Bob Clouser Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Hi all. This is my first post to the ID forum. I'm stumped on this one. It was found near Kingston, NY. Comes from Middle Devonian Hamilton Group (probably Marcellus Fm). Matrix is a brownish-gray shale. It's a mold of something with small branching (or budding) tubes, dense transverse rings, terminating in cone-shaped depressions. My first guess is some form of branching rugose (horn) coral, where each terminal cone is a corallite. But I wonder if it might also be a sponge -- though sponges usually don't preserve like this, right? In the pictures below, the scale bar has divisions of 1 cm, and in the last photo there is a penny in the background for scale. Thanks for any ideas... Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Definitely horn coral (and a very neat branching specimen, at that) ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifbrindacier Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Hi from France, nice coral. "On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) "We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes." In memory of Doren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TqB Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 I agree it's a coral. It looks like an Aulopora-type tabulate rather than a rugose one. 2 Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peat Burns Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Looks something like Eridophyllum (not saying it is for sure, but similar at least and worth comparing) Old paper: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/48286 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dsailor Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 that is really cool. Maybe an Aulocystis tabulate coral? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darktooth Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Very cool specimen! I like Trilo-butts and I cannot lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Clouser Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 Thanks for the input everyone. I agree about it maybe being a tabulate coral. I looked into some of my books and it does resemble Aulocystis (age is right too). But also Heliophyllum and Eridophyllum. I recently got "The Fossil Book" by Fenton and Fenton from Amazon -- I used to dream about having this book when I saw it in libraries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrangellian Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 I like it... Reminds me of a ginger root. Impression fossils can be just as nice as body fossils. You don't normally see Paleozoic corals preserved (or not preserved) that way, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 3 hours ago, Wrangellian said: Impression fossils can be just as nice as body fossils. You don't normally see Paleozoic corals preserved (or not preserved) that way, right? It's about all I usually find around here. Sometimes they are even preferable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrangellian Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 Perhaps.. I guess that branching structure would not have held together so nicely if it had been the body fossil without matrix! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 I think Aulocystis could be a pretty good match. Take a look here . 1 " 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...
TqB Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 14 hours ago, abyssunder said: I think Aulocystis could be a pretty good match. Take a look here . I agree, larger diameter than the Aulopora I've seen. Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Aulocystis is a recent dictyonid poriferan. Aulacystis,on the other hand edit: slightly stumped! OK:Cladochonus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TqB Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 1 hour ago, doushantuo said: Aulocystis is a recent dictyonid poriferan. Aulacystis,on the other hand edit: slightly stumped! OK:Cladochonus? Aulocystis (Schlutter, 1885), family Aulocystidae, is an auloporid tabulate in the Treatise and a quick Google brings up a load of anthozoan references as well as the poriferan ones. Has it been reassigned recently? If so, I wonder what the coral is called now? Cladochonus certainly has a similar form but the ones I've seen (Carboniferous) are quite a lot smaller although that may not matter. Without internal details it's difficult to be sure. 2 Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) Maybe this document helps a little : *Dynamic Stratigraphy and Depositional Environments of the Hamilton Group (Middle Devonian) in New York State, Part I, New York State Museum Bulletin (457) New York State Library (Click here to login as a Guest\Search for *\Click Document 457-........\Open/Print Document\ wait to load then Download.) " Unlike most hexactinellid genera, Schulze's Aulocystis remained stable for 75 years, with one shift in family allocation, from Maeandrospongidae to Aulocystidae by Schulze (1904). Eventually it was recognized to be preoccupied by Aulocystis Schlutter, 1885 (fossil Anthozoa), and Zhuravleva, 1962 (in Rezvoy et al., 1962) replaced it with Neoaulocystis. Reid's proposed transfers of the genus to junior synonims of Cyclostigma Schrammen (Reid, 1967b) and Callcyclix Schrammen (Reid, 1968a) are rejected since membership in those fossil genera cannot be verified by loose spiculation. The genus presently contains three species, N. grayi (Bowerbank, 1869c), N. polae (Ijima, 1927) (as proposed by Van Soest & Stentoft, 1988:8, and accepted here), and N. zitteli (Marshall & Meyer, 1877), the latter consisting of two subspecies, N. zitteli zitteli (Marshall & Meyer, 1877) and N. zitteli sibogae (Ijima, 1927). Distribution of the genus is entirely tropical to subtropical, restricted to western margins of Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Ocean margins, with vertical range of 82-1383m. " - page 1381 in Systema Porifera: A Guide to the Classification of Sponges, Edited by John N.A. Hooper and Rob W.M. Van Soest © Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2002 †Aulocystis Schlüter, 1885 Aulocystis Schulze, 1886 Edited February 22, 2017 by abyssunder 3 " 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...
TqB Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 10 hours ago, abyssunder said: Maybe this document helps a little : *Dynamic Stratigraphy and Depositional Environments of the Hamilton Group (Middle Devonian) in New York State, Part I, New York State Museum Bulletin (457) New York State Library (Click here to login as a Guest\Search for *\Click Document 457-........\Open/Print Document\ wait to load then Download.) " Unlike most hexactinellid genera, Schulze's Aulocystis remained stable for 75 years, with one shift in family allocation, from Maeandrospongidae to Aulocystidae by Schulze (1904). Eventually it was recognized to be preoccupied by Aulocystis Schlutter, 1885 (fossil Anthozoa), and Zhuravleva, 1962 (in Rezvoy et al., 1962) replaced it with Neoaulocystis. Reid's proposed transfers of the genus to junior synonims of Cyclostigma Schrammen (Reid, 1967b) and Callcyclix Schrammen (Reid, 1968a) are rejected since membership in those fossil genera cannot be verified by loose spiculation. The genus presently contains three species, N. grayi (Bowerbank, 1869c), N. polae (Ijima, 1927) (as proposed by Van Soest & Stentoft, 1988:8, and accepted here), and N. zitteli (Marshall & Meyer, 1877), the latter consisting of two subspecies, N. zitteli zitteli (Marshall & Meyer, 1877) and N. zitteli sibogae (Ijima, 1927). Distribution of the genus is entirely tropical to subtropical, restricted to western margins of Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Ocean margins, with vertical range of 82-1383m. " - page 1381 in Systema Porifera: A Guide to the Classification of Sponges, Edited by John N.A. Hooper and Rob W.M. Van Soest © Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2002 †Aulocystis Schlüter, 1885 Aulocystis Schulze, 1886 Good work, abyssunder, thanks for the clarification. Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Clouser Posted April 18, 2017 Author Share Posted April 18, 2017 Thanks to everyone for their comments and input. 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