Help me Identify this fossil

[dat.blast]

Hello everyone! Here is a fossil that I need help to identify. Yesterday I found this strange waffle-like impression in this piece of sandstone, while I was walking in the woods in the Saginaw area of Michigan. I know that the fossils that are found in Michigan are mainly from Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous period strata. This stone was laying in an old rock pile, that was deposited by farmers who plowed their fields. The stone is 5 1/8" x 3 1/8", and the impression itself stretches 3 1/2" across the rock. The small dark brown cube next to the stone is clay that I rolled over the Impression to make a positive cast of the fossil. From this positive, I can tell that the fossil has a snake skin pattern surface. This could've been an impression of some sort of marine or terrestrial plant, I have some ideas of what the fossil could be, but I need your help to identify and confirm what species this was. I hope these photographs are helpful, and feel free to ask for better pictures of the stone.  

[dat.blast]

This does look similar to the other specimen in the other post, I feel that is definitely in the lycopod family during the Carboniferous, Thank you!

[Micah]

I'm the one that asked about the lycopod vs coral, and it turns out it's actually something completely different called a recepticulite or fisherite. A side picture of where the impression meets the edge could help with the ID.

[Micah]

Here is what I found to compare.

[FossilDAWG]

kshaefer,

Your specimen is definitely a branch of a lycopod such as Lepidodendron.

 

Micah,

Despite a superficial resemblance, your specimen is completely different.  Both specimens have a sort of rhomboid pattern, but kschaefer's fossil is long and straight whereas yours is a fragment of a disk in which the rhomboid elements are arranged in a spiral pattern.  The rhomboid structures in Lepidodendron are leaf scars that are just on the surface, whereas the rhomboid elements of recepticulitids are connected to pillar-like structures that extend through the entire thickness of the disk.  kschaefer's specimen could never be a recepticulitid, because it is long and straight, not a disk with spirally arranged elements.  Also (on a minor and picky note) the name is Fisherites, the "s" is part of the name.  Calling it "a fisherite" is like me calling you "a mica".  When referring to the taxonomic Order or Family, it is OK to use the shorthand "recepticulitid" instead of writing out "a member of the Family Recepticulitidae".  Certain people on the Forum use the term "fisherite" but it is not correct, no paleontologist would know what you were talking about if you identified something as "a fisherite".

 

Don

[doushantuo]

Yesterday i posted a piece on Lepidodendron leaf scar phyllotaxis (trying/purporting to)/explain(/ing) that arrangement

[doushantuo]

oplu

[doushantuo]

oncemorewithresignation

The explanation concerning the ligule pit i found plausible

NB: Orthostichies seem to play an important role in determining vascular connections.

 

[EMP]

10 hours ago, kschaefer said:

Hello everyone! Here is a fossil that I need help to identify. Yesterday I found this strange waffle-like impression in this piece of sandstone, while I was walking in the woods in the Saginaw area of Michigan. I know that the fossils that are found in Michigan are mainly from Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous period strata. This stone was laying in an old rock pile, that was deposited by farmers who plowed their fields. The stone is 5 1/8" x 3 1/8", and the impression itself stretches 3 1/2" across the rock. The small dark brown cube next to the stone is clay that I rolled over the Impression to make a positive cast of the fossil. From this positive, I can tell that the fossil has a snake skin pattern surface. This could've been an impression of some sort of marine or terrestrial plant, I have some ideas of what the fossil could be, but I need your help to identify and confirm what species this was. I hope these photographs are helpful, and feel free to ask for better pictures of the stone.  

 

It's either a glacial erratic, or from the Pennsylvanian rocks in Michigan. Any rate, not Devonian and not marine. It looks like an impression from the bark of a Lepidondedron in sandstone. 

[dat.blast]

The interesting thing about this impression is that it is relatively flat and strait. This rock is definitely a glacial erratic. If it was Lepidondedron, then it would've been part of a smaller branch.  

[Kane]

+1 for glacial erratic Lepidondendron bark. Quite a nice find!

[dat.blast]

Another interesting thing to note, I've learned in a Geology coarse that sandstone is formed in near shore marine environments (shallow sea, to shore) the small part of that branch got washed down and deposited beyond shore. This is a relatively small section of an impression fossil ( 3 and a half inches) on the rock. 

 

[FossilDAWG]

Sandstones are also characteristic of river deposits, and they may even be formed of wind-transported sand (think of sand dunes).  Generally the coarser the grains, the more the finer material has been removed (winnowed) by moving water or wind.  Very coarse sandstones are characteristic of deposition under high-energy conditions and most fossils get ground up to tiny bits.  The lower the energy (currents, waves) the more fine-grained the sandstone, and the more likely it is that fossils will be preserved and that those fossils will be relatively detailed.  As the grain size gets finer and finer, sandstones grade into mudstone and shale.  So, regarding your Geology course, sandstone may be deposited in near shore marine environments but that is far from the only place they form.  It is likely that your fossil originated in a river or lake deposit, which are abundant between coal seams in Carboniferous formations.

 

Don

[doushantuo]

According to some,more sandstones than we think are tempestites,storm deposits.

There is no simple (absolutely linear)correlation between grainsize and proximality trends,BTW

The correlations is there,but a lot of the time grainsize("granulometry") data have to be deconvolved.

Nearshore deposits tend to get reworked heavily,messing up the grainsize trends

And the shoreline fluctuates over time,of course

it doesn't do to ignore stratigraphy in the interpretation of  coarsening-or fining upward sequences

[Micah]

16 hours ago, FossilDAWG said:

Micah,

Despite a superficial resemblance, your specimen is completely different.  Both specimens have a sort of rhomboid pattern, but kschaefer's fossil is long and straight whereas yours is a fragment of a disk in which the rhomboid elements are arranged in a spiral pattern.  The rhomboid structures in Lepidodendron are leaf scars that are just on the surface, whereas the rhomboid elements of recepticulitids are connected to pillar-like structures that extend through the entire thickness of the disk.  kschaefer's specimen could never be a recepticulitid, because it is long and straight, not a disk with spirally arranged elements.  Also (on a minor and picky note) the name is Fisherites, the "s" is part of the name.  Calling it "a fisherite" is like me calling you "a mica".  When referring to the taxonomic Order or Family, it is OK to use the shorthand "recepticulitid" instead of writing out "a member of the Family Recepticulitidae".  Certain people on the Forum use the term "fisherite" but it is not correct, no paleontologist would know what you were talking about if you identified something as "a fisherite".

Thanks Don. Both recepticulitid and fisherites are completely new to me so I don't assume to know anything about them, but I do appreciate being corrected when wrong!I didn't think they were the same, but thought I should post for comparison since my post had been mentioned as a possible match.

P.S. This is bothering me now; if referring to a particular specimen of fisherites would you refer to it as "a fisherites" or something else?

[Harry Pristis]

I don't know much about inverts, but I recognize an error running through this thread, a mis-spelling of the name of one of the subject taxa.  The book I checked is FOSSILS OF OHIO, and, as those authors would have it, it is:

 

FAMILY RECEPTACULITACEAE

TRIBE RECEPTACULITEAE

GENUS RECEPTACULITES

 

Of course, this taxonomy may be reorganized by now, but I doubt that an extra "i" has been substituted for an "a".

    

[dat.blast]

Hello everyone, I want to say thank you for helping me for identifying this fossil, this would be my first Lepidondendron fossil!