daniyyel Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I was going over some rocks I found while travelling around the world when I saw this interesting rock - actually something in it captured my attention. Unfortunately I can't remember exactly where I found this rock. Might be either at the Mediterranean Sea or the Red Sea. Here are the photos (sorry about the one with the size comparison it's quite low in quality but that doesn't matter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaforth Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Crinoid piece maybe? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) The specimen shown doesn't seem to fit into the genus Lithostrotionella because in that genus the coralites are packed fairly close together, but your specimen is showing quite a distance to the next coralite. It does look like some type of colonial rugose coral. (EDIT: It's a mold of the coral...) Edited November 27, 2014 by tmaier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TqB Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) I think it looks more like a bryozoan than a coral. The "septa" seem to be tube shaped so they'd be zooecia, with pores showing on the external mould. Or maybe a sponge? Edited November 27, 2014 by TqB Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 It could be an oddly eroded horn coral that was encrusted by a bryozoan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 For comparison: http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herb Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I agree with Bob, looks like an encrusted coral. "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...
Ludwigia Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I agree with Bob, looks like an encrusted coral. I'd go with that too, but without good closeups particularly of the little pores surrounding the larger impression, it's just guesswork... Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger http://www.steinkern.de/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TqB Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) The pores seem to line up with, or have the same spacing as what I'm seeing as the internal tubes/rods so I'm still thinking not a coral or anything encrusted. Edited November 27, 2014 by TqB Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 I think it's actually a tabulate. I have a mass of these that I was calling bryozoan from the appearance of empty moulds, but when I got a clear look at the fossil it's self those holes lead to very tabulate shaped coralites. The ones I'm referring to are late Wenlock to Pridoli in age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TqB Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 I think it's actually a tabulate. I have a mass of these that I was calling bryozoan from the appearance of empty moulds, but when I got a clear look at the fossil it's self those holes lead to very tabulate shaped coralites. The ones I'm referring to are late Wenlock to Pridoli in age. Yes, that could work - I'll go from "not a coral" to "not a rugosan or scleractinian". I just tried to work out the diameter of the tubes - apparently under 1mm, about 0.7mm perhaps, so rather large for bryozoan. Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniyyel Posted November 28, 2014 Author Share Posted November 28, 2014 (edited) I'd go with that too, but without good closeups particularly of the little pores surrounding the larger impression, it's just guesswork... Thanks guys for the replies! Gonna make a few more photos to show the area Ludwigia is talking about! Edited November 28, 2014 by daniyyel 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