EMP Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 I have posted these pics earlier but I thought it might be better to just start a new thread for them. I found this in a section of the Purslane Sandstone, part of the Pocono Group in MD and was wondering if it was an arachnid. Sorry if the pics aren't the best, but I did them on my phone. I'll try to get natural light pics once it gets brighter out. Thanks for any help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieira Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 I have serious doubts you have a arachnid there... I think these fossil are some kind of plant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMP Posted January 16, 2017 Author Share Posted January 16, 2017 To me it looked as though it was split into two segments with four legs on each side, but I've never collected terrestrial deposits before. It's unlike any of the leaf fossils I have found since there are no vein structures on the "legs" that would normally indicate leaf, but again I'm new to this whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieira Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Can you post some more pictures? Please make a zoom in those details... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMP Posted January 16, 2017 Author Share Posted January 16, 2017 The first couple show the division of the "body" into what appears to be two segments, as well as some of the pairs of legs. The third shows the same fossil, but where I've circled in red what appear to be the legs and body segments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max-fossils Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 I must agree that it looks kinda plant-ish, as @Vieira said before. But I am no expert at all with plants/insects/arachnids, so I can't help more. Do you know the possible age of the fossil? I'm pretty sure that would help a bit. Also, if we had a size indication, that would be useful too. Let's wait till our invert guys kick in. Best regards, Max 1 Max Derème "I feel an echo of the lightning each time I find a fossil. [...] That is why I am a hunter: to feel that bolt of lightning every day." - Mary Anning >< Remarkable Creatures, Tracy Chevalier Instagram: @world_of_fossils Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Mississippian period - Purslane Formation. Better pictures with more visible detail would help figure this out. Regards, 1 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMP Posted January 16, 2017 Author Share Posted January 16, 2017 It's less than .5 in long, and yes it's lower Mississippian Purslane Formation (according to the MGS map). I don't know how to get better pictures though, because I only have my phone to take the pictures with. The "body part" has some very faint lines on it running down it's length Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Do you have a magnifying glass? You could take a picture through that to get a better image. Or, if you take a drop of water, and carefully put it on your camera's lens, you may be able to get a decent picture through that. The issue is that if blow up your pictures, all of the detail is lost, and fuzzed out. Is there any macro setting on your phone camera? Also, be sure to lay it flat, and take a picture from directly above it - holding the fossil and the camera can add some blur. Failing these options, anyone have a camera you could borrow? Regards, Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMP Posted January 16, 2017 Author Share Posted January 16, 2017 Does this help any? You can kind of see the lines on the "body" and the structure of the "legs" a little better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Looks plant to Me. Tony Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 I'm going to have to stick with plant on this. The lack of segmentation to the legs, and the lines running down the legs themselves would be atypical for a spider. The lines on the"abdomen" are vertical, rather than horizontal, as I would expect from a spider. See these fossil spider images. I think you have plant material there, ... and the fossil has broken on different layers, and the lines you see are definitely more plant looking than spider. Regards, 1 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMP Posted January 16, 2017 Author Share Posted January 16, 2017 Bummer. This was the second one I mentioned earlier. This one is only the "body", but it does have robust segmentation across the width of the "body", unlike the other. Edit: Thanks for the diagram. Now that you pointed it out I see what you are saying. Yeah, it probably is plant pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Hard to really tell from the photos, but this is what I am seeing. Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMP Posted January 16, 2017 Author Share Posted January 16, 2017 Does the second photo clear it up? I'm not sure about cracks in the matrix because it's symmetrical and pretty small (<.25 in). Like this example: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 The details get fuzzy when you blow up the pictures. That's common with the Camera phones - they're for taking selfies and people pics, not really for Fossils. You may be seeing something with it in hand that I can't make out through the photos. It happens. Maybe bring it to a local museum or university to get looked at. Regards, Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMP Posted January 16, 2017 Author Share Posted January 16, 2017 Here I've outlined the segments in red as well as the "body". Better, worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Oh, I can see the shapes, I just can't make out the detail to see whether it is imprinted on there, or is an artifact of splitting/weathering. Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 I do not think this is an arachnid or any arthropod. The "body" does not show anything resembling a cephalothorax associated with a segmented opistosome (abdomen). As Tim noted the legs do not show any sign of joints. There are also too many of them, it the specimen was an arachnid there should be eight, if an insect six legs. I think it is plant, perhaps a not-very-well preserved Annularia- like form. I have to say I have also been fooled by such fossils, which I desperately wanted to be a Carboniferous insect or arachnid. Don 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMP Posted January 16, 2017 Author Share Posted January 16, 2017 Any thoughts on the second specimen FossilDAWG? If it helps any I found all of these pieces alongside a road cut as loose chips. The part of the Purslane it comes from is the upper coal bearing part near the contact with what would normally be the Hedges Shale (but is non-existent in this state), and I've found lots of Triphyllopteris, a couple of lepidondedron pieces and some worm burrows but not much else, and most of this stuff is just hash (probably what's going on in the first specimen). Every once in a while there are a few chunks of hard shale in between the normal siltstones, and this specimen came from one of those pieces I picked up along the grass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMP Posted January 19, 2017 Author Share Posted January 19, 2017 I'll just ask around on the two. One guy said it is an arachnid, but some said that they don't know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpc Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I did not see any segmentation on the 'legs', so I am in the plant camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 I can't see the arachnid, so, I'm definitely in the plant camp.Here's an all-in-one image which might help: " 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 More sharing options...
Wrangellian Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 The issue I'm seeing with the photography is they are taken under low light levels. You need sunlight ideally. I don't know about cellphone cameras but like Fossildude says - selfies and people pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMP Posted January 20, 2017 Author Share Posted January 20, 2017 The first one I'm pretty sure is plant fragments, but the second one I'm still not quite sure (again some people have suggested arachnid, others weren't sure). I've been trying to get a better picture, but the thing is so small (<.25 inch) that I'd need something better than a standard camera from the store to get a really good image. I have some better lit pictures here: https://imgur.com/a/T4QLp http://imgur.com/0v910ic If it helps it is covered in tiny bumps (may or may by visible in the pictures) and looks like a trilobite's thorax, but with a middle lobe that doesn't protrude over the rest. The rock's I found this one I have never found any plant remains in, so a plant is less likely. 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