Jump to content

Silurian/Devonian Tube of Uncertain Affinity - Tentaculite?


electricshaman

Recommended Posts

Found this specimen all by itself, neatly embedded in the surface of the limestone-bedded creek that runs alongside Big Canyon Road to the south of the White Mound site in southern Oklahoma. Geological maps confirm the site is Hunton Group, the same formation group as White Mound, although this matrix is much harder and more crystalline than the limestone at White Mound. This group ranges in age from Early Silurian to Early Devonian.

PossTentaculite1_Web.jpg

PossTentaculite2_Web.jpg

PossTentaculite3_Web.jpg

PossTentaculite4_Web.jpg

PossTentaculite5_Web.jpg

PossTentaculite6_Web.jpg

The whole specimen was extracted along with some of the matrix. You might also notice the fossil looks like it's been somewhat dissolved. This is one of the very first fossils that I found and I made the rookie mistake of soaking it in vinegar, thinking it would clean up nicely. Instead it mostly dissolved away the smooth surface features, but the overall structure was preserved. The original state of the fossil (which I should have taken a picture of) was much the same, but less bumpy. I won't be making that mistake again.

The tube has multi-layered walls with symmetric rings. It might be hard to see in the photo but the inner walls also have rings. The closest thing I can find in the Audubon book which is the right age is tentaculites. Their picture doesn't really match (their example is much more conical shaped with larger ringlets) but the description is pretty close (except for the "coarse" rings and the width) and the age is appropriate. Here's what they have to say about tentaculites:

Description: "60 mm long, 44 mm wide. Small, narrow, straight cone, with coarse rings more uniform toward apex. Area between rings usually has concentric ringlets or lines. Inner wall of cone also has rings. Walls thick, multi-layered, pierced by tiny radiating canals. Interior toward apex has slightly concave septa sealing off sections of tube. Apex closed and bluntly pointed."

They also add: "The apex ends either in a point or a small bulb."

Age: "Lower Silurian through Upper Devonian (possibly also in the Lower Ordovician)"

post-18264-0-71261700-1449632279_thumb.jpg

post-18264-0-74908500-1449632280_thumb.jpg

post-18264-0-74221900-1449632281_thumb.jpg

post-18264-0-73506900-1449632282_thumb.jpg

post-18264-0-79205000-1449632283_thumb.jpg

post-18264-0-77156400-1449632284_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The size is much too large for a tentaculitid. Although it is hard to be certain due to the extensive coarse silicification, the size and remaining surface features suggest a crinoid stem to me.

Don

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The size is much too large for a tentaculitid. Although it is hard to be certain due to the extensive coarse silicification, the size and remaining surface features suggest a crinoid stem to me.

Don

I agree with crinoid stem. Photo #2 shows good casts of the lumen spaces between columnals.

I'm curious, if hesitant to question your wisdom, why you went with silicification over calcite though ?

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the others. Crinoid columnal.

According to your other find, the Lobolith, I suppose it could belong to a Scyphocrinitid, Scyphocrinites. http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/36079-lobolite-from-scyphocrinites-morocco/

Edited by abyssunder
  • I found this Informative 2

" We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. "

Thomas Mann

My Library

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious, if hesitant to question your wisdom, why you went with silicification over calcite though ?

I'm not sure about the "wisdom" part. However, the fossil is clearly highly resistant compared to the matrix it is in, which appears to be limestone (and electricshaman says the bedrock is limestone). If the fossil was calcitic it would have the same chemical composition as the limestone, and so would not be so differentially resistant to erosion. The appearance is quite similar to many coarsely silicified fossils I have collected. Of course we are dealing with a photo here and so any notion of the chemical composition of the fossil is just a hypothesis, which we could test (if we had the specimen in hand) experimentally. I'd predict with a high degree of confidence that the matrix will fizz in dilute acetic acid, and the fossil will not.

Don

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...notice the fossil looks like it's been somewhat dissolved. This is one of the very first fossils that I found and I made the rookie mistake of soaking it in vinegar...

Sounds to me like the fossil was strongly etched by the acid.

"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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...