Octopus?

[Fossildude19]

40 minutes ago, EMP said:

Only problem is that no asteroids are reported from any rocks other than the Brallier in Maryland, and even then the only fossils of them are traces made from brittle stars, which this is too wide and too many arms to be one. 

"Only problem" with what?     That I said that I was in the starfish camp? 

You state that there are starfish trace fossils known from that area. Something had to have made them, no? 

 

I'm not the only one who thought it looked like a starfish. And I also mentioned that I was confused, as there are crinoids that can look similar to starfish. 

 

Have we even established the correct formation, beyond a doubt?  I did not see where that was established.

If it was found "in a road", could it not have been rock that was trucked in from elsewhere, to make said road?

We have to be open to the possibilities, without having all of the facts at our disposal.  
 

[doug10k]

Here are more photos.  It's cloudy today so the contrast isn't that great.  Because of the size I'll have to upload separately.

Photo 2

[doug10k]

The 3rd is too large.  I do have some side views and a view of the back of the rock, if anyone wants.

 

On a side note, since the rock is broken, I was hoping to glue it back together.  Does anyone know if I can do that, like with super glue or some sort of epoxy?

[Carl]

7 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

I am in the Starfish camp on this one. 

I wonder if @Carl knows anyone familiar with Devonian Starfish? 

 

 

EDIT: ... So, there is a multi legged starfish from the Devonian of Germany, but only from one locality there, ... Budenbach. Helianthaster

There is an odd, starfish looking Devonian crinoid, however.  Acanthocrinus rex.

 

Now I'm confused. 

The only person I have dealt with that comes close is ophiuroid expert Dr. Fred Hotchkiss. I don't have his email but he can probably be hunted down via http://www.mprinstitute.org/directors.asp

 

[doug10k]

Location - I was thinking the same too, that perhaps the rocks were trucked in from nearby to make the road.  If it is important I can probably get GPS coordinates down to within 10 feet, as I had my GPS on at the time.

[EMP]

1 hour ago, Fossildude19 said:

"Only problem" with what?     That I said that I was in the starfish camp? 

You state that there are starfish trace fossils known from that area. Something had to have made them, no? 

 

I'm not the only one who thought it looked like a starfish. And I also mentioned that I was confused, as there are crinoids that can look similar to starfish. 

 

Have we even established the correct formation, beyond a doubt?  I did not see where that was established.

If it was found "in a road", could it not have been rock that was trucked in from elsewhere, to make said road?

We have to be open to the possibilities, without having all of the facts at our disposal.  
 

 

No asteroid fossils of any kind are known from the Hamilton Group of Foreknobs Formation in this area (maybe in New York, but not further south). There are some trace fossils known from some layers of the Brallier Formation in Virginia, but the problem is that this is almost certainly not from those layers. 1) This was found on a ridge, where as the Brallier isn't a ridge forming unit. 2) The layer from the Brallier the fossils are known from is a dark fissile shale, which this is not. 3) The preservation of the fossil is unlike any I've ever seen from the Brallier, yet matches almost perfectly with the Hamilton Group. In summary, it is almost (and I say this just because there should never be 100% certainty  in such cases), witthout a doubt, either the Hamilton Group or the Foreknobs Formation. 

 

Now, neither of those units, within their entirety, in this area are known to have ever produced asteroid fossils in over 100 years of repeated studies. If there were only one or two minor studies into the fauna of the formations I'd be less cautious, but the fact is that there has roughly been a study done on the fauna of these units every couple of decades from the late 1800s until today, and none of those that I know of have reported any asteroid fossils or trace fossils. The only asteroid related fossils come from a completely different layer in a completely different formation and even then there has been no reported occurrence of this layer in Maryland, only in Virginia. While yes, there could logically be body fossils present in that layer, we face multiple other problems. One is that no study into it has recorded such, and another is that every single trace fossil specimen that was found pertained only to brittle stars, which this is almost certainly not. I don't even know why I mentioned it to be honest. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I do think this could be an asteroid fossil, I'm just trying to give some more context that should be taken into account before blindly assigning some ID to it just because it looks like some pictures online. 

 

And yes, it could be gravel trucked in, except for the fact that the road he said he founded it on is paved by asphalt and I don't know of any quarrying operations into the Brallier Formation that are nearby to justify saying as such. 

 

If this is an asteroid, it is likely a very important find for the paleontological study of the formation and I think that, at this point, it is beyond our capability as an anonymous internet forum to ID. I think the OP should seriously consider taking it to a nearby university, museum, or expert to ID and catalog. 

[doug10k]

If you guys think this could be an important find I'd be happy to get it to someone in the DC area, like Univ Maryland, Georgetown, or Smithsonian.  But it would have to be some evening or weekend, and I would need some names and contact info.

 

Wow, I was just assuming this would be some common organism that everyone knew about.

 

[crabfossilsteve]

Wow, as soon as I looked at that guy I thought multi armed starfish.  Very cool rare find.

[Fossildude19]

4 hours ago, EMP said:

...I'm just trying to give some more context that should be taken into account before blindly assigning some ID to it just because it looks like some pictures online. 

I never once said it was one thing, or the other. 

No one " assigned some ID just because it looks like some pictures online".  

Part of the ID process is discussing things, and throwing out some possibilites.   

 

 

[RJB]

My first thought was starfish.  But whatever it is, its purty dang cool. 

 

RB

[Peat Burns]

2 hours ago, doug10k said:

If you guys think this could be an important find I'd be happy to get it to someone in the DC area, like Univ Maryland, Georgetown, or Smithsonian.  But it would have to be some evening or weekend, and I would need some names and contact info.

 

Wow, I was just assuming this would be some common organism that everyone knew about.

 

I would definitely collect as much locality information as you can and get the fossil to an expert to examine.  It's a magnificent find.

[TqB]

2 hours ago, doug10k said:

If you guys think this could be an important find I'd be happy to get it to someone in the DC area, like Univ Maryland, Georgetown, or Smithsonian.  But it would have to be some evening or weekend, and I would need some names and contact info.

 

Wow, I was just assuming this would be some common organism that everyone knew about.

 

After decades of collecting, I found one similar specimen from the Jurassic that's one of my favourite and rarest fossils - here: 

Plumaster

Palaeozoic ones are even rarer.

[KimTexan]

It is hard to tell, but I still think it looks more like a plant, but I’m not a paleontologist. My first love is botony, but I have taken a marine biology class and did a summer field natural history class in Hawaii for marine biology. I’m a scuba diver too. But I think it looks more like plant, but I’m not sure what it is. 

Do either of the formations have plant fossils in them.

[Ludwigia]

3 hours ago, doug10k said:

If you guys think this could be an important find I'd be happy to get it to someone in the DC area, like Univ Maryland, Georgetown, or Smithsonian.  But it would have to be some evening or weekend, and I would need some names and contact info.

 

Wow, I was just assuming this would be some common organism that everyone knew about.

 

Doug, if I were you, I'd first take up Carl's suggestion above and try to contact Dr. Fred Hotchkiss and send him some photos to begin with .

 

[doug10k]

OK.  I also just emailed Smithsonian.  If will post any info I get back, since everyone here has been so helpful.

[KimTexan]

I think I may see something that looks like tubercles of an echinoderm in the close up pictures. The pic is still a bit fuzzy when zoomed in though, but if they’re there then it has to be an echinoderm. I don’t believe  all echinoderms have tubercles like that so it should narrow it down quite a bit.

[westcoast]

Dan Blake at university of illinois Urbana could be helpful although I don't know him personally

[FossilDAWG]

The plate structure is clearly indicative of a multi-armed starfish.  That such a specimen has not been found before in the area is not a really compelling argument, new/rare fossils are described all the time, and such starfish are known (though invariably very rare) from correlated strata.  It's hard to think of a site more heavily collected than Arkona, yet the multi-armed starfish Arkonaster is known from probably fewer than half a dozen specimens.  On the other hand it is unfortunate that the actual source formation may be in question, as I think it likely that this is a scientifically important specimen.

 

Don

[EMP]

14 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

14 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

I am in the Starfish camp on this one.

"I never once said it was one thing, or the other. "

 

Yes, it's important to discuss, but's it's important to discuss with proper context and evidence.

 

And on another note concerning the mentioning of the genus Arkonaster. So far, as far as I've concluded, it is not applicable in any way to the fossil in question. Showing pictures of Arkonaster and saying "it looks like this fossil" or saying that That such a specimen has not been found before in the area is not a really compelling argument, new/rare fossils are described all the time, and such starfish are known (though invariably very rare) from correlated strata"  isn't something you should do for several reasons. One is that the Arkona Formation was deposited in a different time than the rocks here. You all would be right in saying that the actual formation hasn't been narrowed down, and currently we're looking at a range of almost 20 million years, 15 million of which are in late Devonian strata outside of the age range of the rocks at Arkona. It's like trying to compare the fossils at Hell Creek to the fossils at some Eocene site in the Badlands (or wherever they're found). Another is that the Arkona was deposited in different conditions from the rocks in western Maryland, so the habitat would have been very different between the two localities and host to different predator/prey assemblages. Sure, they both have shale, but what kind of shale, deposited in what kind of conditions? Some of the shale in Maryland was deposited in deeper, muddier water than the ones at Arkona and the conditions in the floor sediment, water, temperature, oxygen levels, etc. would have been completely different. These differences affect more than just rock type and Arkonaster, it affects all the other animals the genus would have a relationship with in the food chain. This could mean that aside from having a habitat not conducive to Arkonaster or similar genera, it could be lacking in prey or other food sources asteroids rely on while, conversely or not, frequented by predators of asteroids that would make a population there unlikely.

 

I guess it's good to re-iterate that I'm inclined to believe that a seastar is a possibility, maybe even the most likely one, but that we shouldn't just come to our beliefs because they've been seemingly validated by other users on the site. Instead, we should make our decisions after arguments have been made for all options and evidence presented. This is the problem I have when I see everyone going on about what would be the first ever recorded seastar in this formation in the entire Mid-Atlantic region. Extraordinary claims (and that is what any ID presented here is without verified expert analysis) require extraordinary evidence, and thus far I have yet to see any such evidence appear. You all can post pictures about other similar looking seastars, but why do you think the animal in the picture is similar to the fossil from the OP? Why might they be different? What kind of rocks were the original fossils found in? What kind is the OP's found in? In this case we have no associated fauna, which is a huge problem for assigning an ID and should be a red flag to enter with caution into the discussion, but if we did what kind occur with Arkonaster that occur with the OP's? Which ones don't? 

These are the questions we should be asking as a starter for debating an ID, but yet no one has done this. 

 

Again, I implore the OP to submit the fossil to an expert to ID. 

 

[Fossildude19]

41 minutes ago, EMP said:

"I never once said it was one thing, or the other. "

Quoted out of context

 

14 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

I am in the Starfish camp on this one. 

I wonder if @Carl knows anyone familiar with Devonian Starfish? 

 

 

EDIT: ... So, there is a multi legged starfish from the Devonian of Germany, but only from one locality there, ... Budenbach. Helianthaster

There is an odd, starfish looking Devonian crinoid, however.  Acanthocrinus rex.

 

 

Now I'm confused. 

 

Yes, it's important to discuss, but's it's important to discuss with proper context and evidence.

 

And on another note concerning the mentioning of the genus Arkonaster. So far, as far as I've concluded, it is not applicable in any way to the fossil in question. Showing pictures of Arkonaster and saying "it looks like this fossil" or saying that That such a specimen has not been found before in the area is not a really compelling argument, new/rare fossils are described all the time, and such starfish are known (though invariably very rare) from correlated strata"  isn't something you should do for several reasons. One is that the Arkona Formation was deposited in a different time than the rocks here. You all would be right in saying that the actual formation hasn't been narrowed down, and currently we're looking at a range of almost 20 million years, 15 million of which are in late Devonian strata outside of the age range of the rocks at Arkona. It's like trying to compare the fossils at Hell Creek to the fossils at some Eocene site in the Badlands (or wherever they're found). Another is that the Arkona was deposited in different conditions from the rocks in western Maryland, so the habitat would have been very different between the two localities and host to different predator/prey assemblages. Sure, they both have shale, but what kind of shale, deposited in what kind of conditions? Some of the shale in Maryland was deposited in deeper, muddier water than the ones at Arkona and the conditions in the floor sediment, water, temperature, oxygen levels, etc. would have been completely different. These differences affect more than just rock type and Arkonaster, it affects all the other animals the genus would have a relationship with in the food chain. This could mean that aside from having a habitat not conducive to Arkonaster or similar genera, it could be lacking in prey or other food sources asteroids rely on while, conversely or not, frequented by predators of asteroids that would make a population there unlikely.

 

I guess it's good to re-iterate that I'm inclined to believe that a seastar is a possibility, maybe even the most likely one, but that we shouldn't just come to our beliefs because they've been seemingly validated by other users on the site. Instead, we should make our decisions after arguments have been made for all options and evidence presented. This is the problem I have when I see everyone going on about what would be the first ever recorded seastar in this formation in the entire Mid-Atlantic region. Extraordinary claims (and that is what any ID presented here is without verified expert analysis) require extraordinary evidence, and thus far I have yet to see any such evidence appear. You all can post pictures about other similar looking seastars, but why do you think the animal in the picture is similar to the fossil from the OP? Why might they be different? What kind of rocks were the original fossils found in? What kind is the OP's found in? In this case we have no associated fauna, which is a huge problem for assigning an ID and should be a red flag to enter with caution into the discussion, but if we did what kind occur with Arkonaster that occur with the OP's? Which ones don't? 

These are the questions we should be asking as a starter for debating an ID, but yet no one has done this. 

 

Again, I implore the OP to submit the fossil to an expert to ID. 

 

 

 

 

Dude, dial it down a notch.  

 

Again,  I should re-iterate here that the Formation information is dodgy at best, so everything is a guess.

OP stated he dug it out of the road. It could have been in trucked in material from elsewhere for the road. 

In which case, your "argument" can be conversely applied to assigning a Formation "just because it was found in a certain area". 

You are assuming it is from the Formation you are familiar with/have studied. 

 

You and I have no clue exactly where this item came from.

And please keep in mind, no one to this point has ID'd it as a particular sea star.   

Many of us have voiced opinions about what it most closely resembles. 

 

EMP, this is what the forum does.  This is what we have always done, at least since I have been here.  

We narrow things down as best as we can. We don't always nail things down to genus or species. We do not guarantee ID's.

We are a bunch of interested amateurs, avocational and professional paleontologists. 

ID'ing fossils from blurry photos online is tricky, at best.   But we normally do a pretty decent job of it, I think.

 

I also hope that the OP does send pictures, or the fossil itself, to a paleontologist who specializes in sea stars.

We all think this could be scientifically important.  

 

And EMP, please remember to keep your language family friendly.  

Regards,

[doug10k]

Yes, I am sending emails to various paleontology departments in hope of a response.

[Fossildude19]

11 minutes ago, doug10k said:

Yes, I am sending emails to various paleontology departments in hope of a response.

Excellent!

Please keep us updated with any feedback you receive. 

We love a good mystery.   

[Archimedes]

Very nice first find Doug, I am going to guess too, a type of starfish, another one for the starfish camp. I do not see any pinnules from the arms and arm? structure and characters would lead one to surmise that it is an echinoderm and a starfish.

[Rockwood]

2 hours ago, KimTexan said:

I think I may see something that looks like tubercles of an echinoderm in the close up pictures. The pic is still a bit fuzzy when zoomed in though, but if they’re there then it has to be an echinoderm. I don’t believe  all echinoderms have tubercles like that so it should narrow it down quite a bit.

If my understanding of the situation is correct, one would not expect to see much of any external features in this fossil. It represents to a greater extent a cast of it's internal fluid cavity, the hydraulic system which operated it's tube feet. 

[doushantuo]

Some figurations out of Don Blake's 2009 Helianthaster revision :