I wonder how old these tree shoots might be. Given that they all seem to have grown to approximately the same height and diameter, they all seem to have died and been fossilized, freezing them in time. Although I didn't find larger pieces in situ, Nan did find a cylinder shaped piece that was a few inches in diameter which would have made that the largest of the group if we had found the full fossil for that cylinder.

I looked very hard for anything that would resemble a bark or plant covering pattern - there are some associated rocks with patterns and these may be the surface covering. Also I looked for anything that might resemble a leaf but didn't see anything in situ. Examining the rocks in more detail, and cleaning them, may yield something.

Edited August 13, 2013 by hitekmastr

[Plantguy]

Interesting additional photos and you've posed lots of interesting questions. I wish I had something concrete to offer here. Hoping those with Devonian expertise either here or thru the outside professional ranks can assist you further. Thanks for showing us your progress. Regards, Chris

[hitekmastr]

UPDATE! - Since posting the first photos from our second trip to the Devonian tree site (see above) - it appears that that we have found a plant species in addition to the Wattieza tree shoots!

One of my sources has indicated that the two lower photos are a separate plant species, not a tree. These show a vertical yellow plant stem with a long thinner stem branching running to the right side (there are possibly other branches coming off the main stem lower down.

My source also suggests that there may be a trace fossil showing microbial action.

Fortunately, I collected several horizontal shale plates from the surrounding substrate which had interesting patterns and I'll be cleaning, processing/categorizing and photographing them in the coming week.

From our SECOND trip to the site we collected a few more vertical tree shoots (mini stumps) that we found in situ, plus one dessicated but identiable plant stem with one or more shoots coming off the stem, and a third species still being evaluated. We also found a few more cylindrical pieces of tree shoots/stumps which were separate, lying on the ground.

STAY TUNED...more to come...personally I can't wait to see what is revealed when I clean and take closeups of all the tree and plant fossils from this trip.

Edited August 13, 2013 by hitekmastr

[PaleoTerra]

Just a couple cents on the matter. It may seem bizzare to imagine orthocones being preserved in a vertical position relative to the strata, but indeed, I have collected large, vertical standing Calamites specimens from strata very similar to this. So vertical, multi-layered preservation is not impossible. It would seem to me that when this gas filled, cone shaped cephalopod died, it's heavy, body filled chamber and lighter, gas filled shell would keep it oriented vertically. Just as Nuatilus floats in the seas today when it dies, I can see them dying en mass for whatever reason, then there shells bobbing vertically in the water until either they were broken by carrion feeders and/or smashing upon rocks, or they found there way to calmer waters, say mudflats, where they could be mired in the soft sediment. Their gas filled spires forever pointing skyward. That being said, I do not see enough structure to suggest that those would be a siphuncle. Thus, their inconsistent, oblongly tapered profile, along with the minute striations, would certainly seem to suggest possible plant material. Were there any other fossils found in close proximity to these structures? As I would think that would be the most substantiating evidence to the matter... just my two cents and good luck

Edited August 14, 2013 by PaleoTerra

[PaleoTerra]

Just a couple cents on the matter. It may seem bizzare to imagine orthocones being preserved in a vertical position relative to the strata, but indeed, I have collected large, vertical standing Calamites specimens from strata very similar to this. So vertical, multi-layered preservation is not impossible. It would seem to me that when this gas filled, cone shaped cephalopod died, it's heavy, body filled chamber and lighter, gas filled shell would keep it oriented vertically. Just as Nuatilus floats in the seas today when it dies, I can see them dying en mass for whatever reason, then there shells bobbing vertically in the water until either they were broken by carrion feeders and/or smashing upon rocks, or they found there way to calmer waters, say mudflats, where they could be mired in the soft sediment. Their gas filled spires forever pointing skyward. That being said, I do not see enough structure to suggest that those would be a siphuncle. Thus, their inconsistent, oblongly tapered profile, along with the minute striations, would certainly seem to suggest possible plant material. Were there any other fossils found in close proximity to these structures? As I would think that would be the most substantiating evidence to the matter... just my two cents and good luck

Lol, oops! Just noticed the last few updates...day late and a dollar short! I'm glad you shed some light on the identities! That's so awesome to be finding Devonian age plant material!!!

[hitekmastr]

UPDATED AUGUST 15 - SEE PHOTOS BELOW

PaleoTerra - Appreciate your comments and analysis...since these were found in a mostly marine strata/site, it did seem odd at first, that there could be a terrestrial island or very shallow marine environment where trees and plants could grow in the midst of the Tully Formation which is almost entirely marine ecosystems. Confirming features from our first trip included: 1) the stele in the center (not siphuncle as originally thought) which is a tree feature, at least in very young Devonian trees, 2) the grooves on the outside "bark" which suggests Devonian trees, and 3) the large branching roots at the base which show this to be a tree.

Our SECOND trip this month added half a dozen more tree shoots (I call them tree shoots - others call them stumps although they are not what we normally think of as larger spreading stumps - these are tubular in shape with the remains of roots at the bottom that are somewhat reminiscent of cypress tree roots). Some of the shoots are "clumped" with small bulbous trunks. While these are in a limestone strata, many of the fossils are surrounded by grey shale indicating they were either growing in mud or engulfed by mud. My current thinking is that there was a shallow mud layer on raised land where these trees and plants grew, but this was flooded and the tree stumps/shoots/plants were engulfed by silt or mud and fossilized here. There isn't a "mud layer" because most of the mud was presumably washed away by flooding. I believe this is consistent with how the forest of Wattieza trees was preserved at the famous "oldest tree" site at Gilboa, NY. Just my own personal theory.

By the way, our site is more than 100 miles away from the Gilboa site in an area that would not normally be expected to have terrestrial Devonian trees and plants - one of the benefits of being an "advanced amateur" and not getting locked into conventional thinking or getting hung up on geological formations. We are talking about formations that represent millions of years - so a period of flooding and drying could easily create a tree and plant friendly environment which is what we discovered

Most of the Wattieza tree stump fossils that we have found are dark red in color (red shale?); one large specimen is mineralized completely as grey shale; some are light grey limestone. I just finished cleaning and photographing our finds and we now have a total of more than 13 separate fossil Wattieza tree stumps including some trunk sections (which look like cylinders) found separately. I am currently processing the plant species we found - which is pictured above "in situ."

I wrapped all finds in tin foil and sometimes also paper towels because they come apart in cylindrical segments and if they get separated, you have to put them back together like a 3 dimensional puzzle. Photographing them involves taking apart the "puzzles" to photograph each segment from all sides, then reassembling them and sometimes I have to use a photo to figure out how to put them back together!

Here is one example of a Devonian tree stump "puzzle":

The section with the plant is going to be tricky to preserve since some of it crumbled when removed although I was able to capture key parts and substrate. I think that it will be difficult to identify the plant from the fossil and more examples might be needed to do a proper species identification.

Apparently, our find represents a rare discovery of an entirely new "terrestrial" site in central New York. I am currently cleaning, photographing, labeling and organizing our finds from our first two trips. The next step will be to show our actual specimens to a Devonian tree expert for confirmation. At some point I would like to do a short article describing our find, with photos - however, that is at least a year in the future since there is more to study and hopefully more site visits although we're limited to a day at a time by special permission since access is restricted. The most intriguing discovery at our recent visit was the discovery of plants that are not trees - and also, trace fossils showing microbial activity. I'll post a more photos soon.

Edited August 15, 2013 by hitekmastr

[lissa318]

Awesome. This is exciting!!!!

[hitekmastr]

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.

The placement and location in the substrate, plus closer examination and comments by Wattieza tree experts I've consulted tend to confirm that these were mangal shoots - similar to mangrove shoots - that apparently grew about a foot or so in length during a period when the Devonian shoreline receded enough to allow these to grow. However, they all stopped growing at approximately the same height so some event must have buried or otherwise preserved them. It was amazing that we found them in situ, vertically in the rock exactly where they grew, and died. I also found one branching vine like plant with a central stem and long branching horizontal stems although this was too crumbly to preserve although I did collect some pieces of the plant including some that extend through small flat sheets of shale. Finding Devonian mangal tree shoots and plants is a goal that I've had since I started collecting fossils. We haven't been able to get back to this site which has some access restrictions. We were lucky to get permission to collect these but a longer, deeper diving study has not been possible so far.

[hitekmastr]

In pic 3 of your group of 4 I see a concretion in the upper left corner. So concretions are abundant in that shale? I have found many cigar-shaped concretions in Devonian shale often devoid of fossils OR forming over something as minute as a crinoid stem or burrow of some sort. Could this be the case here? That only the inner "tube" is fossil? I don't see any detail on the outer surface...or am I missing something?

The telling feature that discounts the possibility of concretions or burrows or whatever is that each of these structures has root structures at the bottom. Some of them look like miniature roots you might find in cypress trees. They are distinctly root like.

[Herb]

These are very cool Michael! Great find! Finding vertical tree trunks/roots is fairly common, I have found Calymites stumps vertical over 6' long. In the coal areas of Ohio whole forests were found. ( Fossils of Ohio). They are probably split in the same areas due to shifts in the strata after fossilization.