WestOz64 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Hi all....please help with ID for this fossil. Found near the Kennedy Ranges (Southern Carnarvon Basin) Western Australia, Permian Period. Thanks in advance :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 It's a brittle star; beyond that, I'm no help. What size is it? Wonderful fossil, by the way! "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...
RichW9090 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Yes it is, and a darn nice one, too! Others of a more invertebrate persuasion will have to provide the id, though. I'll take a look in S&S. Later edit: S&S have very few starfish listed. The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDudeCO Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 wow great find, I hope you can narrow down the name! Fantastic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lissa318 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Nice! Is it on a piece you were able to take home? Looks like all kinds of cool stuff may be imbedded around it too. Lovely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieLynn Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 beautiful!! www.fossil-quest.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestOz64 Posted January 15, 2014 Author Share Posted January 15, 2014 Thanks for the replies....sorry i should have put the size, it's 10cm x 12cm on a fairly decent sized rock but you could pick it up. It's actually just outside my backyard, i'm very lucky and live on a cattle station that is literally covered with fossils (old seabed), the owners tell me this area is 250 MYO. I was wondering if anyone has some links to good fossil identification websites? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Mud Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Thanks for the replies....sorry i should have put the size, it's 10cm x 12cm on a fairly decent sized rock but you could pick it up. It's actually just outside my backyard, i'm very lucky and live on a cattle station that is literally covered with fossils (old seabed), the owners tell me this area is 250 MYO. I was wondering if anyone has some links to good fossil identification websites? Lucky you! That is an amazing fossil! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 According to the specialist on Australian paleo, this discovery may represent a new species: These are new I think, and not brittle stars. They both look the same species to me. They are vaguely like, though smaller than Palaeaster giganteus from the Sydney Basin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanNREMTP Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Which seastar? I saw two in the picture. Plus several other fossils. Great piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herb Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 wonderful specimen. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"_ Carl Sagen No trees were killed in this posting......however, many innocent electrons were diverted from where they originally intended to go. " I think, therefore I collect fossils." _ Me "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."__S. Holmes "can't we all just get along?" Jack Nicholson from Mars Attacks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestOz64 Posted January 16, 2014 Author Share Posted January 16, 2014 A friend put this photo on facebook, and someone well known in the Australian fossil world, said it is a coral from the Callytharra formation, which is about 200 kilometer's away from my location. I have asked him for more information and will let you know when he replies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichW9090 Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I can tell you that it is not a coral. The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrangellian Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 That would be a weird coral if that's what it is ... I agree it has to be some kind of brittle star or starfish. Nice, whatever it is! Keep hunting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taogan Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 There are a couple of corals in there but the main fossils are two starfish, possibly dorsal and ventral presentations of the same species with two spare arms. A really nice piece, congratulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichW9090 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 They may be two different species of starfish, or growth stages of one - I don't know enough (OK, I don't know anything) about starfish. I'm not even sure what differentiates a brittle star from a true starfish. I thought (with no basis) this was a true starfish. The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KansasFossilHunter Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Very nice! Beautiful specimen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 They may be two different species of starfish, or growth stages of one - I don't know enough (OK, I don't know anything) about starfish. I'm not even sure what differentiates a brittle star from a true starfish. I thought (with no basis) this was a true starfish. As I relayed the comments above, these are not brittle stars, but probably a new species allied with the Palaeasteridae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I thought the central body disc was pretty well defined from the arms, which is why I suggested it was an ophiuroid. "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...
RichW9090 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Sorry, Toothed-Fish, I missed your earlier post. The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestOz64 Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 Still waiting to hear back from the guy who reckons it's a coral...but while we are on the subject, how about this one.....starfish or no? Collected from the same area, size roughly 16cm x 16cm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Really cool specimens. Speaking of coral, I was fooled by a bryozoan that 'posed' as a starfish: http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/33083-old-school-starfish/ I hope you have better luck. 1 Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) I doubt that this is a seastar or a brittle star. There are things that just don't add up. Of course echinoderm fossils have a tendency to get calcite overgrowths which would explain the lack of detail expected of these fossils. My first concern if this is a seastar is why is it lacking a madreporite and other features expected of a seastar. If it is a brittlestar, why are there grooves running down the tops of the arms? A better explanation that I think Missourian has lead us to is that this is a bryozoan, possibly Evactinopora. The internal features of this fossil is similar to this one:http://www.lakeneosho.org/Evactinopora/Gallery15.html Edited January 17, 2014 by Al Dente 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestOz64 Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 Thank you Al Dente, they sure look like it to me, and there are many other types of Bryozoa here as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I've looked around a little more and there is a species of this type of bryozoan known from Western Austrailia. It has had a few names including Hexagonella crucialis, Evactinopora crucialis, and Evactinostella crucialis. I haven't been able to find a photo of one. 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