Pecopteris or other tree fern?

[M.Mark]

I received this relatively large fossil about 4 years ago as a Christmas present from a friend. All the information I have about this specimen is that "it comes from the Carboniferous", it was bought from a peddler at the local Christmas market without asking for the provenance. Now I am trying to definitively identify it.

 

I compared it to all my fossil ferns and to many pics online, and some photos of Pecopteris polymorpha are particularly similar in shape. 

 

 

^This is one of the images I found online. There is a surprising similarity even with the surrounding matrix, could my fossil come from the same formation?

 

My specimen measures about 180 x 140 mm.

[M.Mark]

Here you are other photos, since each of them exceeds 2 MB I have to upload them separately.

[Fossildude19]

Mark, 

 

Are you able to get any detailed close ups of the pinnules? 

The mid-vein and other veining on the pinnules plays a big part in identification.

Regards, 

 

 

EDIT: ... this was as close as I could get with my software, and your photos. 

 

 

 

I would say Pecopteris sp., ... but I don't know what species. 

Maybe @paleoflor  @Plantguy  @fiddlehead  @docdutronc  might be able to narrow it down further. 

 

[M.Mark]

21 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

Are you able to get any detailed close ups of the pinnules? 

 

I don't have my proper camera right now, but using the smartphone's one and a magnifying glass I was able to get this; if it is not defined enough, I will upload more detailed pics tomorrow. Thank you for your help!

[Fossildude19]

Brightened a bit:

 

 

 

Looks pretty good - one of the plant guys may be able to tell you something further with this. 

[M.Mark]

Thank you again!

[Fossildude19]

You're welcome. 

While you wait for some more answers, you could try having a look through this website.    

Regards,

 

 

EDIT: Pecopteris arborescens and Pecopteris arguta  look similar.

[M.Mark]

Looking around online I would say that P. arguta is the most probable candidate. 

 

 

Here in figure 3a the pinnules are as simple as those my fossil.

 

I wait for the opinions of more expert members to be sure.

 

 

I may have found the location where this fossil was collected. All the carboniferous fossils from Graissessac (France) have the same matrix, and apparently they are known for the abundance of Pecopteris (https://steurh.home.xs4all.nl/enggrais/egrais.html and http://english.fossiel.net/sites/fossil_site.php?plaats=193)

Edited January 20, 2017 by M.Mark
I updated the comment

[fiddlehead]

I will take a wack at this. What it is not, and what it likely is, and the pitfalls of the internet and old references. You bring up the Lesquereux reference "Coal Flora" 1879-1880, with his interpretation of Brongniart's 1828 interpretation of Pecopteris arguta, which was first described and named by Sternberg, Pecopteris arguta in 1826. Making Lesquereux's reference third hand information. Actually he does a good job, but for one problem, Lesquereux, Brongniart and Sternberg missed the fact this same form was described and named by Schlotheim in 1820, Filicities feminaeformis. Today as is often the case the genus has changed to make more natural groups and it is called Nemejcopteris feminaeformis (Schloth.) Barthel, 1968. Ok now forget all that because this is not what you have. Let's look at some of the features of N. feminaeformis. It has simple straight veins which are distant and rise at near 45°. The pinnules are close with nearly straight sides and united at their bases. From what I can make out from your example, it has pinnules which are more distant do not touch and sides more convex with some being lobed. I doubt the veins are simple or straight and certainly are not distant. My guess, and I could be very wrong because of some lacking of preservation, is that the veins are divided near the base and just is not visible in this example. I will skip a description and attach a picture of one saving me a thousand words or so they say. I believe you have what was your first guess, now called Acitheca polymorpha (Brongniart) Schimper, 1879. Regardless, Google is great, but the fun only starts there, most fossil foliage names have a long history of change, so identifying them using the present nomenclature will likely take some digging.  

 

Hope this helps,

Jack  

[Fossildude19]

9 minutes ago, fiddlehead said:

I will take a wack at this. What it is not, and what it likely is, and the pitfalls of the internet and old references. You bring up the Lesquereux reference "Coal Flora" 1879-1880, with his interpretation of Brongniart's 1828 interpretation of Pecopteris arguta, which was first described and named by Sternberg, Pecopteris arguta in 1826. Making Lesquereux's reference third hand information. Actually he does a good job, but for one problem, Lesquereux, Brongniart and Sternberg missed the fact this same form was described and named by Schlotheim in 1820, Filicities feminaeformis. Today as is often the case the genus has changed to make more natural groups and it is called Nemejcopteris feminaeformis (Schloth.) Barthel, 1968. Ok now forget all that because this is not what you have. Let's look at some of the features of N. feminaeformis. It has simple straight veins which are distant and rise at near 45°. The pinnules are close with nearly straight sides and united at their bases. From what I can make out from your example, it has pinnules which are more distant do not touch and sides more convex with some being lobed. I doubt the veins are simple or straight and certainly are not distant. My guess, and I could be very wrong because of some lacking of preservation, is that the veins are divided near the base and just is not visible in this example. I will skip a description and attach a picture of one saving me a thousand words or so they say. I believe you have what was your first guess, now called Acitheca polymorpha (Brongniart) Schimper, 1879. Regardless, Google is great, but the fun only starts there, most fossil foliage names have a long history of change, so identifying them using the present nomenclature will likely take some digging.  

 

Hope this helps,

Jack  

 

 

Thank you for looking, Jack. 

I appreciate the effort you put in to describing these for us. 

Best regards, 

Tim

[M.Mark]

56 minutes ago, fiddlehead said:

I will take a wack at this. What it is not, and what it likely is, and the pitfalls of the internet and old references. You bring up the Lesquereux reference "Coal Flora" 1879-1880, with his interpretation of Brongniart's 1828 interpretation of Pecopteris arguta, which was first described and named by Sternberg, Pecopteris arguta in 1826. Making Lesquereux's reference third hand information. Actually he does a good job, but for one problem, Lesquereux, Brongniart and Sternberg missed the fact this same form was described and named by Schlotheim in 1820, Filicities feminaeformis. Today as is often the case the genus has changed to make more natural groups and it is called Nemejcopteris feminaeformis (Schloth.) Barthel, 1968. Ok now forget all that because this is not what you have. Let's look at some of the features of N. feminaeformis. It has simple straight veins which are distant and rise at near 45°. The pinnules are close with nearly straight sides and united at their bases. From what I can make out from your example, it has pinnules which are more distant do not touch and sides more convex with some being lobed. I doubt the veins are simple or straight and certainly are not distant. My guess, and I could be very wrong because of some lacking of preservation, is that the veins are divided near the base and just is not visible in this example. I will skip a description and attach a picture of one saving me a thousand words or so they say. I believe you have what was your first guess, now called Acitheca polymorpha (Brongniart) Schimper, 1879. Regardless, Google is great, but the fun only starts there, most fossil foliage names have a long history of change, so identifying them using the present nomenclature will likely take some digging.  

 

Hope this helps,

Jack  

 

Amazingly detailed, you left me absolutely without words. Your skills, great knowledge and professionality are clear, it really means a lot to me.

 

Thank you,

Mark