Crinoids

[Cpt. Nemo]

Hi,
Here crinoids of Morocco recently exchanged but I know neither the places of discovery, or the floor, or the species.
If you could enlighten me on these points ...
In advance thank you.

[Cpt. Nemo]

Nobody ?

[howard_l]

It would help to know the age of the unit it was found in. I am not a crinoid person but unless you are a paleontologist working on crinoids you will not be able to identify these down to species without guessing and genus will be hard for anyone without the age. They appear to be Paleozoic, my knowledge of the Morocco area is the Carboniferous is there but I haven't seen a lot of crinoids coming from there. They are famous for their Devonian/Silurian fossils my guess, and it is only a guess, is they are Silurian. Scyphocrinus is a famous crinoid genus that was attached to a float coming from that area but they don't look that much like them. My guess is they are another genus coming from the same area. I would google Silurian Crinoids and see if you can match them down to genus, Good luck.

[trilobiteruss]

They look Devonian to me, I think I had this species in past but traded my crinoid material for trilobites if I can find my ID I had for these which look like what I had will let you know.

[trilobiteruss]

Ok I found the info, in fact here is the post I did here some time ago with the specimens I had.

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/14657-odd-crinoids-associated-with-moroccan-cuppresocrinites/

Based on a comment there I found mine to likely be Lecythocrinus Müller, 1858, probably Lecythocrinus eifelianus Müller 1858.

Looking at the arms of yours and mine (compare the thread above) the brachials and such look similar.

This is a Devonian crinoid as is yours.

I found one paper on this original species and another specimen assigned to a new species but this author says they are same. Link below but in German (google translate below this) Look at link for photos but this has same nature on the specimen in figures 3-4 as mine and yours and I think they are all Lecythocrinus eifelianus

http://www.devon-crinoiden.de/notizengasterocomidae.pdf

Palaeontological notes on

Bohatý (2006): Rare Gasterocomidae (Crinoidea) from the Middle Devonian of the Eifel

by Dipl.-Ing. Joachim Hauser, Internet: www.devon-crinoiden.de, e-mail: crinoiden-aus-dem-devon@arcor.de

with 4 text figures

pre-published on the Internet on 27 August 2007

Bohatý published in 2006 his findings on the Paleozoic Crinoidenfamilie the Gasterocomidae. As for his past work is only one principle to be noted that it would certainly have been desirable if the work had read a practitioner Review. All the more so because of his "reorganization of" an entire family falls victim. It is also evident from the work that has Bohatý (despite spatial proximity cher!) Again failed to look at a number of originals of the pieces to which he refers in his work. If this were done, the results of his investigations would certainly have been different in some parts.

It is therefore to provide the following correctly:

1 Bohatý goes wrong in assuming that it is the piece of HAUSER, 1997, Plate 57, Figure 1-3 is Lecythocrinus eifelianus. As a simple comparison of calyx morphology shows (see Textfi-gur 1-4), not part of any size and configuration of the chalice still in the arrangement of Ta blades and the construction of the Brachia similarities. Therefore, for this piece certainly out of the question: from a particularly "exemplary crown of L. eifeli-anus" (409 Bohatý).

HAUSER 2, 2006 assigns the chalices (Plate 56, Figure 5-7, Plate 57, Figure 1-3 & 5-6) his '97-work already in early 2006 to the genus Goldfussicrinites HAUSER, 1999 It. is irritating and shows a lack of knowledge of the literature, if Bohatý: 408 pieces now this is in his list of synonyms for the taxon Lecythocrinus Taxocrinus without further notice.

3 The statement of Bohatý: 410, that it "HAUSER (1997) does not succeed, the families to differentiate ren" is probably justified as being in the older literature (eg, Moore et al 1978) has already been done sufficiently in the fact . Just because the type of Lecythocrinus eifelianus is abnormally formed, another genus (Gasterocoma and Tetrapleurocrinus) are vermeindlich similar and rule some confusion ments in the literature, entitled certainly not without insight of the originals and a de-tailed discussion for collection of an entire family.

4 For these reasons, the family of Lecythocrinidae KIRK 1934 must (hereby emend.) So long compo-until a detailed comparison of all the originals of the types unique to each other re-sults leads.

↑ Text figure 1 and 2: holotype of Lecythocrinus eifelianus MUELLER, 1856 in the side view and aboral; left figure from HAUSER, 1997, Plate 56, Figure 3; Original Dimensions: cup height = 2.5 cm; greatest diameter of 4 cm.

       

 2

↑ Text Figure 3 and 4: Goldfussicrinites angelus HAUSER, 2006 Plate 57, Figure 1 & 2 of the collection STUMP, Mürlenbach; 3 = General view of the crown; 4 = enlargement of the calyx; Original dimensions (lot): width = 4.5 cm, Height = 9.5 cm.

[Cpt. Nemo]

Hello there,
Thank you to them both for your answers!
Indeed, it is quite possible that it is Devonian and I agree that my copy looks like your copy of Lecythocrinus eifelianus.
Thank you for your help!
It is true that this species is much less known than Scyphocrinus.
You're a fount of knowledge.

[trilobiteruss]

Glad to help. These are interesting less known crinoids from Morocco and when I found them I gathered all the ones I could find at the time from the big show at Tucson.