Still working on this..oculina sarasotana?

[Jonelle]

So I'm still cleaning up this coral.. it's taking a while with a chisel and nail tools! I'm hoping there is some kind of crystallization in the coral but I have no idea where to go from here.. also, I'm thinking it might be oculina sarasotana? Any thoughts on this one? I can't really find much similar when I search.. I know I posted it before but I'm hoping maybe it looks a little clearer now.. there are a couple of holes in the coral I'm wondering if that is where I should cut? Maybe in the back? It's still a little sandy, but this is one solid chunk otherwise...the coral is also on the back. 

[TqB]

I can't see any coral structure there, maybe it's a sponge?

[Jonelle]

Could be i don't know 

[digit]

I'm not seeing a polyp pattern either. Modern Oculina are pretty small corals (see the cm scale in the photo of the Oculina above) and your specimen looks too large to me.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Jonelle]

thanks @TqB and @digit for clearing that up for me  yes, it is large about a foot both up and across.

[fifbrindacier]

I agree this not at all a coral, i see no septas on it. I am also leaning towards a spongiaire.

[fossiling]

I see this as ichnofossil.

[tmaier]

jonelle,

That is not Oculina sarasota, or any other coral. It is just a water sculpted piece of limestone. When you find Oculina sarasota in your area, it will look perfectly like that example specimen that you show above. They are loose, cleaned, and beautiful.

That limestone is much older, likely from the Eocene period.

You can tell that species because the corralites are separated far apart, and the holes are steep and deep, almost like drilled holes. They look like holes you would find on the musical instrument called an oculina. Very distinctive.

That limestone could contain fossils, but I'm not seeing any in what you have there. Water movement in the aquifer causes a lot of limestone that ends up looking scultped. In your area, a lot of limestone is not native, and is brought in as a building material, to make a solid foundation for building. The limestones that are commonly trucked in are

- the Suwannee limestone from the north, which is Oligicene in age (about 30 million years old),

- the Ocala limestone from the east and north east, which is late Eocene (about 40 million years),

- and the Tamiami limestonewhich is south of you, and is late Miocene to Pliocene (about 10 million years old)

I'm not real sure, but that chunk of limestone you have here looks like the Suwannee. It tends to be highly sculpted, erroded, and metamorphized by calcite deposits. You can sometimes find voids in the limestone where the fossils have erroded away, or half away.

The Ocala limestone is more chalky and can be pounded into a powder. It is often stark white, or beige.

The Tamiami is erroded and gnarly, similar to the Suwannee.

You are likely to see all three of those having been brought in for construction in your area.

Yesterday, Thanksgiving, I went hunting what I call "Eocene road kill". My area uses Ocala limestone mostly, and I knew a road that was packed Ocala that was on a hill. For years rain had been erroding out the hard lumps of the limestone, many of which are fossils. Just to get out of the house and get some excercise, I walked the road and found sponges, four species of sea buscuits, a dozen species of bivalves, and other stuff. That's the easy and lazy way to fossil hunt.

Watch for those limestones, but also keep in mind that they represent a totally different time and place than what you normally find on the surface in your area. Your native fossils are most loose, rolling around, and just a few million years old. These limestone formations I mention above are much older.

[digit]

I just noticed someone from India selling what they claim to be Oculina sarasotana on "that auction site". The pieces (some stained lurid colors) are in fact not fossil coral at all but appear to be chunks of modern day coral (possibly a Pocillopora) that are being marketed as this extinct species from the Tamiami Formation of Florida (a long way from Jaipur, India). Once again the caution goes out of "buyer beware" when obtaining "fossils" from marketplaces that rhyme with "Oh, hey!"

 

 

BTW: I've never heard that Oculina was named after a musical instrument. The only thing I've heard of that sounds like that (is an "ocarina" which sounds similar if said with a fake Japanese accent).

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Jonelle]

@digitI think I found one the other day in nice condition,but my husband is involved it a fossil relocation program  I can't find it anywhere.. maybe the middle one here? Im trying to learn  I'm sad the other one is probably gone.

[Jonelle]

After I snapped this I heard him yelling, "all the rocks and shells are staying outside".. what a party pooper! 

[tmaier]

Looks like you have six or seven species of coral there. The one at the very top, to the right, might be sarasotana. The thing to look for that is very distictive is the widely spaced corralites, and the deep holes.

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/invertpaleo/display.asp?catalog_number=12238&gallery_type=Florida%20Cnidaria

It is hard to find a decent photo that show that species on the web. Actually, it is hard to find good photos at all of corals because people focus on the wrong things. They often take a distant photo that only shows the gross outline of the coral, and there are so many branching coral species that are not distinctive in gross form. The best diagnostics are the detials of the corralite spacing, corralite geometry, the number of septa, and other details that are not shown in those distant phots.

There is one photo of this species on the first page of this google search that is pretty good, because it shows an inset photo of the details of the corralite. It is on this search page, and the text is in Arabic.

https://www.google.com/search?q=oculina+sarasotana&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1&tbm=isch

That photo was confirmed by paleontologists at Berkeley to be Oculina sarasotana. I made that photo a couple decades ago, but I think I lost the image, so now it is just an excellent photo that floats around the net in a very small size! =-)

[tmaier]

That photo I mention is at the bottom of this blog page. Well, somebody likes it! على الرحب و السعة

http://geoloical.blogfa.com/90054.aspx

[Jonelle]

This here? @tmaier

[tmaier]

Yeah, thanks. I have a very slow modem link and so I can't post photos. If I try to, my connection locks up from too many bytes!

That is the best photo on the nets of that species, in my humble opinion. Photography is one of my many hobbies. That is how all corals should be documented, because to define the species requires the details.

This specimen was found about 40 miles south of you, near Venice. Notice the dimples on the surface... it is in very pristine, unworn state.

Notice the gap between the corralites is often greater than the diameter of a corralite. Also notice the steepness of the dropoff into the corralite. Many corralites are sloped. Also, notice six septa, and the count will be six. Also, notice that each septum has a jagged edge to it, like teeth. Those are the little details that can help diagonse a species. The devil is in the details.

[tmaier]

Now that I see my old photo, I can say none of youre many corals above are of that species. The septa shall be six, sayth the documents. The one that has the widely spaced corralites has 12.

[fifbrindacier]

According tp what Tmaier says, i don't see sarasptan coral here. Non the less, those are beautiful corals you have here. If i want to find so much species of corals, i have to make 400 kilometers and walk during hours.

[tmaier]

Oh-oh. The specimen shown on the Florida State Univ. web site has what looks like 12 septa! There is some confusion here. I can't recall the documents I was working from a couple decades ago, but I swear it specifed 6.


http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/invertpaleo/display.asp?catalog_number=12238&gallery_type=Florida%20Cnidaria

So who is right? Mine was checked by Berkeley paleontology department, but Florida State must know their own fossils, right? We need to check the species verbal definition documents again. Somebody must be wrong here.

[Plantguy]

Agreed, the first specimen does look like a type of limestone..not sure which one...have seen that same looking material in different places in Sarasota Cnty and in other counties but nothing insitu. I was wondering if the SMR or APAC pits had that kind of material in their sections? Maybe there are some diagnostic microfossils within that which may give a clue to as its origin but who knows at this point. 

 

I am pretty sure Ive got some unconfirmed of the Oculina specimens in the coral pile...was trying to take some pictures...mine also have 12 septa but getting a crystal clear photo tonight aint happening...

 

Nice finds. 

 

Regards, Chri