Rockaholic Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) This nodule is out of a batch of Indiana Pennsylvanian spoil pile nodules that have gone through numerous freeze thaw cycles.It split this evening with a pretty solid blow from a hammer. Due to their stubbornness and the fact that I have some fresh material to freeze, the remaining nodules in this batch will be vanquished to a winter outdoor natural freeze thaw bucket.This split I find puzzling.Not sure whether this is plant ,insect, or possibly a shrimp.If it’s a shrimp it’s much larger than any shrimp that I’ve found up until this point.I’m probably being over anxious posting this one without giving it much thought or research but I decided to take the lazy approach and post it. Edited August 26, 2014 by Rockaholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Looks like a shrimp, I see legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossilcrazy Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 You have a fine example of Calamostachys. That would be a fertile tip to a Calamites plant. The modern equivalent is a Horsetail rush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockaholic Posted August 24, 2014 Author Share Posted August 24, 2014 Both of these possibilities crossed my mind.I’m glad to see that the debate on whether this is a plant or an animal is not just happening within my own head.If it is a shrimp both the head and the tail are not well preserved which I think would make it difficult to ID.Hope to see others weigh in on this piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RomanK Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 I agree with fossilcrazy, that looks like a Calamites spore cone - Calamostachys. 1 Roman http://s1143.photobu.../donbassfossil/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonsfly Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 (edited) Roman would know . He uses them for wallpaper! insert "Smiling icon thingie" John Edited August 24, 2014 by dragonsfly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 What are the jointed appendages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockaholic Posted August 24, 2014 Author Share Posted August 24, 2014 Roman would know . He uses them for wallpaper! insert "Smiling icon thingie" John Roman would know . He uses them for wallpaper! insert "Smiling icon thingie" John No fair changing your post I thought you addressed some valid guestions.The segments have an appearance that differ from both the shrimp and cones that I’ve found at this location.The segmentation seems to differ from top to bottom.The “appendages” whether they are legs or bracts are isolated to only a small area. The arrows show another possible area with “appendages”.If these are bracts they seem to closely spaced to accommodate sporangiophores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossilcrazy Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 You know Rockaholic, I think I may have to retract my initial estimation. Examining closer to what you are saying. I really can't rule out an Arthropod in Dorsal view with appendages tightly drawn to body segments. I need to stop shooting from hip and scrutinize better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockaholic Posted August 25, 2014 Author Share Posted August 25, 2014 You know Rockaholic, I think I may have to retract my initial estimation. Examining closer to what you are saying. I really can't rule out an Arthropod in Dorsal view with appendages tightly drawn to body segments. I need to stop shooting from hip and scrutinize better. Somebody has to pull the trigger and advance the conversation and I appreciate your input.I respect the opinion of everyone who has contributed to this thread and I’m not ruling out any of the possible ID’s on this piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Calamites-arthropod hybrid? You said you would resept my opinion... so stop laughing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCFossils Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 It looks to me like a syncarid shrimp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockaholic Posted August 25, 2014 Author Share Posted August 25, 2014 Calamites-arthropod hybrid? You said you would resept my opinion... so stop laughing. The beginning of the evolution of a man eating plant.This could be the inspiration for the creation of a screenplay for a B movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockaholic Posted August 25, 2014 Author Share Posted August 25, 2014 It looks to me like a syncarid shrimp I was hoping to get your impression on this find.What features of this fossil draw you to the conclusion that this is a syncarid shrimp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockaholic Posted August 25, 2014 Author Share Posted August 25, 2014 Wondering if this could be the telson and the beginning flare of the tail fan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossilized6s Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) I love the contrast in color, but i think cleaning it may yield the answer to your dilemma. Im leaning towards Shrimp also. Its similar to a Acanthotelson stimpsoni or a Palaeocaris typus Edited August 25, 2014 by fossilized6s ~Charlie~ "There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why.....i dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" ~RFK ->Get your Mosasaur print ->How to spot a fake Trilobite ->How to identify a CONCRETION from a DINOSAUR EGG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanNREMTP Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Reminds me of a modern day hellgrammite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockaholic Posted August 26, 2014 Author Share Posted August 26, 2014 Reminds me of a modern day hellgrammite. Interesting observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockaholic Posted August 26, 2014 Author Share Posted August 26, 2014 (edited) I love the contrast in color, but i think cleaning it may yield the answer to your dilemma. Im leaning towards Shrimp also. Its similar to a Acanthotelson stimpsoni or a Palaeocaris typus I'm reluctant to clean most of my nod fossils,but this one may be an exception. Edited August 26, 2014 by Rockaholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 It might be that you can limit the cleaning to only the amount required to determine what it is, for diagnostic purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossilized6s Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 (edited) I'm reluctant to clean most of my nod fossils,but this one may be an exception.Any reason? Or are you just afraid of damaging them? I try to get off as much Calcite as possible, and let the true fossil shine. But to each their own. Edited August 26, 2014 by fossilized6s ~Charlie~ "There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why.....i dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" ~RFK ->Get your Mosasaur print ->How to spot a fake Trilobite ->How to identify a CONCRETION from a DINOSAUR EGG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Some people like that high contrast black and white for display purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockaholic Posted August 28, 2014 Author Share Posted August 28, 2014 Any reason? Or are you just afraid of damaging them? I try to get off as much Calcite as possible, and let the true fossil shine. But to each their own. Yes I am afraid of damaging them and of losing detail.This is what the Smithsonian website has to say regarding cleaning Mazon Creek Nodules."Cleaning fossils is not always desirable and can render specimens useless for paleontological study. For this reason museums generally do not clean specimens. However, if you wish to clean them, wash them in soapy water and/or white vinegar. Soak them in undiluted white vinegar for no more than 15 minutes to avoid damaging the fossil, followed by a thorough water rinse. After drying, place paper toweling between the halves to prevent scratching or disfigurement." I'm also confused as to whether the white mineral deposits are calcite or kaolinite.The white mineral deposits in some concretion fossils seem to highlight some of the specimens I've found and I feel a lot of the fossil would be lost if the white deposits were removed.Here are a couple of examples of fossils that are enhanced by the white mineral deposits. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plantguy Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Yes I am afraid of damaging them and of losing detail.This is what the Smithsonian website has to say regarding cleaning Mazon Creek Nodules."Cleaning fossils is not always desirable and can render specimens useless for paleontological study. For this reason museums generally do not clean specimens. However, if you wish to clean them, wash them in soapy water and/or white vinegar. Soak them in undiluted white vinegar for no more than 15 minutes to avoid damaging the fossil, followed by a thorough water rinse. After drying, place paper toweling between the halves to prevent scratching or disfigurement." I'm also confused as to whether the white mineral deposits are calcite or kaolinite.The white mineral deposits in some concretion fossils seem to highlight some of the specimens I've found and I feel a lot of the fossil would be lost if the white deposits were removed.Here are a couple of examples of fossils that are enhanced by the white mineral deposits. Acanthotelson stimpsoni (7).JPG best posi - Copy - Copy.JPG Gorgeous specimens! Yeah being inquisitive about what would happen I sacrificed one of mine in the collection to vinegar testing some time ago. I think it did expose a bit more detail but overall it seemed to remove quite of the highliting and enhancements. I think I'm leaning towards shrimp vs a plant ID on your specimen but am not sure vinegar testing will clearly answer it. It might, but I defer to the other folks maybe Rob or Jack or one of the others who have piles of great specimens and have probably experimented or know of others wins/losses. Regards, Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiddlehead Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 As the person how wrote the quoted Smithsonian piece on cleaning fossils, my advice is simply do not do it. It is not reversible and the results often turn a easily recognizable specimen into one with arguably better detail, but you may hate it. Koalinite is very hard and can only be chipped or blasted off. The specimens shown here are beautiful in my opinion as is, highlighted with calcite. If you wish to highlight a flora specimen, mix a deluded mix (exact ratio does not matter, you can experiment off the fossil itself) of white glue and water and paint the leaves. It is completely reversible (rinse with water) and adds a small amount of protection to the fossil. Though you did not ask you may wish to know the fern is a very nice example of Pecopteris subcrenulata as is. Hope this helps, Jack 2 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