Jump to content

dialout

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, EMP said:

Is this where you've found the ferns?

No ferns were near kiskI river about 125 miles south and east of erie 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case I'd tentatively go with Devonian. Those rocks around there a late Devonian (Fammenian) in age, and are deep water deposits so trilobites would be incredibly rare. Is it possible it was carried there by glaciers? That might extend the age to the Ordovician shales in Ontario and New York, which would make it more likely to be a trilobite ichnofossil. Similar things exist here in the Brallier Formation, but those were shallow water deposits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Archimedes said:

The traces fossils of Cruziana represent more than one type of critter I believe

That is kind of a basic concept in ichno fossils. Don't forget different behavior as it relates to motivation as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know (I've seen it in the Mississippian), but the bedrock of that area is late Devonian so it would have to be from a marine arthropod, which at this point is pretty much exclusively trilobite. 

 

I still think this could have been brought in by glaciers. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EMP said:

 at this point is pretty much exclusively trilobite. 

 

 

 

 

With all due respect. I think this would be a weak argument even if I believed it to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mainly collect upper Mississippian, Chesterian strata but do collect Devonian an Pennsylvanian too. In the upper Mississippian Chesterian it is very evident that all the Rusophycus  type rest traces and all the Cruziana type trace fossils are not all created by Trilobites.

 

 

14 hours ago, Archimedes said:

The traces fossils of Cruziana represent more than one type of critter I believe

 

9 hours ago, Rockwood said:

That is kind of a basic concept in ichno fossils. Don't forget different behavior as it relates to motivation as well.

 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, EMP said:

...so it would have to be from a marine arthropod, which at this point is pretty much exclusively trilobite...

 

 

There are other possibilities besides arthropods.  It is certainly not Cruziana.  

It matches well with something similar to Saerichnites attached for comparison.

 

IMG.jpg.0c1f45ebab5716ec939417557def723b.jpg

 

  • I found this Informative 5

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't Saerichnites more of a fossil for bathyal flysch deposits(e.g.hypichnial semi-relief ones on turbidite soles(vide e.g. Acenolaza/Uchman/El Kadiri/Demircan)?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...