Hello All, I Have A Few Photos Here, I Think One Is Coral... Oh And A Foot

[kennedyskorner]

Good Afternoon everyone,

Thank you for taking a moment to look at these pictures. This is my first post, so I am expecting to get a whipping for uploading the photos wrong or something, so I apologize in advance,

All of these were found around a creek, nature walks in or around Aurora, Missouri within the past 2 years.

The first photo is still up in the air with me. I would research it, and get different answers and different pictures. I think that it might be a coral (Tabucata?) and I also have the name of a Michelinia.- Its very shiny and smooth - 3/4" wide and around 1" high from top tip to bottom tip and also 1" It is mostly brownish-white, with a touch of bluish/gray in color.

I know the pics are small, but I have to work on enlarging them without them losing their quality and getting blurry.

The second one, I have no idea... It looks really neat though. Its 2 1/2 inches long and 1 1/2 " wide at its widest point. Its primarily an orange color.

and a foot.. well.. my son found this.. its only a rock, but pretty odd!

Thank you all so much for any comments.

Edited October 20, 2014 by kennedyskorner

[tmaier]

Here's your whipping... all your photos are out of focus, except the foot.

That first one is pretty odd to me. It doesn't look like any coral I know of. It seems to have large chambers and possibly a spiral pattern. Can you take better photos of it?

The second one might just be a coral head, but again it is so out of focus the important details can't be seen.

The foot looks like chert, which is a hard, glassy stone like flint. No a fossil, but definitely a nice foot, as far a feet go these days.

[Bullsnake]

Hi kennedyskorner,

Cool finds!

Just a guess, but the first one looks like a crinoid attachment point, maybe to the calyx (crown of the crinoid) or the holdfast (foot of the crinoid).

As tmaier said, good clear pics help as details are important.

Also, always state the size of the specimen and give any geological info that you can. If you don't know that, then locality helps.

We don't need hunting spot coordinates, but a county, or even a nearby city will help someone pin down the geology which is an important factor in figuring out what something might be.

Have fun!

[kennedyskorner]

Hi kennedyskorner,

Cool finds!

Just a guess, but the first one looks like a crinoid attachment point, maybe to the calyx (crown of the crinoid) or the holdfast (foot of the crinoid).

As tmaier said, good clear pics help as details are important.

Also, always state the size of the specimen and give any geological info that you can. If you don't know that, then locality helps.

We don't need hunting spot coordinates, but a county, or even a nearby city will help someone pin down the geology which is an important factor in figuring out what something might be.

Have fun!

Thank you for the tips

I am pretty sure that I had a ruler next to the items before i got frustrated at the blurry pics and probably cropped them out. All of the things that we find are usually on our walks around rivers, etc. in Missouri (Lawrence County). We have been collecting for some time. We had so many neat looking things that we decided we better start learning about them instead of just looking at them.

We also have a few buckets of nice stones of different kinds and colors that my son has picked up. Lots of beautiful things around here. Once I am able to use the Gallery I will have to make sure to post more of our things.

A new camera is definitely not a bad idea for me though. I will work on adjusting this one and will try to re-post after I get my son in bed for the night.

Thanks again and I appreciate the responses

[tmaier]

Still pretty fuzzy, but the spherical thing looks more like a crinoid calyx now (as Bullsnake suggests). Here are some pictures.

http://www.google.com/images?q=crinoid+calyx&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1&spell=1&nfpr=

The calyx is the "cup" part of the crinoid where the arms attach. Those nubs on the circumference of the sphere are probably the arm attachment points.

I can't tell what the new fossil is, because it again is out of focus.

The one I described as a possible coral head last time, looks less like a coral head now. Could those be sponge tubes? They sure don't look like a natural erosion pattern, so I think it is probably a fossil of something.

The foot still looks like a foot.

Edited October 20, 2014 by tmaier

[kennedyskorner]

Okay, I replaced the pics with smaller ones, less blurry, but still too small. I am going to work on getting my camera settings figured out. I have a couple more pics to post in a bit of some more things, hopefully I can get it right that time.

Thank you for your patience.

[kennedyskorner]

Still pretty fuzzy, but the spherical thing looks more like a crinoid calyx now. Here are some pictures.

http://www.google.com/images?q=crinoid+calyx&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1&spell=1&nfpr=

The calyx is the "cup" part of the crinoid where the arms attach. Those nubs on the circumference of the sphere are probably the arm attachment points.

I can't tell what the new fossil is, because it again is out of focus.

The one I described as a possible coral head last time, looks less like a coral head now. Could those be sponge tubes? They sure don't look like a natural erosion pattern, so I think it is probably a fossil of something.

The foot still looks like a foot.

Ahaha, that foot! Darn. Anyhow, thank you for looking into that - the calyx makes a lot of sense, and now that I just looked at one again, I think I have quite a few in different ways. (There might be one on the shell of half of a geode i have- i think - looks like it might be)

As far as the new thing, its just really hard to get all the detail - there are so many things going on there and the weird dark/light color doesn't help when trying to get good lighting for pics. - and its still losing dirt, so i'll give it a bit, clean it up a bit more and possbily get some better detail, - maybe by then I will have learned how to use the camera.

But until then I might just post some curiosities that I have about a few objects that won't require too much detail.

Thank you again for responding! I appreciate your help

[kennedyskorner]

Still pretty fuzzy, but the spherical thing looks more like a crinoid calyx now (as Bullsnake suggests). Here are some pictures.

http://www.google.com/images?q=crinoid+calyx&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1&spell=1&nfpr=

The calyx is the "cup" part of the crinoid where the arms attach. Those nubs on the circumference of the sphere are probably the arm attachment points.

I can't tell what the new fossil is, because it again is out of focus.

The one I described as a possible coral head last time, looks less like a coral head now. Could those be sponge tubes? They sure don't look like a natural erosion pattern, so I think it is probably a fossil of something.

The foot still looks like a foot.

I am still trying to get some clear pics of this for a post, but I have visited the link you provided and it seems you have a great eye for these since I would definitely agree that it is more than likely a Crinoid Calyx. It also seems to me that the other one you couldn't see clear but suspected could be some type of fossil could also very likely be part of a crinoid as well - the part above the arms? That would be my best uneducated/unexperienced guess at this point. I will try to work some magic with the photos.

[tmaier]

Here's a crude drawing of a crinoid all put back together, as drawn by my helper monkey...

It's just a generalized drawing, so there is a lot of variation among the different genus of the crinoids.

[kennedyskorner]

Here's a crude drawing of a crinoid all put back together, as drawn by my helper monkey...

CRIBW1.JPG

It's just a generalized drawing, so there is a lot of variation among the different genus of the crinoids.

Very nice sketch! Kudos to the monkey That is exactly what I saw and what I was thinking is that top part, (those wavy-tentacle-looking things) might be what is on that one rock that I have. The structures that I have seen on the link you shared look very similar. I will try to re-post.

I also think that I MIGHT also have a whole one on the back of a half of geode that I have. I am going to try out my new photos settings and post it... i apologize in advance if you can't make anything out of it.. I will try my best. If only I could draw like that.. I wouldn't need a pic!

[tmaier]

There are some camera that have "fixed focal length", which is the manufacturer's way of saying it doesn't focus at all. Those types of cameras are cheaper because there are no mechanical do-hickies needed to adjust the lens for focusing. They set the lens so that it will take reasonable good photos from about 2 feet out to infinity. Anything closer than 2 feet is blurred. With that type of camera, there is never a sharp field of focus anywhere, because they have smeared the focal plane out over a broad zone.

Another type of camera does have the mechanical do-hickeys for adjusting the focus and it will detect the nearest object and try to focus on that by scanning the do-hickey to achieve the sharpest image. You will notice that object are sharper with this type of automatic camera, and they cost more, too. Most of those types of cameras can't take photos closer than about 2 feet, because they didn't design the do-hickey to adjust the lens that far.

And the third type of camera is adjustable focus and it CAN take close-up photos. Those are commonly called macro cameras. Sometimes you have to put the camera into a special mode for these close-ups, and that is called macro mode, and the common international symbol for that is an icon of a flower. You see, there are two do-hickies for lens adjustment in the camera, one for near objects and one for far, and you have to tell the camera which do-hicky to engage. But then you can take photos VERY close, within a fraction of an inch sometimes. You have to read the manual to find out.

I'm an electrical engineer, and I design do-hickies and what-cha-ma-call-itz, so I know these things.

Edited October 24, 2014 by tmaier

[kennedyskorner]

There are some camera that have "fixed focal length", which is the manufacturer's way of saying it doesn't focus at all. Those types of cameras are cheaper because there are no mechanical do-hickies needed to adjust the lens for focusing. They set the lens so that it will take reasonable good photos from about 2 feet out to infinity. Anything closer than 2 feet is blurred. With that type of camera, there is never a sharp field of focus anywhere, because they have smeared the focal plane out over a broad zone.

Another type of camera does have the mechanical do-hickeys for adjusting the focus and it will detect the nearest object and try to focus on that by scanning the do-hickey to achieve the sharpest image. You will notice that object are sharper with this type of automatic camera, and they cost more, too. Most of those types of cameras can't take photos closer than about 2 feet, because they didn't design the do-hickey to adjust the lens that far.

And the third type of camera is adjustable focus and it CAN take close-up photos. Those are commonly called macro cameras. Sometimes you have to put the camera into a special mode for these close-ups, and that is called macro mode, and the common international symbol for that is an icon of a flower. You see, there are two do-hickies for lens adjustment in the camera, one for near objects and one for far, and you have to tell the camera which do-hicky to engage. But then you can take photos VERY close, within a fraction of an inch sometimes. You have to read the manual to find out.

I'm an electrical engineer, and I design do-hickies and what-cha-ma-call-itz, so I know these things.

Guess what... I got frustrated enough to go out and rent a do-hickies with a million what-cha-ma-call-itz Complete with MACRO thank goodness.

This is a Fuji and seems to have a lot of options and I think I may have done 'okay'. So i am going to re-post the pictures. Cross your fingers.. I know I am

And thanks again for all the advice and support.

[kennedyskorner]

Okay, This first pic. is what we thought to be a Crinoid Calyx?

I have the top and bottom view. This is about 1" wide and 1" long,and 1" across

This was found in August 2012 in Lawrence County Missouri.

The next Photos are of an unknown rock (fossil) that is still yet to be identified. It was found a year later in a different area, same county. It might also be Crinoid?

It was not very photogenic, so I tried my best to get different angles.

The back

Thanks a million again for all your help through this. I hope this comes out better. I have another post to make with the pics of the Geode I mentioned earlier as well as another mysterious object.

[tmaier]

That first one is definately a crinoid calyx. Nice one, too.

I'm still not sure what to make of the next one. It must be a fossil of something because I've never seen a geological formation like that. I don't see any crinoid parts in it (stems, plates, etc.). Could it be a sponge?

Anybody out there help with this one?

[Roz]

I could be wrong but that last one reminds me of some kind of wood or plant material.

[kennedyskorner]

As far as the second object goes, I could keep on cleaning it to see what emerges. I used a brush to discover this far, but I noticed while taking the photos that there are still quite a few soft-ish areas that could be cleaned out on the one side.

Any suggestions on how I could safely do this? Maybe a vinegar soak or something?

[Roz]

As far as the second object goes, I could keep on cleaning it to see what emerges. I used a brush to discover this far, but I noticed while taking the photos that there are still quite a few soft-ish areas that could be cleaned out on the one side.

Any suggestions on how I could safely do this? Maybe a vinegar soak or something?

If you mean that last series of pics, I wouldn't touch it yet until you know what it is. If it is plant material, the vinegar might ruin it.

I think someone will know what it is for sure. It looks fibrous to me is why I think possible plant material. I don't have the best eyesight

though.

[tmaier]

No, don't clean the whole thing. I'm pretty sure it is a fossil, but it might be a cast, which means you might just clean the whole thing away.

If you want to try, you could clean just a small part of it it an corner, just to see what happens. A soft toothbrush and some water would be the most I would try to a small section.

When a fossil is not a cast, you can clean the material off down to the petrified fossil remains. When a fossil is a cast, there is nothing to clean down to.

You should wait for a day or two to see if there is somebody out there with a better understanding of this object who will reply.

[kennedyskorner]

No, don't clean the whole thing. I'm pretty sure it is a fossil, but it might be a cast, which means you might just clean the whole thing away.

If you want to try, you could clean just a small part of it it an corner, just to see what happens. A soft toothbrush and some water would be the most I would try to a small section.

When a fossil is not a cast, you can clean the material off down to the petrified fossil remains. When a fossil is a cast, there is nothing to clean down to.

You should wait for a day or two to see if there is somebody out there with a better understanding of this object who will reply.

I assure you that I will not drag out the grinder yet.

Thanks again for the advise, although I do not believe that its a cast (but that is just my guess) since i pretty much found it by accident - and curiosity. There was a little part sticking out that caught my eye and I thought that it looked pretty unique how the "strands" were all flowing one way, and decided to look into it farther, with a coarse vigorous brushing (and one of those free battery operated facial brushes work wonders with their soft bristles afterwards! I figured it wouldn't hurt since I almost missed it to begin with and tossed it.

After brushing for what seemed like forever, I traced what i was brushing away with a wooden toothpick, and its hard, like rubbing a nail on bone, you know that sound -- but you definitely know much more about this than I when it comes to this, and I will head all your instructions.

But I will go around the edges with a soft brush and some water in a few days, we will see if anyone recognizes it first.

It feels good to be excited about something. I am so glad i joined.