Jump to content

Mystery Fossil


B!llGa

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone! I am new here and I joined because a few years back my brother found a fossil that has stump everyone I have shown it to. It was found in a dry creek bed in Jackson county in Indiana. The people that I have shown it to have had a lot of really good info and can figure it out once I donated it.

But before then I wanted to get as much input as I could, thus sharing it on here.

This will eventually go to the State Museum.

Thanks again to all that look.

post-17072-0-17591500-1417884993_thumb.jpg

post-17072-0-97543200-1417885023_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone! I am new here and I joined because a few years back my brother found a fossil that has stump everyone I have shown it to. It was found in a dry creek bed in Jackson county in Indiana. The people that I have shown it to have had a lot of really good info and can figure it out once I donated it.

But before then I wanted to get as much input as I could, thus sharing it on here.

This will eventually go to the State Museum.

Thanks again to all that look.

Nautiloide

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all and thanks for the info, I had replied before but it hasn't showed up.

I am thinking that the answer is not going to be an easy one as I have had three different experts look at this and all three has stated that it is scientificly important and that More study had to be done to determine exactly what it was. Two of the people that have looked at it are both from two different museums and the other is a professor. I am thinking that it was either found in a location where it shouldn't have been or it is older than most fossils in that area that have been found. Again thank you everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I have had three different experts look at this and all three has stated that it is scientificly important and that More study had to be done to determine exactly what it was...

Have they said what they think it might be?

"There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant

“Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley

>Paleontology is an evolving science.

>May your wonders never cease!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking that the question is one of what genus it is.

Is it thought to be Ordovician?

"There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant

“Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley

>Paleontology is an evolving science.

>May your wonders never cease!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I am not knowledgeable at all about fossils, this is the one and only one I've ever had. The people I am speaking of have giving me a lot of information and quite honestly I don't even know how to interpret it. I am asking them if it's alright to post what they have told me as they have spent time in trying to explain it me, who, like I said have absolutely no understanding of fossils. Once they say okay then I'll post it. And please do not mistake my posting I do not believe this to be extremely rare or a valuable I'm just curious about what it is. Thanks all!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...It was found in a dry creek bed in Jackson county in Indiana...

...Is it thought to be Ordovician?

Jackson County is entirely Devonian-Mississippian in age.

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two of them have told me it is from the Mississippian period, and one of them speculate the genus is called Rutoceras but they do not all agree on that. Also one of the ones that said it was from the Mississippian period actually said it was from the middle missisppian period if that makes a difference, he also was the one that used some type of equipment to clean a small spot at the top of the coil that you can see if you zoom in on the first picture. Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Rockwood!

I believe it to only be fair as they are the one who have put the effort into researching it and explaining it to me ( no easy task )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is Mississippian and is a Rutoceras. We find them in Siderite nodules in the Mississippian outcrops near big hill, Kentucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you jgcox!

They were found in southern Indiana not to far from Kentucky.

Are they pretty common there? And have you found any that looks like this one?

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is Mississippian and is a Rutoceras. We find them in Siderite nodules in the Mississippian outcrops near big hill, Kentucky.

Is not Rutoceras Hyatt 1884 (ie the genus) known only from the Devonian of Germany… as opposed to Rutoceratidae (the family) for which other genera are reported elsewhere? Or am I out of date with respect to renaming/reassignment of genera?

Perhaps when the commentator referred to it as “scientifically important”, he was talking in general terms… in that the family Rutoceratidae represents the ancestral prototype forms from which all Nautilida are believed to derive… as opposed to this individual fossil being important. I’m not sure there is enough there to pin it down to a specific genus, but if my understanding is correct then it would be “out of place” if it could be confirmed as Rutoceras sp.

Roger

I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew);Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who [Rudyard Kipling]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard back and it's fine if I share so here is some info I got, this was BEFORE I told him where the fossil was found.....

First, what you have is a coiled nautiloid, which is a cephalopod distantly related to the modern living Nautilus (you can google that genus to see what it looks like.).

Given the above general identification, a good generic and species identification for your specimen is not possible with what I can see and know of the specimen. Here are the problems with a firm id:

1) There is some distortion of the suture line in the top (= venter). Thus we don't know what the shape of this structure really is. The lateral side shows a simple slightly curved suture line and that eliminates a number of nautiloid genera.

2) the specimen is a smooth internal mold. That mean the outer shell is missing (probably not preserved) and the outer shell ornament is important in giving a good ID on many specimens.

3) The age of the rocks where the specimen was found is not known. You can probably find out what it is by giving the location where the specimen was found to a state geologist or look on a geological map. I suspect it is Lower Carboniferous or Devonian in age. Since it is unlike any coiled nautiloid I have ever seen from the Upper Carboniferous, I think (but I cannot be sure) that it did not come from that age of rocks.

4) The siphuncle position is unknown. This is an important piece of information. The siphuncle is a connecting tube to each of the chambers and it will be located as a hole on the plane of bilateral symmetry on the smooth side of each septum. To see it, you have to break the specimen to see a septal surface, and I don't think you would want to do that.

Despite this lack of information, some guesses at the generic identification can be made (based on the assumption that the specimen is Lower Carboniferous in age). The two names I have come up with are based on the simple suture line that can be seen, the shape of the conch in cross section and the open (evolute) coiling of the conch. One is Millkoninckioceras and the other is Lispoceras. Both are only known from Europe which suggests that these identifications are not correct. I can probably do better if you can find out the age of the rocks that produced the specimen.

That is the best I can do right now. The pictures are good so that is not a problem. Hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then after I told him where it was found and that someone had told me it was Rutoceras his reply was.....

A quick look at the Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology Volume K shows that Rutoceras is coiled different that your specimen and has frills on the suture lines (picture on p. K419 7a and 7b). Your specimen does not have frills on the well preserved lateral surface. Also Rutoceras is only known from the middle Devonian (see p. K416) and not the Carboniferous.

Thus, I don't like that identification. However, I don't really like the ones that I gave you either. Thus, your specimen is scientifically important (but I might add not monetarily valuable). Glad to know you want to donate it to a museum so that a future scientist can puzzle over it and make profound speculations about it. All of us paleontologist like to do that!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2014 at 5:27 AM, painshill said:

...Is not Rutoceras Hyatt 1884 (ie the genus) known only from the Devonian of Germany… as opposed to Rutoceratidae (the family) for which other genera are reported elsewhere? Or am I out of date with respect to renaming/reassignment of genera?...

Quote

Rutoceras occurs in the Schoharie of eastern New York, the basal Onondaga of southern Ontario, possibly of Schoharie age, and occurs in the Middle Devonian of Europe.

 

Flower, R.H. (1945)

Classification of Devonian nautiloids.

American Midland Naturalist, 33(3):675-724

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever genus it is , that is a very nice coiled nautiloid specimen :wub:

"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

Goldringia cyclops (Rutoceratidae) appears to be a better match and might be the correct species.
The Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology(K) and Flower 1945 confirm its presence in southern Indiana.
 
IMG1.jpg
 
Goldringia Flower, 1945 [*Gyroceras cyclops Hall, 1861; OD] [ = ?Polycronites Troost,1840]. Gyroconic, with 1 or 2 volutions, free; cross section slightly broader than high, dorsum more flattened than venter, which typically narrowly rounded, thus producing faintly subtriangular cross section; suture essentially straight, transverse; siphuncle ventral, tubular, free of any known organic deposits; surface of shell produced at regular intervals into crenulate frills, each frill bent downward on venter so as to form well defined hyponomic sinus; frills continuous around shell, only slightly shorter dorsally than ventrally (if at all), no spoutlike or spinous lateral processes; five markings consist of transverse lirae and striae which show crennulate pattern of frills, accompanied by fainter longitudinal markings in some forms (32). M.Dev., N.Am. (N.Y.-Ohio-Ind.) -- FIG. 299,6. *G. cyclops (HALL), USA (N.Y.); 6a X0.2; X0.5 (223).
 
Goldringia cyclops, the genotype, is a very widely known species. Typically developed in the Onondaga limestone of New York, the species shows considerable variation in proportions, but the examination of a considerable suite of specimens has failed to show any specific differences between the New York form and that developed in the Columbus limestone of Ohio and the Jeffersonville limestone of Indiana.
 
Flower, R.H. (1945)
Classification of Devonian nautiloids.
American Midland Naturalist, 33(3):675-724
 
 

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...