Fruiting body?

[KimTexan]

I found this a while back in the lower Cretaceous. I'm not sure what it is. It looks like a fruit of some sort. I've never found anything like it. Mostly what I find are ammonites, gastropods, bivalves, brachiopods, corals and such. 

I have not totally cleaned it up, because I found these little nibs on the surface and I'm not sure if they're part of the structure or not. Also what I think is the top or stem area is very tough and I'd hate to ruin some fine feature if it's there. I'd like to know what it is supposed to look like before I finish it off.

I'm a novice so I don't really know good techniques for cleaning off the stuff encrusting it. Hopefully I'll improve with practice. I'm eager to learn, because I've got a lot of cool fossils still encased in crud I'd like to remove if I knew a good way to go about it.

It's about 2 cm in diameter. The first 2 shots I took on a mirror so you could see the top and bottom/side in one shot.

Any help would be appreciated.

[doushantuo]

Large specimen of??---->

Poriferan?

 

[BobWill]

Yours is actually the normal size of a Porocystis globularis. They were originally thought to be a seaweed air bladder but now considered an algal fruiting body. I know they are found in the Glen Rose Formation.

Edit: Here is a photo from the wikipedia article on the Glen Rose Formation.

 

[Rockwood]

Knowing where something was found is very important to it's identification. 

I live too far away for any regulars to kick me in the seat of the pants for pointing this out. 

[bone2stone]

I concur as to it's identification but as far as algae I do not.

I have my own theory as to it's existence.

Do a search here in the forum for a short conversation on these specimens of Porosystis globularis.

 

Jess B.

[Fossildude19]

Link to the topic Jess referenced.  

[doushantuo]

I don't think any sporocarp- like body would be this massively biomineralized,but that's just me.

Weathered Lithophyllum-like alga?

[abyssunder]

excerpt from here

[KimTexan]

9 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Knowing where something was found is very important to it's identification. 

I live too far away for any regulars to kick me in the seat of the pants for pointing this out. 

Sorry, I didn't state it in the body of my explanation. I put it in the tags though as Lake Whitney outside of Clifton, TX a ways.

 

[Fossildude19]

2 minutes ago, KimTexan said:

Sorry, I didn't state it in the body of my explanation. I put it in the tags though as Lake Whitney outside of Clifton, TX a ways.

 

Tags are great for helping in forum searches, but not so much for the post itself.  

They are very easy to miss, and honestly, I almost never look at them.  

 

[KimTexan]

11 hours ago, BobWill said:

Yours is actually the normal size of a Porocystis globularis. They were originally thought to be a seaweed air bladder but now considered an algal fruiting body. I know they are found in the Glen Rose Formation.

Edit: Here is a photo from the wikipedia article on the Glen Rose Formation.

 

Thank you! I believe that is it. That's a great pic too. I think I may have found a couple in the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, but they were worn down.

4 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

Tags are great for helping in forum searches, but not so much for the post itself.  

They are very easy to miss, and honestly, I almost never look at them.  

 

Yes that was my oversite. My apologies.

[Rockwood]

2 hours ago, KimTexan said:

Sorry, I didn't state it in the body of my explanation. I put it in the tags though as Lake Whitney outside of Clifton, TX a ways.

 

Actually my comment was a light hearted observation referring to the fact that Bob had information that came from knowing where it was found.

I'm sort of infamous around here for insisting that where it was found take a back seat to what it looks like. 

 

2 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

, I almost never look at them.

Mandatory x 3  

[abyssunder]

To go earlier in date (previous to 1928), there is (maybe) a forgotten document referring to the thema. I'm wondering if it was seen. M. M. Jarvin. 1905. On the fossil genus Porocystis Cragin. Biol B 9: 388-390

[KimTexan]

13 hours ago, bone2stone said:

I concur as to it's identification but as far as algae I do not.

I have my own theory as to it's existence.

Do a search here in the forum for a short conversation on these specimens of Porosystis globularis.

 

Jess B.

I'm a botany lover. I have a biology degree and botany was my favorite natural science, but it's hard to support yourself as a botanist. My career assessment in high school said I should be a forest ranger. Seriously. LOL. Forestry lacked the glamour I desired in a career was in high school. Now I work as a clinical scientist, high pressure, politics and all hours of the night getting called, its lost its glamour. LOL. Think I'd be on cloud 9 if I'd gone into forestry. So I'm a novice wanna be at this paleontology thing, but I've been collecting for 30 years.

Identification is a new area I'm trying to learn. That said, the first time I laid eyes on one of these I knew it had to be plant or plant like in origin. There's not many plants or plant like things that I know of that actually grow in the ocean. Seaweed and algae come to mind first thing. I'm open minded and humble enough to say I could be wrong about it being algae in origin, but I believe it to be of a plant or plant like origin. It could be a rhizome of a shallow water plant. I'm thinking along the lines of marsh and coastal dwelling plants. I suppose it could be the fruit of a plant similar to buttonwood. 

I did see a post of yours from a couple years ago with the same structure. It was a fascinating discussion.

I remember a comment you made regarding them not being likely to survive if it were of an algae origin. It would seem that a similar rule would apply to many delicate features in both plants an animals. Yet there are many examples of fine details being preserved in the fossil record. Granted some are in the form of casts or steinkernes. I have oysters from a Brazos River tributary where you can see detail down to almost the cellular level. I think they're casts though. I have ammonites with the tentacles (I'm still trying to figure out how a steinkern could preserve tentacles like that inside the ammonite. It broke in half and that's how I realized they were there) I'm not sure how hardy chrinoids are, but I've seen full chrinoids preserved in exquisite detail. They look so delicate. Elsewhere I have found leaves preserved in layers of ash and so many other fine, delicate things. That's just my perspective. I may not have understood your position on the nature of how it could have been preserved though.

I'd be interested in hearing what other ideas you may have come up with in the last couple years though.

 

[erose]

Although fairly common in the Glen Rose Formation, including a bed in the Upper Member known as the Porocystis Marker Bed, where they are very abundant, they also range into the Walnut Formation of the Fredericksburg Group.

 

I also consider the current understanding of these as questionable or at least incertae sedis. 

[KimTexan]

3 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Actually my comment was a light hearted observation referring to the fact that Bob had information that came from knowing where it was found.

I'm sort of infamous around here for insisting that where it was found take a back seat to what it looks like. 

 

Mandatory x 3  

Yes @BobWill had weighed on another post I had.

[bone2stone]

12 hours ago, KimTexan said:

I'm a botany lover. I have a biology degree and botany was my favorite natural science, but it's hard to support yourself as a botanist. My career assessment in high school said I should be a forest ranger. Seriously. LOL. Forestry lacked the glamour I desired in a career was in high school. Now I work as a clinical scientist, high pressure, politics and all hours of the night getting called, its lost its glamour. LOL. Think I'd be on cloud 9 if I'd gone into forestry. So I'm a novice wanna be at this paleontology thing, but I've been collecting for 30 years.

Identification is a new area I'm trying to learn. That said, the first time I laid eyes on one of these I knew it had to be plant or plant like in origin. There's not many plants or plant like things that I know of that actually grow in the ocean. Seaweed and algae come to mind first thing. I'm open minded and humble enough to say I could be wrong about it being algae in origin, but I believe it to be of a plant or plant like origin. It could be a rhizome of a shallow water plant. I'm thinking along the lines of marsh and coastal dwelling plants. I suppose it could be the fruit of a plant similar to buttonwood. 

I did see a post of yours from a couple years ago with the same structure. It was a fascinating discussion.

I remember a comment you made regarding them not being likely to survive if it were of an algae origin. It would seem that a similar rule would apply to many delicate features in both plants an animals. Yet there are many examples of fine details being preserved in the fossil record. Granted some are in the form of casts or steinkernes. I have oysters from a Brazos River tributary where you can see detail down to almost the cellular level. I think they're casts though. I have ammonites with the tentacles (I'm still trying to figure out how a steinkern could preserve tentacles like that inside the ammonite. It broke in half and that's how I realized they were there) I'm not sure how hardy chrinoids are, but I've seen full chrinoids preserved in exquisite detail. They look so delicate. Elsewhere I have found leaves preserved in layers of ash and so many other fine, delicate things. That's just my perspective. I may not have understood your position on the nature of how it could have been preserved though.

I'd be interested in hearing what other ideas you may have come up with in the last couple years though.

 

 

Well Kim, I have been a collector for over 40 years the strata that these specimens come from barely support the preservation of echinoids much less a soft bodied orginizm such as these.

Some of the specimens I have has tube worm growth on them. That would imply that they laid open for a considerable length of time.

Also I also have some with what looks to be spines such as what would be seen on echinoids. These are just a mystery to me and I just find it difficult to grasp a situation where a soft bodied organism could survive under the conditions that prevailed when these things flourished.

Hope to see you at Fossilmania on Saturday Oct 27th.

Bring that ammonite with the soft body tissue.

Some people there would definitely like to see that including me.

I'll bring my latest Glen Rose formation find as well..

[KimTexan]

 

What do you mean when you say the site barely preserves echinoids? I have dozens of urchins. Granted they're mostly the little heart shaped ones, but I do have a reasonably nice ornate one the size of a small orange.

I went to the Dallas Paleontological society meeting tonight and they were promoting Fossilmania weekend and had flyers. I think I will try coming down there for part of the weekend. I have quite a bit of family in Keene, which is where I originated from. It's not too far from Glen Rose. I'd enjoy seeing some of your finds from Texas.

I have 2 ammonites I found in the same spot about a year apart that you can see parts of the tenticals. I assume there have to be others with the same features in the same spot. The tentacles are not that impressive looking, but I think they're pretty cool. Below is an old pic of one of them that I had on Facebook. At one time I had the other part of it that broke off to reveal them. I'm not sure I know where either is now, but I'll have to hunt them down.

I can't remember if it is this one, but one of them I counted 9 tenticals. I'm not sure how many they're supposed to have though.

 

[ynot]

Those are not tentacles. It is the wall that separates the chambers of a ammonite shell. I think they are called septia.

[BobWill]

1 hour ago, ynot said:

Those are not tentacles. It is the wall that separates the chambers of a ammonite shell. I think they are called septia.

Close, it's septa, plural of septum. I've heard of very rare examples of faint impressions of ammonite soft parts from one of the lagerstatte sites but we don't see any sign of them around here. The part of the body that secretes new shell material is called the mantle. Part of the mantle points rearward to build the septum. When it is finished the body moves forward into the newly enlarged aperture built by another part of the mantle, it pulls away from the septum and begins making a new one. This part of the mantle is much larger around than the space it occupies so the edges of it are folded to fit the space. This is what gives the suture it's form. The places with rounded parts broken off would have had the rest of the chamber wall extended out a short way.

[bone2stone]

2 hours ago, BobWill said:

Close, it's septa, plural of septum. I've heard of very rare examples of faint impressions of ammonite soft parts from one of the lagerstatte sites but we don't see any sign of them around here. The part of the body that secretes new shell material is called the mantle. Part of the mantle points rearward to build the septum. When it is finished the body moves forward into the newly enlarged aperture built by another part of the mantle, it pulls away from the septum and begins making a new one. This part of the mantle is much larger around than the space it occupies so the edges of it are folded to fit the space. This is what gives the suture it's form. The places with rounded parts broken off would have had the rest of the chamber wall extended out a short way.

Thank you Bob, it's explanations such as this that broadens the knowledge so many of us.

Hope to see you at Fossilmania as well.

 

I'd like to buy you a beer or maybe Bar-B-que dinner at Harmon's if you are so inclined.

Jess B.

[bone2stone]

3 hours ago, KimTexan said:

 

What do you mean when you say the site barely preserves echinoids? I have dozens of urchins. Granted they're mostly the little heart shaped ones, but I do have a reasonably nice ornate one the size of a small orange.

I went to the Dallas Paleontological society meeting tonight and they were promoting Fossilmania weekend and had flyers. I think I will try coming down there for part of the weekend. I have quite a bit of family in Keene, which is where I originated from. It's not too far from Glen Rose. I'd enjoy seeing some of your finds from Texas.

I have 2 ammonites I found in the same spot about a year apart that you can see parts of the tenticals. I assume there have to be others with the same features in the same spot. The tentacles are not that impressive looking, but I think they're pretty cool. Below is an old pic of one of them that I had on Facebook. At one time I had the other part of it that broke off to reveal them. I'm not sure I know where either is now, but I'll have to hunt them down.

I can't remember if it is this one, but one of them I counted 9 tenticals. I'm not sure how many they're supposed to have though.

 

 

If you are picking the "Heart" shaped (irregulars) you are probably wandering into a Walnut formation.

The Glen Rose stuff I collect in has an enormous amount of Loriolia Rosana and an occasional Commanchi (regulars, round)

but no irregulars, unless you count the Globator.

I have yet to find a pristine echinoid in the Glen Rose material. (Not in my area)

Most of the Porosystis on the other hand seem to be in much better condition.

Other areas I haunt have nothing but footprints and bone material. Just depends on location.

[doushantuo]

I can recommend these wholeheartedly for those wishing to know more about the relations between various  ammonite parts

Both old

"On the anatomy of Mesozoic Ammonites according to structural elements on the inner shell Wall"

 

 

Next best: Swinnerton/Trueman

 

 

[BobWill]

12 hours ago, bone2stone said:

 

Hope to see you at Fossilmania as well.

 

I'd like to buy you a beer or maybe Bar-B-que dinner at Harmon's if you are so inclined.

Jess B.

Thanks, I'm always inclined towards Hammon's

I won't be running Fossilmania this year and they haven't told me which day they want my help yet so maybe I'll decide for them. I think Mark Randall will be floor manager. When are you going?

[bone2stone]

You know, it is Hammon's. (Senior moment) My wife and I  have been eating there off and on for a very long time.

I'll be out there Saturday maybe catch breakfast prior to hittin the show.

I'll bring a few items. Some I have posted here.

 

Fossilmania has certainly gotten larger since the 80's.

It was more of a cozy affair at "Oakdale Park", but when we started sitting up outside, it was time to go to something with a little more elbow room. 

 

Kim, sorry to hijack your post. I am going to bring some finds that are rather unique.

Bring some things you want ID'd. Some pro hands on by people who know what they are talking about.

That is one reason Fossil Mania came together to begin with.