Feather, Leaf, Or...?

[Cpmiller]

I am heading to the Cleveland Museum of Natural History Friday and have sent photos to the Invert Paleo dept with a request for an in person identification. I will let you know how it pans out.

My guess is currently still for Plumalina. I know all of the checks in the minus column but I've got to say I believe if you guys could see the real fossils you would think it is more likely Plumalina too. There are 14 impressions many of which are very faint...but together it becomes clear that there is no leaf as a fern would have. There are only "needles" that I do not see in any of the ferns. I am generally confused also about someone's statement of "vague similarity" to Plumalina. I would love to see something more similar, but if that is vague then the suggested Alethoteris is remote. Either that or it's a undiscovered species...which is just absurd. I would have to say that I understand your negative arguments but that leads to the fossil not being identifiable, because it's not like any Alethopteris. In it's entirety with all 14 impressions it's pretty clear what you are looking at. Granted I have to put on my best glasses and squint a lot, but pretty much everything can be seen, and there isn't any Alethopteris there that would match any I have found after hours of googling. Please provide something more than "vaguely similar" and maybe we'll have our answer.

Rough stuff this fossil hunting.

Cheers,

Chris

PS. Check out what my wife found today! Tell me WTH that is!

Edited September 4, 2014 by Cpmiller

[piranha]

...I am generally confused also about someone's statement of "vague similarity" to Plumalina. I would love to see something more similar, but if that is vague then the suggested Alethoteris is remote. Either that or it's a undiscovered species...which is just absurd. I would have to say that I understand your negative arguments but that leads to the fossil not being identifiable, because it's not like any Alethopteris. In it's entirety with all 14 impressions it's pretty clear what you are looking at. Granted I have to put on my best glasses and squint a lot, but pretty much everything can be seen, and there isn't any Alethopteris there that would match any I have found after hours of googling. Please provide something more than "vaguely similar" and maybe we'll have our answer.

I should add it's also only 'vaguely' similar to the initial suggestion of Alethopteris. Actually I wasn't offering any ID beyond "plant is more likely". Again, that's based on a Calamites-like specimen in association with the mystery fossil and no previous records of Plumalina in Ohio. Nonetheless, I did provide some excellent Plumalina photo plates for comparison and cited literature to further assist with your research. Your upcoming visit to CMNH might be helpful, but I'd suggest contacting Warren Allmon at the Paleontological Research Institute in Ithaca, NY. He coauthored the recent revision on Plumalina and is probably the best expert available to confirm or refute your discovery.

[Cpmiller]

Piranha,

Thanks for the plates. They are very clear and are better than the others I have looked at. Last night in the setting sun I realized that the sharp angle of the bright light shows quite a bit more detail. I haven't had a chance to compare the fossil with your plates but I'm sure they will be helpful. And thanks much for the suggestion of contacting Warren. Good chance he will know what it is simply due to it similarity to Plumalina. I'll get some better photos to him and post back his response.

Thanks,

Chris

[tmaier]

Last night in the setting sun I realized that the sharp angle of the bright light shows quite a bit more detail.

I use goose neck lamps with a selection of bulbs that have various spectral content. Then I move the fossil or the lamps around to examine the specimen. It often helps for examination.

It's also good to have such an arrangement for photography. When you see photos that are all orangey or too blue, then the person is using a heavily biased bulb in the red or blue spectrum (respectively). Incandescent bulbs (tungsten filament bulbs) are red/orange and florescent bulbs are blue. Using a combination of both can balance the spectrum for photography. The new LED bulbs come in all parts of the spectrum. They have a "kelvin" rating on them and the lower the number, the more red they are. The higher the number, the more blue they are.

And also you can play with the directness or the diffusion of the light.

I also sometimes take them outside for a look, too. But I like my lamps.

[tmaier]

Interesting paper on use of polarized light and cross polarization photography.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-4983.00196/pdf

Cheap neutral density polarizing film can be had at Edmund Scientific.

Ultraviolet and infrared LEDs are cheaply available now.

Cameras often unintentionally have sensitivity in the infrared, allowing you to photograph what you can't see with your eye.

I'm getting a bit off track, hope you don't mind...

Edited September 4, 2014 by tmaier

[Plax]

Western PA and presumably eastern Ohio have alternating marine/non marine beds in the carboniferous. Am recalling this from the book "Fossil Collecting in Pennsylvania". The initial post pic is a plant imho (or even not so humbly)

[Wrangellian]

Whatever it turns out to be the answer will be interesting, simply because it's stumping us as it is. How can one thing look so much like another completely unrelated thing??

[Fossildude19]

Any update on this fossil?

It's been over 2 months now....

Regards,

[Fossildude19]

I am heading to the Cleveland Museum of Natural History Friday and have sent photos to the Invert Paleo dept with a request for an in person identification. I will let you know how it pans out.

My guess is currently still for Plumalina. I know all of the checks in the minus column but I've got to say I believe if you guys could see the real fossils you would think it is more likely Plumalina too. There are 14 impressions many of which are very faint...but together it becomes clear that there is no leaf as a fern would have. There are only "needles" that I do not see in any of the ferns. I am generally confused also about someone's statement of "vague similarity" to Plumalina. I would love to see something more similar, but if that is vague then the suggested Alethoteris is remote. Either that or it's a undiscovered species...which is just absurd. I would have to say that I understand your negative arguments but that leads to the fossil not being identifiable, because it's not like any Alethopteris. In it's entirety with all 14 impressions it's pretty clear what you are looking at. Granted I have to put on my best glasses and squint a lot, but pretty much everything can be seen, and there isn't any Alethopteris there that would match any I have found after hours of googling. Please provide something more than "vaguely similar" and maybe we'll have our answer.

Rough stuff this fossil hunting.

Cheers,

Chris

PS. Check out what my wife found today! Tell me WTH that is!image.jpgimage.jpg

Still no update on this??

I thought for sure we would hear back from Chris on this - but he hasn't been on in quite a while, from the looks of things.

Regards,