[Update #2] Northern-Spain Carboniferous Fossils - Several Years Worth!

[michaeldk]

[uPDATE 05 Okt. 2013 ]

Update #1 : Click here to go to the new images posting

Update #2 : Click here to go to the new images posting

Hi!

So. This is my second post, and I hope I read up well enough in the regulations & suggestions section to make it a good one. The title is a bit of a gig - although I've been steadily collecting fossils around here (Bierzo, Leon, Spain), it's nothing much spectacular probably. Besides that I'm the biggest possible amateur you can imagine I'm also extremely picky (tip missing - ditch it!. Cracked? Ditch it! Boring color? Ditch it! Low contrast? Ditch it!) and not to mention quite clumsy. Do not attempt to chop off interesting fossils from bigger shards of fragile stone when you are me. Really.

The last few years (I've started collecting roughly in 2004) I have started to hunt for new species, and have confined myself to 'beautiful' specimen (rare rock types, rare colors/shape etc) if it's a common type. So all in all I have two boxes and maybe a total of 80 stones, of which the majority is pebble-sized (I seem to like small ones for some reason..- they have amulet-like properties to me!). I will post about 25 of them here in several updates.

I guess my photography and design backgrounds mean I start to look at fossils more and more visually. To compensate for this I have been steadily reading up on carboniferous era fossils and in general, the landscape/climate back then. This and my great interest in evolution have helped to better understand what I am digging up / finding.

The below fossils (I will post further updates this week) are a number of samples that I find interesting (and often puzzling). With each I give my opinion on what it might be, but I figure that I'm going to be wrong the majority of times in my guesses (everything I find seems to be part of one or two species...root, trunk, leaf, branches, other leaves, more leaves! argh!). Help is much appreciated !

All fossils are exclusively from a 2x2km zone behind my house, on a little mountain not far from Bembibre, el Bierzo, Leon. Some are from the bottom of the mountain, some from the top. The height difference is +- 300 meters. Rock-types have been varying from dark, coal-like to yellow-white calcium rich materials. I know little of geology and have made as few notes to finding circumstances as is humanely possible. Sorry

[edit : Added geographical local map of my fossil locations ]

1) My absolute favorite - because I hope it's of non-plant origin. I've been on a quest to find something fauna-ish for almost a decade! Note the fine texture, which I have read might be bone related? *crosses fingers*

[edit] Likely Adelophthalmus asturica

2) Trunk or root of some sort. Different from my other trunk specimen which are clearly lepidodendrons. I guess this could be a more poorly conserved specimen that has lost it's distinct texture? Diameter is roughly 6.5-7.5cm.

3) I have only found shards of this fossil-type in almost a decade. This is a unique specimen to me, and I have no clue what it might be.

[edit] probably Asterophylliites equisetiformis

4) More trunk (Diameter : 6cm) What I have read this should be a cast of the central canal of a Calamite stem? (how does it form?)

[edit] probably Calamites cistii, internal cast of stem

05) I'm at a total loss on this one. I think I've seen similar imprints on black, coal-like stone with a glassy-oily look?

[edit] perhaps a lycophyte stem (compare Syringodendron)

6) I've started to like these high-contrast, cute little fossils more and more. Is this Sphenopteris? Is there further distinction?

[edit] probably Sphenophyllum, possibly Rhacopteris (Unlikely : Palmatopteris)

7) The bonus image. I am 99.9% sure this is *not* a fossil. But I am curious how it formed, what it might be ? Anyone?

Right. I hope people can enlighten me a little. I am going to make a website with all species I can manage to find around here, because I want to build as complete a database of the ' forest' type that existed here once as possible. I would love to learn more about what plant species or sub-species I am looking at, but also would be very thrilled to learn what *part* of a plant it comes from and/or how the fossilization influenced if worth noting?

Thank you very much. Trying to learn

Edited October 6, 2013 by michaeldk

[Indy]

michaeldk ... Welcome to the forum.

Congratulations on your photography and numbering the pictures

to help us with discussions.

I'm sure there are those here which will soon weigh in

to help with identifications.

[Fossildude19]

Hello, and welcome to the Forum.

You are finding some really cool things.

Your first item looks arthropod-ish to me.

Not sure if Eurypterids were still around in the Carboniferous, or if this is from something terrestrial, like Arthroploeura.

# 3 looks like some form of Asterophyllites, possibly something like Asterophylliites equisetiformis?

Your other fossils are very cool, as well.

Do you have any idea of what formation you are collecting in?

You might be able to find a faunal/floral list of what can be found in your area if you know the formation names.

And it's good to be picky when collecting - it saves on room for the collection.

Hope you get some more confident IDs.

Welcome again. Looking forward to seeing more of what you find.

Regards,

Edited October 3, 2013 by Fossildude19

[piranha]

Fossil number one looks like a eurypterid, I'd guess it might be Adelophthalmus asturica which is described from the Carboniferous (Westphalian) of Spain.

Congrats on a great assortment of fossil finds!

[Terry Dactyll]

Some great specimens there well done.... I'll second tims ID of 003 the Calamostachys.... In nodular form they rarely split well although I did get a couple that popped perfectly.... I think the limited surface area the fossil covers makes it difficult for it to form a consistent plane of weakness like you would get with a fern for example....

is 006 a Palmatopteris of some description?...

[Terry Dactyll]

004.... Yes its an internal cast of a calamites stem so they say.... Presumably the stem fractured allowing mud to get in and form the cast....it make more sense to me that a lower section of calamites was buried in a mud slide obviously flowing around the calamites stem... then the stem rots away effectively leaving a mold of the outside and then this fills with sediment over time producing the cast....

[Missourian]

#1 definitely is the eurypterid Adelophthalmus. You can tell by the abruptly constricting tail, which is characteristic of at least one species:

Congrats!

I hope you can pinpoint where the eurypterid came from, because there very well may be more -- possibly including other arthropod types.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Missourian

[Missourian]

I'm also extremely picky (tip missing - ditch it!. Cracked? Ditch it! Boring color? Ditch it! Low contrast? Ditch it!) and not to mention quite clumsy. Do not attempt to chop off interesting fossils from bigger shards of fragile stone when you are me. Really.

With fossils like these, be careful when being picky. The boring or imperfect fossils could end up being the real treasures.

[michaeldk]

Thanks everyone for the replies! I'm very thrilled that after almost a decade I got my first non-flora fossil. Felt all giddy since Yay!

Fossildude19 : No, sadly I have zero geological knowledge. The problem is that half the mountain-side has been excavated by mining companies ages ago (who dug make-shift roads everywhere looking for coal deposits). This intermixes with older geographical features, mining deposits (that are used as track-fillers, or just ditched in random places) and a sloped, shifting condition in general due to intermittent dryness and abundance of water respectively. All in all it's...a bit messy. I will post some photos of the areas I generally hunt, maybe that helps?

Piranha : Great! Very happy. And even happier this fossil was on my suspect-list since I found it two years ago, for being faunal in nature. Gives me some confidence I can pull it off again I guess I'm looking at the inside of the exo-skeleton, and the fine texture are muscle attachments of some sort? (Since it's not bone, there's no reason for it to be non-smooth on the outside, right?)

Terry Dactyll: I see. When I look up 003, I see a lot of very different looking fossils (google images). Is mine from a specific part of Asterophylliites equisetiformis ? Also, I've been thinking about the formation of these trunk/stem fossils myself and agree with your view. Mudslides (or falling down and being covered by sediment rapidly) seem the only logical way. Falling down also might explain why some are compressed among one obvious dimension. Although I cannot exclude the compression happening in more geological ways in a later time, I guess.

Missourian: Darn. I did not make a note where I found it. I will do so with any non-regular fossil from now on I do have a gleeming suspecion where I might have encountered it based upon it's stone type and my vague recollection where I was playing about in that year (it was cold, so I wouldn't have gone very far; ). I'm concerned it might be a mining-deposit that was dumped somewhere randomly (track/road filler that wasn't needed anymore). Since this fossil was water-based I am/was very excited to have found a 'lake' area. Are there ways to figure out ancient lake beds? Do they stand out ..as in, different rock type, quartz deposits or something? I have some other ideas where I could look (particularly flat areas with lots of boulders, rather than the more messy other locations I usually search).

Also, I am usually only very picky with things that I know I already have (fern leaves #341...). If it's a species I don't know, I'll take it even if it's not very good. But I'll take extra care now

[Missourian]

Missourian: Darn. I did not make a note where I found it. I will do so with any non-regular fossil from now on I do have a gleeming suspecion where I might have encountered it based upon it's stone type and my vague recollection where I was playing about in that year (it was cold, so I wouldn't have gone very far; ). I'm concerned it might be a mining-deposit that was dumped somewhere randomly (track/road filler that wasn't needed anymore).

There's a good chance the eurypterid came from the same deposit as the well-preserved leaves. I don't know about your part of the world, but in the US, the Carboniferous plant/arthropod locations tend to be quite limited in extent areally and stratigraphically. If you can find where the leaves are coming from, then the bugs may be there right along with them.

If you can't find the outcrop, the bugs may be close to the leaves in the piles.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Missourian

[Missourian]

Since this fossil was water-based I am/was very excited to have found a 'lake' area. Are there ways to figure out ancient lake beds? Do they stand out ..as in, different rock type, quartz deposits or something? I have some other ideas where I could look (particularly flat areas with lots of boulders, rather than the more messy other locations I usually search).

These types of deposits were likely formed in deltas. Mazon Creek is the most famous. There's a chance it was just above a coal bed (as at Mazon). That would explain why the stuff was dumped everywhere. Forum member RomanK hunts a similar planty deposit that was stripped off and cast aside.

[michaeldk]

Missourian : There's endless stretches of well preserved fern & horse-tail fossilbeds here, in various types of rock (dark, shale, pale sedimentary/sandy etc). I will go back to the locations I suspect I might have found it. It's quite interesting to note (see the updated start-post for the map!) that exactly around my area there's a large carboniferous zone, whilst in the rest of Northern Spain there's hardly a trace of it! It seems I'm quite lucky. Although on the surface a large part of the area I have investigated is very young (Miocene) I think that due to the creation of endless stretches of tracks&roads with bulldozers they scraped off the the top 1-2 meters and exposed Carboniferous layers. Lucky me again!

Update #1 : More fossils! : )

8) I have found several of these intriguing objects. They are hollow (this one has two fitting halves), and frequently have this sabre-tooth like shape, with a second compartment. A fluke of some weird mud-formations of the past, or a kind of animal/seed leftover?

[edit] A siderite concretion !

9) I've got several bigger and smaller versions of this rather rectangular bark. It seems very different from Lepidodendron ?

[edit] probably a bit of bark from Sigillaria, such as Sigillaria brardii

10) Unknown. Vaguely resembles poorly fossilized Sphenophyllum longifolium ?

11) A form of non-seed baring fern, I guess. I have difficulty distinguishing between both fern-types though. It's rare to find it in lighter rock here!

12) Again a type of fern. Is this from a big or a small plant/tree?

[edit] possibly Pecopteris

13) To my untrained eye, this looks more like some kind of small moss as you find it on rocks?

14) This type of material and pattern can be found all over the region here in abundance. They are often coated in oily/shiny crystal-like material.

[edit] perhaps decorticated Sigillaria (heavily decorticated lycophyte stem)

15) Again a common fossil type here. Very three-dimensional (albeit compressed over one axis) little trunk of some plant.

[edit] probably Calamites stem

16) I'm still hoping this is a little flower. The white rock might imply Cretaceous origin? (I'm clueless!)

[edit] looks like a leaf whorl from Annularia or Sphenophyllum

17) A very archetypical fern fossil I find around here often. This is one of my most complete specimen (often tops are missing)

[edit] Some sort of Mariopteris ? (my secondary thought : perhaps Neuropteris ovata)

Thanks again for the help with the above fossils. I have a suspecion that I'm grooping tons of especially ferns together, assuming they are slightly different due to compression/fossilisation. But perhaps there are many (sub) species lurking. I hope so, and hope to be able to distinguish between them too in the future

Edited October 5, 2013 by michaeldk

[ckmerlin]

All I can say is wow !! some excellent fossils !! also congratulations on the fantastic presentation and excellent photography

[Auspex]

#8 is a siderite concretion.

[Fossildude19]

I think # 9 is a bit of bark from Sigillaria.

#14 may be a piece of decorticated Sigillaria as well.

# 15 looks to be a piece of Calamites stem, as is # 4 .

# 16 looks like a "flower" or leaf whorl from Annularia.

I agree that #8 looks like a concretion. # 7 looks like a concretion as well.

I hope some plant experts weigh in on this post - you've found some really cool stuff so far.

Regards,

Edited October 4, 2013 by Fossildude19

[paleoflor]

Thanks for sharing this very interesting material. I never collected in northwestern Spain, but it surely is something I would like to do one day (the Asturian and Cantabrian stages are named after the region). Please let me try and give some suggestions/thoughts regarding the specimens’ identification. Note however, that your locality is somewhat younger (Stephanian) than the localities I usually collect (mostly Westphalian), which makes proper identification (say, lack of applicable literature) more difficult.

002 Trunk of some type (you probably figured as much already). Doesn't clearly resemble any lycophyte (Stigmaria, Sigillaria, etc.) or fern/seedfern I know of. Perhaps Bruno can help here (see below).

003 I agree with Fossildude19 that this is some species of Asterophyllites. The size of the specimen favours A. equisetiformis, however, normally this species has more than 10 leaves per whorl. Could be due to the manner in which the specimen is embedded /preserved, but it could also be a different species. Perhaps it is worth consulting location specific literature.

004 I second Terry Dactyl’s ID – this is a Calamites (internal cast). Though the specimen is too small to be sure, the lack of larger, oval branch scars, combined with the intermodal length, suggests the species might be Calamites cistii.

005 Appears to be a heavily decorticated lycophyte stem (compare Syringodendron?).

006 Intriguing – not quite like anything I have seen from my locale. I would say some Sphenophyllum species, though this is based on little more than a hunch. Though the specimen does show some resemblance, I don’t think it is Palmatopteris, because the rachis shows no sign of ‘zigzagging’ and because the larger-scale shape doesn’t quite fit (seems to be a string of similar leaves, instead of something tapering into a more or less triangular frond fragment – Palmatopteris had quadripartite fronds, i.e. 4 tapered partial fronds, structurally not unlike Mariopteris). Alternatively, some species of Rhacopteris, perhaps – might be one with palmatopteroid leaflets?

009 This specimen shows leaf scars, perhaps helically arranged, if you pay close attention to the longitudinally running striae on the inter-cushion bark. However, a combination of this much inter-cushion bark and the diamond shape of the leaf cushions, that is new to me. I've never seen a specimen of Sigillaria brardii, but I know the species is common in southern Europe. Perhaps worth looking into?

013 Some fern-like thing - I know too little about your locale for a more detailed ID.

014 This is a heavily decorticated lycophyte stem. The vertical ribs in this specimen are rather characteristic for the sigillariaceae.

015 Agree with Fossildude19, most likely Calamites.

016 If the rock is Carboniferous in age, this could be some species of Sphenophyllum, or, as suggested byFossildude19, Annularia. These plants grew whorls of leaves, sometimes superficially resembling flowers.

017 Can you make a photo that clearly shows the venation?

I know there is a post on your locale by Bruno on the French Forum which may be of help to you. Furthermore, there are many other threads there that could be very useful in your search for IDs.

You found some magnificent plants fossils,

Tim

[Terry Dactyll]

012 looks like a Pecopteris of some sort....017 looks like Mariopteris....

[paleoflor]

A quick search yielded this paper by Wagner and Álvarez-Vázquez (2010) - almost 90 pages about the Carboniferous of Spain, including a species list for the Bierzo basin flora. Perhaps this review is a good starting point for your IDs?

The attached image from the paper shows a Pecopteris ameromii, which at first sight resembles your specimen 017. Note however, that several more Pecopteris species occur in your locale (would really need the species diagnosis to be sure what characteristics to look for).

Tim

EDIT: Better try to access the paper here (you should be able to make a free account).

Edited October 4, 2013 by paleoflor

[michaeldk]

Thank you everyone again for your wonderful input. I'm gradually learning, and updating each find with your suggestions (with an added unlikely, possibly, probably, likely).

Paleoflor : Thank you especially for your wonderful and detailed input! I have read the french forum and indeed came upon some interesting images. Being a photographer I have a pretty crazy visual memory, so I can efficiently and effortlessly compare fossils of others with that of my own. My main problem is that I don't know where to start, so often have to resort to 'fern carboniferous fossil' which yields too many google image results (and too small ones to make any good assessment. Also other people seem to be mistaken frequently, which doesn't help ^^.

As to your suggestion : I would love to read the article you mention, however even when signing up for the free website it turns out the article is nót free. (strange, but true). It's just mentioned, and they hint at 'other' free documents as an alternative. Is there a way you could give me insight? Is there some kind of PDF you can send me?

Incidentally, I live in Utrecht. It might be a fun idea to have a drink some time after I return next week. I've sent you a PB

Update #2 : More fossils of, I think, different species than before.

#18 : I have a hunch that this might be a footstep of some sort. I can't for the life figure out what makes it (doesn't look very reptilian to me)...but the main reason is that the SECOND smaller indent on the upper half (as shown in the blow-up from the positive bit) also had the two 'toes' as the clear imprint has. Two identical prints? Also this type of stone can be found in abundance here, with the hard, brittle outer shell surrounding a softer sand stone that seems to have been mud once. Perfect for footprints!

Further amateur reasoning on my part : When I mirror the upper positive it is identical in shape to the complete positive (without mirror they are the same width, and the rear part is the same length but the 'toes' branch of at differing angles). This suggest to me that there is a left & right leg involved. This stone might be from relatively young rockbed.

#19 I quite like this fossil because of it's coloring. It probably has little to do with it's origin, which might just be a fragment of young Calamite stem ?

#20 I rather rare find here - the brown material can often be seen on other similar fossils. It features a comparable pattern on the back, partially, albeit smaller in scale. No clue.

#21 I thought this might be a leaf of Macroneuropteris scheuchzeri but the fanning of the leaf nearfing of my specimen is absent (very straight from the central spine).

#22 Some kind of Horse tail I presume ? (perhaps Calamite, cone Calamostachys?)

The next update will be a bit further out, I'll head to Holland again monday. I'm going for one last day of fossil hunting in an abandoned quarry a bit further out, which - as the map indicates - should be cretacious stone (the blackness of the material suggests otherwise, but hey, I'm a newbie!).

Edited October 6, 2013 by michaeldk

[Terry Dactyll]

I would say its not a footprint....

019... you could be correct but also consider a fragment of a Cyclopteris leaf.... as you say very nice colours....

020.... Artisia or 'tree pith'....

021.... Lepistrobus cone....

022.... Yep somekind.... Annularia type stem.....

[paleoflor]

[...] I would love to read the article you mention, however even when signing up for the free website it turns out the article is nót free. (strange, but true). It's just mentioned, and they hint at 'other' free documents as an alternative. Is there a way you could give me insight? Is there some kind of PDF you can send me?

Incidentally, I live in Utrecht. It might be a fun idea to have a drink some time after I return next week. I've sent you a PB [...]

That is strange, normally Research Gate gives free access. Sorry, I am almost always connected through the university network and as such it is difficult to judge accessibility from outside it. If you need any help acquiring these papers, please send me a PM containing an email address.But hey, you're a fellow Utrechtian!? What are the odds... I replied to your PM.

As to the new specimens,

(19) shows two thicker lines, compared to the others. There are species of Cordaites leaves which are typified by such a venation. I have to look for the names - more later, but I would strongly suggest considering this as an option. Cyclopteris leaves (unless this is a very small fragment from a very large leaf) would display a diverging venation. Calamites, though possibly, can oftentimes only be identified when the nodes are preserved (or, put differently, when more than one internodal portion is preserved).

(20) Artisia indeed, nice specimen. This is the pith cast of a Cordaites tree.

(22) Looks like Asterophyllites to me. Funny how there seem to be two, almost parallel strings.

[evannorton]

Awesome finds....thank you for sharing. I am an avid Mazon Creek collector - and there is much overlap.