Brachiopod (?) and a couple of other small fossils

[Fletcher]

All of these were found on the shore of Lake Michigan in NE Illinois; unsure of the age(s) or formation(s) but everything I've found here that I can identify has been marine.

I'm fairly certain this is a brachiopod (maybe Mesolobus?) but it's broken and I only have the one valve, so I'm not sure and would love some input from you more experienced folks:

And then there's this thing, which looks like it might form a round structure underneath the matrix but it's a little difficult to tell:

And then this (I've been having trouble getting a clear picture of it, so I tried playing around with the contrast and brightness on it; still not great, but it's better):

(If you can't tell, the bit at the front has been broken and filled in with crystal, which is why it looks different from the rest.)

Any and all help is much appreciated!

[fifbrindacier]

Hello Fletcher. I agree you have a brachiopod on your first photo. As for the second one, i cannot see clearly enough because i can't zoom it.

[Peat Burns]

The second one looks like coral to me.

[tmaier]

Yep, the first one is a brachiopod.

The second one looks like a cross section through a horn coral, showing the septa. http://www.google.com/search?q=septa+of+horn+coral&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1&tbm=isch I can't make out what the round thing is, though.

And the third item I can't see because it is over exposed. With an automatic camera you can't control the exposure, but you can fool the exposure into taking a better picture. Shoot light colored objects on a light background, and dark colored objects on a dark background, and that will force the camera to use a better exposure time.

[Fletcher]

Thank you guys! I'll try to take a better picture of the third one, but I may have to wait until I have access to an actual camera and not just my phone.

[Rockwood]

This is right off the cuff, but the thought that comes to mind for that last one is immature trilobite.

[fifbrindacier]

I hope you don't mind, but i darkened it a little.

Edited June 8, 2016 by fifbrindacier

[DanO]

Last photo looks like the end of a horn coral

You can see some of the circular rings on the bottom left. I'll get a better comparison picture later for you.

[Fletcher]

Rockwood, that would be awesome but shouldn't even a young trilobite have segmentation? EDIT: Just did some googling and it looks like very newly-hatched (?) trilobites did not have segmentation, so I guess that protest isn't valid. I'll start digging into that, thank you for the suggestion!

DanO, I'm not sure I see anything that looks like my last photo in there, but maybe I'm just looking at it wrong!

Edited June 8, 2016 by Fletcher

[doushantuo]

a lot of protaspides* border on "featureless",Fletch.

*first ontogenetic stage

Edited June 8, 2016 by doushantuo

[lissa318]

The third one does not look like a trilobite at all to me... Try to get a clearer pic and welcome to the forum.

[Fletcher]

Here's a couple more pictures, hopefully these are better...

[doushantuo]

regarding the trilobite affinities of the object in post 12:

early ontogenetic stages of trilobites:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259399431_First_Carboniferous_protaspid_larvae_Trilobita

http://www.geology.cz/bulletin/fulltext/1438_Laibl.pdf

If anything ,it looks slightly like Parvancorina

Edited June 8, 2016 by doushantuo

[lissa318]

It looks like there is a septum hole though. And it was found on the shores of a lake so certainly has been worn and tumbled by the waves. I still don't think it's a trilobite hopefully some more members will chime in. Hopefully I am wrong but don't think I am... lol

Edited June 8, 2016 by lissa318

[Fletcher]

I agree it looks a bit like Parvancorina but as far as I can tell they've only been found in Russia and Australia...I can't take a picture of it right now but underneath the "upper" surface the sides angle outwards into a sort of rhombus shape, and it seems a little thick to be a trilobite (to my admittedly unknowledgeable eye)...does it look like an echinoderm to anyone? I don't know if there's enough space for five-fold symmetry, though. I'll try to take some pictures from other angles when I'm able.

[lissa318]

Or maybe a worn blastoid could be possible... I am not familiar with the age of your area either though.

[abyssunder]

This is interesting. The pictures showing the specimen are blurry, but I'm leaning toward a crinoid brachial, possible secundibrachial, if not, maybe primibrachial. Here are some pictures to compare with, from New data on Late Turonian crinoids from the Bohemian Cretaceous Basin, Czech Republic - Jiri Zitt,Radek Vodrazka http://www.geology.cz/bulletin/fulltext/bullgeosci200803311.pdf

Edited June 10, 2016 by abyssunder

[tmaier]

I'd like to suggest martial arts throwing star... but will not put money on that guess.

[Fletcher]

abyssunder, thank you! That looks very promising. Are the brachials the base of the arms, or am I misunderstanding that? I'm having a hard time finding a lot of information on them, but I'll keep looking.

[Fletcher]

I thought I'd make a new post for the new pictures. The best suggestion on that thread was that it might be a crinoid brachial (thanks, abyssunder!) but I'm having a hard time finding more information and photos of brachials, so it would be great if anyone else has an idea! Picked this up on the shore of Lake Michigan in NE Illinois so I can't be certain of the age or deposit.

[JohnJ]

Your new topic has been merged with the original topic. Discussions of the same specimen are less confusing when kept in the same topic.

[Fletcher]

Okay, sorry about that! I'll keep that in mind.

[JohnJ]

No worries. Hopefully, someone will recognize your find.